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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6981
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Exciting news! For the November expansion the world of fleet boosting will be revolutionized with the removal of passive, off-grid boosters in exchange for new, active, on-grid boosters.
When loaded with the proper ammo and activated, Command Bursts modules will provide time limited, area-of-effect based bonuses to fleet members in range of the ship activating the burst.
For details and numbers, please check out the latest blog Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting.
This is the first blog in a series, more will follow with additional details!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14326
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:41:51 -
[2] - Quote
I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Jackie Esticato
S T R A T C O M Critical-Mass
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:52:05 -
[3] - Quote
Wow, titan links look like a clusterf**K.
|
Yadaryon Vondawn
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
121
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Couple of things:
- Will the visual feedback that a ship is boosted be visible for low-tier hardware players?
- Will command ships receive a bay bonus or get a special bay for the ammunition?
- Why not make one unified command burst module with scripts instead of different modules with scripts? Or I misunderstand the blog on that point, it feels as if it goes from 15 to 5 instead of 15 to 1 + scripts? Could you explain why there was chosen for this route? Just like with the missile mid thingy from some time ago. I understand hard fitting costs need to be made but fleets would need to build additional redudancy because of this and this might hurt smaller groups?
- Have you considered making implants for range? I noted the lack thereof and wondered why
- For the rorqual: Is the Nexus Core applied to non-industry ships aswell? Or has a max amount of people it can protect? Can you attack meanwhile? Can you mine meanwhile? I envision 2K+ people battle with strategic Nexus rorquals to deploy during Doomsdays...any hints on this?
Good stuff so far :) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6982
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:57:30 -
[5] - Quote
As a quick reminder: we welcome all feedback, but please stay constructive and within the forum rules. If you dislike something, please point out specifically why you don't like it.
Thank you!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
379
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:58:53 -
[6] - Quote
Soo, where do I apply for the SP refund? Only reason I have those skills trained is for the passive benefit.. Or make Blops be able to fit links, pretty please?
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.
|
Sir Constantin
72
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:58:59 -
[7] - Quote
For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted". |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2690
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:00:06 -
[8] - Quote
So, skill bonuses completely removed?
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.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14327
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:01:42 -
[9] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed?
Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Annia Aurel
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:02:05 -
[10] - Quote
Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ... |
|
Draciste
Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN
47
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:02:08 -
[11] - Quote
so... RIP active tank.... :/
https://twitter.com/Draciste
|
Viridiana 'Vi' Sovari
Night Angels
165
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:03:05 -
[12] - Quote
All hail the PANIC button!
(Rorqual's new mod).
Currently for sale
Lots of blueprints
|
Clifffitir Awik
Anima Bibentibus XIV Gun Fun Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:03:28 -
[13] - Quote
I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2690
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:04:27 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts. Which is absolutely useless for a particular application of me and my alt to make my ratting easier because Recons cannot use links and CS are inadequate. Good stuff.
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.
|
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:04:38 -
[15] - Quote
Let the neutral boosting alt salt flow.
Morwen Lagann
CEO, Tyrathlion Interstellar
Coordinator, Arataka Research Consortium
Owner, The Golden Masque
|
Triggered Liberal
Offensive Microaggressions
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:05:19 -
[16] - Quote
So RIP my entire community. This seems like a concerted attack on my alliance. |
Aliana Heartborne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:05:50 -
[17] - Quote
Guess im done playing in november then. ah well, atleast i got to help new miners for 3 years before CCP wanted to ruin it, thanks. |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
333
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:05:54 -
[18] - Quote
Been looking forward to this! Which devblog will explain the counter-play available? |
Alhira Katserna
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
2279
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:06:32 -
[19] - Quote
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. |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2436
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:06:34 -
[20] - Quote
Triggered Liberal wrote:So RIP my entire community. This seems like a concerted attack on my alliance. Your community is based on offgrid boosting?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Oobiedoob Benubi
CAS Traitors CAStabouts
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:08:16 -
[21] - Quote
Amazing. You've figured out a way to destroy the entire CASMA community. CCP, you really suck. |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
380
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:09:02 -
[22] - Quote
Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Amazing. You've figured out a way to destroy the entire CASMA community. CCP, you really suck. Who is CASMA?
Senpai Fozzie, when do we get blops rebalance?
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.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14329
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:09:39 -
[23] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Couple of things: - Will the visual feedback that a ship is boosted be visible for low-tier hardware players?
It will likely require some level of effects being turned on to be visible. We'll be making more decisions on this topic once we've had a chance to do some mass tests and see how the visuals perform on more types of hardware.
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
- Will command ships receive a bay bonus or get a special bay for the ammunition?
No, the ammo volume will be low enough that such a bay wouldn't really be worthwhile.
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
- Why not make one unified command burst module with scripts instead of different modules with scripts? Or I misunderstand the blog on that point, it feels as if it goes from 15 to 5 instead of 15 to 1 + scripts? Could you explain why there was chosen for this route? Just like with the missile mid thingy from some time ago. I understand hard fitting costs need to be made but fleets would need to build additional redudancy because of this and this might hurt smaller groups?
We wanted to leave some parts of the choice within the realm of fitting. In the future this also allows us to make it clearer to players when their chosen burst types have bonuses from their ships and when they don't.
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
- Have you considered making implants for range? I noted the lack thereof and wondered why
Not currently planned but those would be an option in the future.
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
- For the rorqual: Is the Nexus Core applied to non-industry ships aswell? Or has a max amount of people it can protect? Can you attack meanwhile? Can you mine meanwhile? I envision 2K+ people battle with strategic Nexus rorquals to deploy during Doomsdays...any hints on this?
- Just industrial ships.
- Maximum number of targets is simply the fleet size limits.
- No attacking
- Yes mining
- Lots more info about this module and the rest of the Rorqual changes will be in the next blog
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote: Good stuff so far :)
Glad to hear it :)
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:09:59 -
[24] - 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 |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1026
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:10:37 -
[25] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ... you can now skillgoop out skills you don't want but you don't get a refund because ccp did something they've talked about for the better part of a decade |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:10:50 -
[26] - Quote
I, for one, am looking forward to watching ships at 20% armor explode the moment the duration on the Armor Reinforcement booster expires and they end up with negative HP. |
Triggered Liberal
Offensive Microaggressions
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:11:04 -
[27] - Quote
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. |
Always Shi
t Posting
43
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:11:16 -
[28] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:Been looking forward to this! Which devblog will explain the counter-play available?
See boosting visual effect -> shoot boosting ship |
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:11:26 -
[29] - Quote
I want to unsee this image: rorq crawling in an ice field just to be in range of barges. |
Johnny Galnetty
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:11:29 -
[30] - Quote
If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.
This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW. |
|
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1026
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:12:03 -
[31] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:I, for one, am looking forward to watching ships at 20% armor explode the moment the duration on the Armor Reinforcement booster expires and they end up with negative HP. or getting additional armor each boomf as if they were getting repaired! |
Yadaryon Vondawn
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
121
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:12:46 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
For the rorqual: Is the Nexus Core applied to non-industry ships aswell? Or has a max amount of people it can protect? Can you attack meanwhile? Can you mine meanwhile? I envision 2K+ people battle with strategic Nexus rorquals to deploy during Doomsdays...any hints on this?[/list] - Just industrial ships.
- Maximum number of targets is simply the fleet size limits.
- No attacking
- Yes mining
- Lots more info about this module and the rest of the Rorqual changes will be in the next blog
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote: Good stuff so far :)
Glad to hear it :)
Thanks for the reply, for the last question I have a followup: If people can keep mining during the PANIC module isn't this module prone to abuse? Multiple rorquals chain activating it to mine for free forever? |
Oobiedoob Benubi
CAS Traitors CAStabouts
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:13:50 -
[33] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Amazing. You've figured out a way to destroy the entire CASMA community. CCP, you really suck. Who is CASMA? Senpai Fozzie, when do we get blops rebalance?
CASMA is/was a mining community in Gallente space. We recruited by offering free boosts in various systems. |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1026
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:14:25 -
[34] - Quote
Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Amazing. You've figured out a way to destroy the entire CASMA community. CCP, you really suck. Who is CASMA? Senpai Fozzie, when do we get blops rebalance? CASMA is/was a mining community in Gallente space. We recruited by offering free boosts in various systems. perhaps you will need to recruit by taking the very tiny effort to actually man the keyboard and warp to belts now |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:17:11 -
[35] - 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. Remember the part of the DevBlog that mentioned the new Porpoise Industrial Command Ship? I'm will to bet that's going to be a BC sized ship that can fit Mining Foreman Links. I'm willing to bet they already expected Orca spam to be untenable and that's why they're adding a new ship to balance that out.
Obvioulsy that's 100% speculation, but why else would they need to add another Industrial Command Ship?
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS Neo-Bushido Movement
144
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:19:03 -
[36] - Quote
I truly believe that this will be great for the game and those that are unable to play solo as intended to do so because they need links will have a major shock to the system as they find out what the other class of the player is now to do and always has been and some people out there in our game don't have the mentals strength to play as one player they need link ship on gate or in station bay or in deep safe spot and I believe that our education in the game now will prove that this mechanic was always broken and in places like such as in Amamake and the other lowsec pvp area, everywhere like such as in Ostingjelly and Heydieles, and, I believe that they should now not cry but instead make the effort to come down to the level of the man in the Rifter, of the man in the Atron and fight like true beasts. Now our education with thanks to the Fozzie and the other teams who sometimes don't sleep at night to make our game better and over here in the U.S. should help the players from all around the world and all in EVE because now you will understand and see when a link is doing a boost, and this should help lowsec factional warfare and should help the pvp community who are not the elitist mustwin crew who are not really skilled with a link boost and the Amarrian in pvp with Caldari and Minmatar and Gallente countries, now we see the birth of the greatest chapter of this great game and we will be able to build up our future in pvp. For our clone children, the pilot of the future will come into this game not knowing the pain and suffering of the old mechanics and for this I will openly weep and wash my feet in the water of all that is now going to be great again in November.
Thnk you CCP. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1820
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:19:16 -
[37] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Obvioulsy that's 100% speculation, but why else would they need to add another Industrial Command Ship?
I'm not sure I'd be willing to speculate on its true porpoise. |
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:19:35 -
[38] - Quote
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?
Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something? |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
380
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:19:45 -
[39] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote: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. Remember the part of the DevBlog that mentioned the new Porpoise Industrial Command Ship? I'm will to bet that's going to be a BC sized ship that can fit Mining Foreman Links. I'm willing to bet they already expected Orca spam to be untenable and that's why they're adding a new ship to balance that out. Obvioulsy that's 100% speculation, but why else would they need to add another Industrial Command Ship? They said already that we're getting an ORE battlecruiser (cost ~40 to 50 million) for exactly that reason.
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.
|
Ripard Teg
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
1299
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:19:56 -
[40] - Quote
Looks really good, with one extremely glaring exception.
What was the justification for reducing Command Ships from three Links to two, other than forcing gangs to bring multiples?
Or was this just a typo?
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
|
Callic Veratar
682
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:20:41 -
[41] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Thanks for the reply, for the last question I have a followup: If people can keep mining during the PANIC module isn't this module prone to abuse? Multiple rorquals chain activating it to mine for free forever?
I proposed a module similar to this long long ago, and they've talked about it in hints a few times (I think at fanfest?). If the design is still the same, it burns out 100% after a single use. No combat refitting should eliminate endless swapping of backups. |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1027
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:20:50 -
[42] - Quote
let's say we're working with 60s boomfs
my fleetmate hits me with a boomf, then 30s later a different fleetmate hits me with the same boomf
do I have 60s left from when the second fleetmate hit me with the boomf (i.e. getting hit refreshes your timer) or 30s left (i can only get a new boomf bonus when the old one has expired)? |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
333
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:20:51 -
[43] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Looks really good, with one extremely glaring exception.
What was the justification for reducing Command Ships from three Links to two, other than forcing gangs to bring multiples?
Or was this just a typo?
Probably to match the two utility highslots. |
Vyctam Shadowclaw
Controlled Chemical Exposure Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:21:01 -
[44] - Quote
I was wondering if Orcas were getting a stronger tank or better defensive/combat capability. As it is, seems like this change forces more to be sitting ducks for gankers.
I'm sad to see the passive nature of the buffs go - trained for nearly a year to specifically have passive buffs while mining or mission running but guess the good old days are coming to an end. |
Clifffitir Awik
Anima Bibentibus XIV Gun Fun Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:22:02 -
[45] - Quote
You are removing the need for a rorq to have to deploy to give boosts right? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:22:31 -
[46] - 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? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2249
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:23:56 -
[47] - Quote
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.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1104
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:24:04 -
[48] - Quote
First thoughts from a long time OGB:
1) Fleet command giving a slightly bigger AoE range sounds like a total jip for those of us that had no choice but to train this skill to be able to FC a large fleet. It goes from a necessity to a very small quality of life upgrade.
2) Adding in more skills this late in the boosting game, which will probably be charisma based, is a real kick in the nuts for those of us that have spent the remaps and time to train up leadership skills. I'm not sure you plan to do this but it sure looks like Command Burst Specialist has new skill written all over it.
3) Do you plan to address any of the silly targetting range issues (Like an FC Loki requiring a targetting range sebo to be of use) since you are getting rid of the information skill bonus?
4) Will have to see the specifics of the new slot layout and command mods allowed to be fit to know if command processor rigs are going to not really be a choice but it sounds like this could get sticky on the design phase of this stuff ie. command proc rigs are not really a choice but a necessity.
5) Can we get a info/skirm mindlink please?
All in all pretty good job so far.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Sentenced 1989
195
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:24:53 -
[49] - Quote
So, now command ships will be locked to 4 boosting modules instead of old 6-7 possibilities (2 by ship fitting + 2 by rigs)?
That means that even if for example you use claymore with shield + siege implant, you still can't get all the 6 bonuses from those 2 groups?
The Incursion Guild
Epic Arc Guide
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:25:42 -
[50] - 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. |
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
583
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:25:43 -
[51] - Quote
Two questions:
Firstly, since they give a combat timer, will a neutral using these bursts to "interfere" with a war or other combat event acquire a Suspect timer?
Secondly, will the new bursts appear on a killmail to see who is giving and receiving boosts?
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Nina Reis
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:26:44 -
[52] - Quote
Why don't you make the new module for link scroptable module, over using ammunition "low volume and large amount loaded" ? |
Huydo
Tr0pa de elite. Northern Coalition.
47
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:27:37 -
[53] - Quote
It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...n++ |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1822
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:27:55 -
[54] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Secondly, will the new bursts appear on a killmail to see who is giving and receiving boosts?
Why would they appear on a killmail when remote reps don't? They're not a hostile effect.
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
2173
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:28:17 -
[55] - Quote
Nice to see this being worked on, thanks for the blog.
One initial question though. The blog states: Command Ship - Can fit two Command Burst modules However, at this moment Command ships can fit 3 Warfare Link Modules.
Why did you choose for this reduction?
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
380
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:28:52 -
[56] - Quote
Huydo wrote:It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...n++ Nobody is going to miss PL and NC. blobbers
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.
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
27
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:30:30 -
[57] - Quote
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. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
560
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:30:39 -
[58] - Quote
Escobar Slim III wrote:I truly believe that this will be great for the game and those that are unable to play solo as intended to do so because they need links will have a major shock to the system as they find out what the other class of the player is now to do and always has been and some people out there in our game don't have the mentals strength to play as one player they need link ship on gate or in station bay or in deep safe spot and I believe that our education in the game now will prove that this mechanic was always broken and in places like such as in Amamake and the other lowsec pvp area, everywhere like such as in Ostingjelly and Heydieles, and, I believe that they should now not cry but instead make the effort to come down to the level of the man in the Rifter, of the man in the Atron and fight like true beasts. Now our education with thanks to the Fozzie and the other teams who sometimes don't sleep at night to make our game better and over here in the U.S. should help the players from all around the world and all in EVE because now you will understand and see when a link is doing a boost, and this should help lowsec factional warfare and should help the pvp community who are not the elitist mustwin crew who are not really skilled with a link boost and the Amarrian in pvp with Caldari and Minmatar and Gallente countries, now we see the birth of the greatest chapter of this great game and we will be able to build up our future in pvp. For our clone children, the pilot of the future will come into this game not knowing the pain and suffering of the old mechanics and for this I will openly weep and wash my feet in the water of all that is now going to be great again in November.
Thnk you CCP.
What?
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.
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
583
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:34:12 -
[59] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote:Secondly, will the new bursts appear on a killmail to see who is giving and receiving boosts? Why would they appear on a killmail when remote reps don't? They're not a hostile effect. So far as I understand, remote reps don't appear due to legacy code. With the code for boosts being completely rewritten, if not new entirely, it's possible (hopeful, even) that they could be made to appear on killmails.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Tragot Gomndor
Khanid's Damnation
78
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:34:24 -
[60] - Quote
Small idea: Make it that the Command Burst ALWAYS buffs yourself, no matter if in a fleet or not. I know, you can just activate a 1 man fleet, but that is kinda meh.
(also make solo players set tags, but thats a different team i guess)
NONONONONONO
TO
CAPS IN HIGHSEC
NO
|
|
Geogeno
League of the Old World Worlds United Fedo Force
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:35:16 -
[61] - Quote
What the **** with the new Boost modules that want to insert it? Who will give us back the money we have invested in the Chars to bring the Chars on all Level 5 goes so times not at all. You want probably the number to fall even more in the game, the player is doing as she does now fall. For my case prefer if that comes back all my 12 Chars from the game. I will 100% not be the only one who will do that. Just make it simple and draws the game but regardless of the traffic then you need to you make you not worry that your player number decreases as you make the game just broken. to destroy an existing system that is working for me the biggest bullshit.
With regards angry
An ex EVE Online players |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
152
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:36:16 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here.
Looks good overall. Thank you for clarifying what each blog will cover so we do not have to guess lol.
A couple of scenerios on how the links will work.
Assume the following:
A fleet as 2 people providing the same boost. 1 player has max skills while the other has just basic skills.
Now:
1. If both ships are running their boosts, and all ships are in range, the higher skilled players boosts take over. I believe this is straight forward and from the blog.
2. If the boosting ships are seperated a little - What happens if an allied ship gets hit by the high-skill players boost, flies around for 30 seconds (out of range of the high-skill player boost) and gets hit by the low-skill pilot (who is then destroyed right away)? Does the allied ship keep the high-skilled boosts for the next 30 seconds (for a total of 60 seconds) or do the low skill players boost override them since the pilot is no longer in range of the high-skill pilot (effectively losing 30 seconds of max boosts).
a. If the allied ship keeps the high-skill boosts for an additional 30 seconds, does the player now have no boosts (because the low-skill player died) or do they get the 30 seconds of low skill boosts they could have gotten?
b. Reverse of the above scenerio.
.....................
New scenerio: A fleet is using a max-skill booster for armor hitpoints %.
An allied ship is receiving boosts and thus more armor. Will we start seeing ships in low armor just blow up when fleet boosts get destroyed? I thought a titan was destroyed a while ago when they messed up the fleet booster position.
Along the same line, will we not see ships with shield and armor HP amounts jumping up and down during a fight with this?
...................
Finally, TIDI
How will these function in TIDI (timers as well as game performance). Will the timers be tied to the server or real time? In large fleet battles where we will see many backups (now that that is a thing that you do not need to worry about positioning for) you have basically introduced a smartbomb that is exponetially larger than any other in the game. Now, in order to cause TIDI to anchor a citadel, all you need is to undock a fleet with command links and just start activating them. This is now a valid tactic that is allowable since having multiple boosters active at once is encouraged. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1834
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:36:18 -
[63] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:let's say we're working with 60s boomfs
my fleetmate hits me with a boomf, then 30s later a different fleetmate hits me with the same boomf
do I have 60s left from when the second fleetmate hit me with the boomf (i.e. getting hit refreshes your timer) or 30s left (i can only get a new boomf bonus when the old one has expired)?
Each individual boost application is tracked, and they all run in parallel. If you've been hit by multiple boosts (of the same type), then only the one with the best strength applies at any time, but they all continue to count down. Once that strongest boost expires then the next one becomes active, and so on until the last one expires.
Timeline might go something like this: t=0: Boost from A hits you with +20% for 60s. You are now getting +20% from A
t=30: Boost from B hits you with +15% for 60s. You are still getting +20% from A. B is currently 'hidden' by A
t=60: Boost A expires. You are now getting +15% from B
t=90: Boost B expires. You are no longer getting any bonus
EDIT to add
Scotsman Howard wrote:2. If the boosting ships are seperated a little - What happens if an allied ship gets hit by the high-skill players boost, flies around for 30 seconds (out of range of the high-skill player boost) and gets hit by the low-skill pilot (who is then destroyed right away)? Does the allied ship keep the high-skilled boosts for the next 30 seconds (for a total of 60 seconds) or do the low skill players boost override them since the pilot is no longer in range of the high-skill pilot (effectively losing 30 seconds of max boosts).
a. If the allied ship keeps the high-skill boosts for an additional 30 seconds, does the player now have no boosts (because the low-skill player died) or do they get the 30 seconds of low skill boosts they could have gotten?
b. Reverse of the above scenerio.
Hopefully explained in the example above. After a ship has given a boost to a fleet mate, whatever happens to that source ship after that point has no effect at all on the boost. It can dock, jump out, die, unfit, biomass etc. Boosts become totally independent of the source once activated.
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
eyecyno
Bluehogs
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:37:26 -
[64] - Quote
No more agility boost?
|
Clifffitir Awik
Anima Bibentibus XIV Gun Fun Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:37:36 -
[65] - 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.
If they dont listen to us now, they will feel with when all us industrialists with multiple accounts unsub them and they cant take nice company vacations. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1825
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:38:26 -
[66] - Quote
Lemme translate:
Escobar Slim III wrote:Half of my mess is a single sentence, the other half is only 2, and I don't understand that paragraphs make things readable and organized.
Thnk you CCP.
No, Escobar, 'thnk you'. |
Cpt Hidoshi Ambraelle
Achura research Industrial Development Corp LLC.
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:39:21 -
[67] - Quote
Absolutely the FIRST thing to say about this is IT'S TERRIBLE. Here is why I currently have 2 Rorq's If your currently planned changes go ahead As soon as the November expansion hits I will Reprocess them Plus My Orca as I would rather mine with NO Boosts at all than to put a rorq on grid NO MATTER what you do to it. I would Rather put the capital parts from the 2x Rorq and 1x Orca towards some more dreads to sell than to keep and use them. Rorq's currently cost what 2bill why in hell would someone want to try and boost with it on grid while trying to micro manage everything else. |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1027
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:39:50 -
[68] - Quote
Thanks for the previous answer, very helpful. Next question: how fast do these modules cycle? Is this going to be something where the fleet booster can keep re-applying to the fleet or is it going to be more like a 60s cycle and you'd better make it count. |
Mr Tesla
Eagles of Stars Hard Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:41:02 -
[69] - Quote
This is terrible news. Rip |
Reinhardt Kreiss
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:41:23 -
[70] - Quote
So boosting is changing from an alt only affair to a fleet thing with redundancy built in. We can safely assume that fleets will incorporate several boosters per type not only because of the sphere radius but also because there's going to be losses.
Isn't this system that relies on an AOE range check that affects targets that possibly already get that bonus from someone else who might/will have different skills going to cause massive lag issues when you get a whole bunch of ships and boosters close together? |
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
137
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:42:10 -
[71] - 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.
There was never a yield boost. What there presently is, is a 2%/yield bonus from the Mining Foreman skill, which gets replaced by a 15% bonus by the mining foreman implant. Not having something to replace that results in a 15% reduction in rocky ore yield from boosted miners as they are now. Ice was never impacted because of the size of ice slabs. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
43
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:42:10 -
[72] - Quote
...So we are geting temporary buffs added? uhhh....im kinda unsure how i feel here. Gonna have to try it out on the test server once its there for testing. On a happier note! I see we are geting a new Industrial command ship! It seems like it gives weaker boosts than the Orca, is it gonna be smaller than an orca? Also what is the estimated build cost gonna be? Does it use capital components to build? Can it compress ore on the go? |
Carlos LaManna
League of the Old World Worlds United Fedo Force
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:42:17 -
[73] - Quote
You will all end up in hell, you want to destroy this game with your stupid ideas? |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1027
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:42:32 -
[74] - Quote
Reinhardt Kreiss wrote:So boosting is changing from an alt only affair to a fleet thing with redundancy built in. We can safely assume that fleets will incorporate several boosters per type not only because of the sphere radius but also because there's going to be losses.
Isn't this system that relies on an AOE range check that affects targets that possibly already get that bonus from someone else who might/will have different skills going to cause massive lag issues when you get a whole bunch of ships and boosters close together? depends on the code, and my understanding is that the physics engine was specifically rewritten to allow for this sort of aoe effect without dying in a fire |
Vidork Drako
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:44:06 -
[75] - Quote
Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job.
Now a question who will come back again and again until we got an answer :
Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?
Lets us know please. A simple yes or no will be enough.
Another question :
I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Regards |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1834
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:44:33 -
[76] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote: Finally, TIDI
How will these function in TIDI (timers as well as game performance). Will the timers be tied to the server or real time? In large fleet battles where we will see many backups (now that that is a thing that you do not need to worry about positioning for) you have basically introduced a smartbomb that is exponetially larger than any other in the game. Now, in order to cause TIDI to anchor a citadel, all you need is to undock a fleet with command links and just start activating them. This is now a valid tactic that is allowable since having multiple boosters active at once is encouraged.
The module cycle time and the boost lifetime once applied will both be subject to time dilation effects.
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1027
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:45:24 -
[77] - Quote
Also: what happens when I got a 20% armor hp bonus, got my armor shot down to 10%, then lost the bonus? Do I have 10% of my old armor, do I have 0% armor but still structure, or does my ship explode due to having negative armor? |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:46:09 -
[78] - Quote
Very interesting changes.
Only thing that immediately stood out to me though; if you're going to completely change what the squad, wing and fleet skills do, why not rename them entirely to reflect their new purpose? I mean, Fleet Command in the new situation will have very little to do with being in charge of a fleet anymore (and will have no affect on hierarchy). So just change the name to something more fitting.
And did I just read right that the Rorqual is getting multiple new tools to play with? Interesting. Can't wait to see more :D
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14333
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:47:49 -
[79] - Quote
Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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.
Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
562
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:48:11 -
[80] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Amazing. You've figured out a way to destroy the entire CASMA community. CCP, you really suck. Who is CASMA? Senpai Fozzie, when do we get blops rebalance? CASMA is/was a mining community in Gallente space. We recruited by offering free boosts in various systems. perhaps you will need to recruit by taking the very tiny effort to actually man the keyboard and warp to belts now
For what, to provide a one cycle boost? Possibly 2.
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..
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.
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3559
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:48:12 -
[81] - Quote
ITS HAPPENING!
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Steroidastroid Ormand
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:48:21 -
[82] - Quote
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. |
Juliette Asanari
Voodoo Children A Band Apart.
81
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:48:29 -
[83] - Quote
Quick question: Interaction of Boosts with Crimewatch? Similar/Identical to Logi? |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
14502
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:49:04 -
[84] - Quote
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 for YEARS, then finfally 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? |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:50:12 -
[85] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:So we better get used to no boost mining I suppose.
And those that take the risk will reap the rewards... |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1828
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:51:28 -
[86] - Quote
Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:1) 15km range is a joke? Aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end?
You're likely not factoring in the effect skills will have.
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
137
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:52:11 -
[87] - Quote
Will there be a replacement for the 15% yield bonus that miners presently get from the booster having Mining Foreman 5 and Mining Foreman Mindlink?
(It appeared that only direct question like this were getting answered, so essentially have reposted).
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:52:36 -
[88] - Quote
It is good news to see we're going away from off-fleet ships boosting happily on an alt account. That being said, here are my thoughts about the disclosed process and additional opinions;
>> Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful... Sorry for getting offtopic right off the bat, but this only works on the principle thinking that the booster is an alt account where the player only runs one monitor in case the ship always remains stationary. There are too many possibilities for people who run software and hardware solutions which makes early notification of combat probes possible without going into the botting and scripting category. In short; the moment you see probes on d-scan, you warp away. There is no way for an attentive player to get caught by combat probes if s/he isn't already engaged otherwise and is not in a huge and clunky ship that isn't already pre-aligned. This is an inherent problem with combat probes which I hope to see addressed in the future.
>> Command Bursts will have a clear visual effect indicating the area in which ships have received the buff. If that visual buff does not include any overview indicators, it's only half as useful. Also, good luck trying to figure out just by visuals alone what is boosted if you're in a bubble, or even multiple. A range of 15km base boost is likely going to get swallowed. It will end as usual, in a zoomed out effect blur. The only reason I can see who should in theory be targeted first is when there are multiple boosters on the field, deciding which boost is more important to take down first. Until that decision has been made, chances are the closest booster is already damaged enough to the point where it doesn't make sense to switch targets. And please, for the love of all hardware, make a checkbox in the options so we can disable the boosting effects.
>> Command pilots will receive a combat log message that indicates how many allied ships have been impacted by each burst. Not going to question usefulness of combat log spam, but I'd like to have tactical map sphere range like weapon and ECM ranges when hovering the Burst module. That way I will always be able to see how many fleet members I catch in my range of influence. If you do not have that already planned to make, I direly suggest you do.
>> ...Armor, Shield (formerly known as Siege), Information, Skirmish, and Mining. Mind if you change "skirmish" to "navigation" at that point then and replace the ewar bonus with something else?
>> These modules must be loaded with ammo in order to activate, and the ammo choices determine which bonus the module will provide to nearby fleetmates. Suggestion; change the ammo to something new, being a high-slot script. That doesn't affect reload time but certainly makes more sense than using... well... "ammo." I don't even want to think about what kind of explanation will be tried to reason using "ammo" for a "physical stat boost". Sure, maybe it's more like a battery to help out with the capacitor... at which point we are at auxiliary modules, which require much more cap if running out of charges. See?
>>When activated, the Command Burst will apply bonuses to all fleetmates within range of the boosting ship, in a sizable sphere. Since you said you get rid of passive bonuses from skills and fleet hierarchy, I suggest you implement some of that back because else you have no limit over what you can boost. Where is the hardcap? Didn't we recently got a hard-cap for assisted drones/fighters? It should have diminishing returns exceeding the amount of players you can legally boost by your leadership skills, or these leadership skills increase the amount at which diminishing returns kick in.
What is even more crucial here; what is it good to have skilled for fleet sizes now? The main reason was to have fleet boosts to as many people as possible. Since you remove that, and emphasize on "skillful play" now, you might as well remove skill based fleet size restrictions altogether to - quoting you - "significantly reduce barrier of entry". Sounds like a big round of returned skillpoints to me. If not, you better give them a much more interesting purpose, else a lot of us will remain dumbfounded.
>> their ship will receive a timed bonus lasting between 60 and 130 seconds that continues to operate even if they move out of range, or if the boosting ship dies While it makes sense, I'd advise to have the timer being reduced in half every time the ship enters warp, including acceleration gates.
_______
Second post incoming with comments to posters. |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
305
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:53:41 -
[89] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: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. Remember the part of the DevBlog that mentioned the new Porpoise Industrial Command Ship? I'm will to bet that's going to be a BC sized ship that can fit Mining Foreman Links. I'm willing to bet they already expected Orca spam to be untenable and that's why they're adding a new ship to balance that out. Obvioulsy that's 100% speculation, but why else would they need to add another Industrial Command Ship? They said already that we're getting an ORE battlecruiser (cost ~40 to 50 million) for exactly that reason. Ah, thanks for the info!
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Ida Aurlien
Cerberus Federation Cede Nullis
77
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:54:23 -
[90] - Quote
This reminds me of why I quit buying ford trucks.. They kept up with their better ideas changed a radiator hose, to 1 that cost $500 to replace 2 of them. I decided to get a old truck that had reg hoses on it..
Sometimes it's better to leave things unchanged as the changes will cost you more...
In the above it cost them a life long customer are you wanting the same ? |
|
stelsing
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:54:32 -
[91] - Quote
In recent years, all that makes CCP. is makes people DO NOT play EVE Online
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
450
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:54:48 -
[92] - Quote
Alright, I'm not hitting the panic button or anything (or the EvE is dying bandwagon) - but you took a legitimate issue (off grid boosting) and brought it on grid.
The concept I like. The execution does make me want to beat my head against a wall. 1. Range - my big problem here is the range. I don't understand why there's an issue pushing it out to 200km or grid. I mean; this really kind of fucks the purpose of most command ships. Other than an eos sitting at 0 on a wormhole, or a vulture in a bunch of slipper petes (nullsec you still use those bastards?) There just isn't a point. I guess you can have a command ship as part of your gate camp now. Throw a couple remote sebos in the midslots since you won't need the extra link space.
2. No passive bonuses. Alright, kind of crappy. They didn't seem particularly overpowered, but ok.
3. Ammo - This kind of seems like ****. Here's why. I trained an alt for 8 months to be a perfect boosting t3/command ship pilot. He's generally off grid for PVE, and on grid for PVP (wormhole stuff). I have no issue bringing him on grid - but it kind of borks his purpose when I have to reload and carry ammo. I'm not a huge fan of this change.
Let me throw something at you - 'we like to make small changes so that we can be directionally correct' - I remember someone at ccp saying that small changes are better when it comes to balances. It feels like you just threw the hammer out on this one. There should have been some kind of discussion because while I DO NOT like off grid links - their revised form just seems awful.
Seriously though, you guys need to get your **** together. Citadels were a huge ******* letdown. 1 bil for something with no asset security (wormhole space) and the functionality of a ******* medium/small POS.
58ish km max range for boosts? What are these boosts for ants?
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:55:19 -
[93] - Quote
Cpt Hidoshi Ambraelle wrote:Absolutely the FIRST thing to say about this is IT'S TERRIBLE. Here is why I currently have 2 Rorq's If your currently planned changes go ahead As soon as the November expansion hits I will Reprocess them Plus My Orca as I would rather mine with NO Boosts at all than to put a rorq on grid NO MATTER what you do to it. I would Rather put the capital parts from the 2x Rorq and 1x Orca towards some more dreads to sell than to keep and use them. Rorq's currently cost what 2bill why in hell would someone want to try and boost with it on grid while trying to micro manage everything else.
Your tears are delicious
And ooh just look at all the entitled pubbies coming out of the woodworks demanding SP refunds. "Boohoo my completely uncounterable boosting gameplay is being removed."
I love everything I read in this blog. From Rorquals in belts to boosts that require ammo made from ice. Love it.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Alhira Katserna
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
2279
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:56:24 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer.
Tbh not refunding these skills is a kinda **** move. A lot of people only trained Leadership V some even Wing Command V only to pass on boosts under the current system. The majority of them won´t train booster skills once they´re changed and thus you leave them with an useless skill. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
563
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:56:50 -
[95] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:So we better get used to no boost mining I suppose. And those that take the risk will reap the rewards...
And provide the juicy killmails...
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.
|
kate diver
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:57:40 -
[96] - Quote
will the boosting ships get the bonuses or will we be flying around in paper tanked command ships on grid |
Bishop Xsi
Blackfriar Bridge
94
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:58:13 -
[97] - Quote
I'M QUITTING THE GAME!
(no I'm not)
gg, CCP. |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
137
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:58:36 -
[98] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:1) 15km range is a joke? Aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end? You're likely not factoring in the effect skills will have.
My calculations give me 61.2km range for an all 5s command ship, 91.8 for Carrier/FAX/Titan/Rorqual
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1104
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:59:57 -
[99] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:>> Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful... Sorry for getting offtopic right off the bat, but this only works on the principle thinking that the booster is an alt account where the player only runs one monitor in case the ship always remains stationary. There are too many possibilities for people who run software and hardware solutions which makes early notification of combat probes possible without going into the botting and scripting category. In short; the moment you see probes on d-scan, you warp away. There is no way for an attentive player to get caught by combat probes if s/he isn't already engaged otherwise and is not in a huge and clunky ship that isn't already pre-aligned. This is an inherent problem with combat probes which I hope to see addressed in the future.
It's actually not hard at all to catch a dual boxed OGB if you have level 5 sills, virtue implants and a brain.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
563
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:01:11 -
[100] - Quote
Remember the part of the DevBlog that mentioned the new Porpoise Industrial Command Ship? I'm will to bet that's going to be a BC sized ship that can fit Mining Foreman Links. I'm willing to bet they already expected Orca spam to be untenable and that's why they're adding a new ship to balance that out.
Obvioulsy that's 100% speculation, but why else would they need to add another Industrial Command Ship?[/quote] They said already that we're getting an ORE battlecruiser (cost ~40 to 50 million) for exactly that reason.[/quote] Ah, thanks for the info![/quote]
I thought the changes infer that they are getting rid of Mining Foreman Links, so you'll only get these.
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.
|
|
Yogsoloth
Beyond Thunderdome.
210
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:01:58 -
[101] - Quote
Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.
The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.
The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers.
These changes will have little to no effect on large scale warfare, these engagements have more than enough people to have designated on-grid links.
This change will have a negative effect on small gang and solo (single person) pvp. Small gangs dont have enough dedicated people to designate some1 for on-grid boosts, and solo players won't be able to compete or skirmish with a small group without a way to help level the field. These fights will be dumbed down to whoever has more people will win.
I understand CCP only cares about large fights that grab headlines, but I expect solo pvp to continue it's downward spiral, as these changes force everyone into fleets to compete.
I expect a number of these solo or small gang enthusiasts to also cancel accounts. All in all, this change will net a significant loss and cancelation of subscriptions and hurt EVE overall bottom line. But hooray that all the carebears will have to find new reasons to cry over their losses.
That's something at least...
|
JetStream Drenard
Black Fox Marauders
83
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:01:59 -
[102] - Quote
List of OP things that need to be nerfed for fair and balanced gameplay.
- Off grid boosts. Obvious P2W. - Tankable/repairable on grid boosters. It is just not fair that the fleet with enough alpha can destroy the other team's booster. - Drugs, implants, faction mods. These are just slightly less obvious P2W strategies. It is not fair to poor people either. - Multiple accounts. People with more than one account can make too much isk per tick, compared to those without. - Suicide ganking. It's just not fair that they can prepare and execute a gank, before the victim is able to react. - Fleets. In order to ensure that fights are always fair and balanced, all fleet fights must now be conducted within the arena setting using a point system to ensure that nobody can have a better fleet comp. - Gangs. This is not fair to the soloer. 2v1? That's like having an off grid booster. Must designate locations that only allow a maximum of two people to enter in order to provide fair and balanced game play. In addition, must provide locations that only allow 2v2, 3v3, etc in order to provide the most balanced fights possible. - Svipul, RLML, Gila, Orthrus. It is simply not fair that these ships and mods can do everything better.
Can of worms opened. Hypocrisy noted. Rant over. |
Espen Onzo
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:02:32 -
[103] - Quote
Dear CCP
My only adresse to this matter is simply in the realm of faction warfare, how does one fleet booster boost his fleet in a say medium size plex. PLZ do not answer with command destroyers because you are going to add a extra question mark of viability to fleet fighting in medium size plexes, simply on the basis that command destroyers just dont have the ehp to survive a cruiser size fleet fight. |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:02:35 -
[104] - Quote
While under the effect of the Rorqual super weapon, will you be able to move at all or will you be stationary?
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Lamajagarn McMyra
No Vacancies No Vacancies.
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:03:05 -
[105] - Quote
This looks like a nice change and i do belive it will help further balance the game. As it is pretty much a complete overhaul of the mechanic an sp refund would be highly apreciated by those of us not commonly engaging in situations where this new mechanic would be feasible. |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
590
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:04:17 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer.
THAT is a total load of crap. Youre taking a passive bonus set of skills (a rather investment intensive set at that) and turning it into a set of skills that require active module usage to perform any function whatsoever. I would go out on a limb and say a MASSIVE percentage of the population has these skills trained at the moment and benefit from them and after these changes the vast majority of them will never see usage or benefit from these skills ever again. Could you try just a little but harder to farm your players for $ from skill extractors because this move isn't obvious enough.
Daemun of Khanid
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
305
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:04:30 -
[107] - Quote
Alhira Katserna wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. Tbh not refunding these skills is a kinda **** move. A lot of people only trained Leadership V some even Wing Command V only to pass on boosts under the current system. The majority of them won´t train booster skills once they´re changed and thus you leave them with an useless skill. It's only useless if they NEVER in all their time in EVE ever try to use Command Bursts, which seems kinda unlikely.
I trained my Leadership skills solely for the passive bonuses, and now that they'll be bonusing Command Bursts I'm actually now training this character for Command Destroyers so I can start using them.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:04:35 -
[108] - Quote
One thing I think you should add this is a mod similar to the super remote burst modules. I would be nice if super-carriers also had the niche of being able to boost a fleet at range on grid. The code is in place already all you need is to make the mods. |
Inslander Wessette
Unleashed' Fury Cynosural Field Theory.
33
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:05:37 -
[109] - Quote
why won't command ships have 200% range boost ? i think command ships should be the top dogs on range and power since they are going to be primary anyway. Isn't it how its now ?
ccpls increase from 100 to 200 % |
Aries Skyguard
Higher Than Everest The-Culture
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:05:53 -
[110] - Quote
CCP I think you need to combine the link types into 1 module, else this will be terrible. What I mean is:
Currently you have 3 type of armor, shield, info, skirmish and mining links. for example: There are the link that increases all armor resistances. The one that reduces cycle time and capacitor use for local and remote armor repairers. And the last one that increases armor hitpoints.
I think you need to combine all of the type effects into the one single module so that, that one module applies all of that type of bonuses. So for example you only need 1 armor warfare link to apply all of the armor boosts.
Obviously this would be needed for all of the 5 different types of links, although I'm not sure about mining links as I haven't used them before myself.
It would free up a lot of high slots and potentially rig slots. Reduce the amount of fittig usage the warfare links requires, making the command ship pilots not having to dedicate to either damage or tank.
And over all I don't think it will make the links stronger that they are now, but it would make the boosting experience a lot better for that guy that are gonna put, ALL his time into managing his links during a fight. |
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
32
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:07:45 -
[111] - Quote
I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
382
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:08:58 -
[112] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:Drazz Caylen wrote:>> Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful... Sorry for getting offtopic right off the bat, but this only works on the principle thinking that the booster is an alt account where the player only runs one monitor in case the ship always remains stationary. There are too many possibilities for people who run software and hardware solutions which makes early notification of combat probes possible without going into the botting and scripting category. In short; the moment you see probes on d-scan, you warp away. There is no way for an attentive player to get caught by combat probes if s/he isn't already engaged otherwise and is not in a huge and clunky ship that isn't already pre-aligned. This is an inherent problem with combat probes which I hope to see addressed in the future. It's actually not hard at all to catch a dual boxed OGB if you have level 5 sills, virtue implants and a brain. That last part is problematic for the normal line member ape.
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.
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
305
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:09:46 -
[113] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself.
Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal?
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Steroidastroid Ormand
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:09:50 -
[114] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:Arrendis wrote:Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:1) 15km range is a joke? Aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end? You're likely not factoring in the effect skills will have. My calculations give me 61.2km range for an all 5s command ship, 91.8 for Carrier/FAX/Titan/Rorqual
So? I can repeat that 150km should be the minimum range, IMHO...
Hail blobs! Rip solo!
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2823
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:10:10 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here.
Super links should be stronger than carrier links, carrier links in general should be as strong if not stronger than t3 links (jack of all trades master of none) and I think Command dessie links should (as a dedicated t2 specialist craft) be stronger than t3 links.
Also the mod you're replacing the passive titan bonus with, we can't think of any one specific situation where we'd ever swap out a module on our titan for something that is beneficial to the enemy, probably want to go back to the drawing board. Every slot on a titan currently is like, at max value, there aren't any you'd trade from anywhere to anywhere so expecting Titan pilots to want to drop a mod from any slot at all to give a buff to the enemy fleet is silly
Overall I like the changes, I just feel theres some spots that could use some help and or dont make sense
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Malakye Appleton
Danger Gnomes Vendetta Mercenary Group
43
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:10:14 -
[116] - Quote
Now is a good time for Skill Extractor speculation. I'm in!
Living the dream, one tear at a time...
|
Mr Tesla
Eagles of Stars Hard Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:11:24 -
[117] - Quote
Why can not we make different mechanics for large and small groups pvp? Why small pvp formation have to die? |
Khromius
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
57
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:11:50 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer.
But having all owned items and ships teleport from destroyed citadel to an NPC station makes great sense... EVE is slowly becoming WOW. Shame the game I've loved for so many years is being turned killed like this. |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
591
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:12:22 -
[119] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Alhira Katserna wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. Tbh not refunding these skills is a kinda **** move. A lot of people only trained Leadership V some even Wing Command V only to pass on boosts under the current system. The majority of them won´t train booster skills once they´re changed and thus you leave them with an useless skill. It's only useless if they NEVER in all their time in EVE ever try to use Command Bursts, which seems kinda unlikely. I trained my Leadership skills solely for the passive bonuses, and now that they'll be bonusing Command Bursts I'm actually now training this character for Command Destroyers so I can start using them.
My main will never be fitting command boosts. And I'm sure I'm not alone. This new command booster role is going to be a torch taken up by specific ppl similarly to ppl who like to fly logi and ewar. For those of us who just needed the skills to FC fleets they are forever useless.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:13:10 -
[120] - Quote
With apologies to CASMA (more about that below) my initial reaction to these changes is very positive. Last night a Fed Navy Comet came into my system so I undocked a Comet of my own while looking forward to some 1v1 action. As I was calculating a warp-in however a Tengu entered system. I sighed and docked up, not wanting to fight against a boosted opponent. Turns out the Tengu was just a coincidental neutral but by then it was too late. With on-grid command burts, at least I would have known exactly when or when not the opponent was receiving boosts. It wouldn't preclude the opponent's booster warping in after getting a scram and deploying the Command Burst, but that's at least a little bit more tolerable.
As a close-range brawler I also like the nerf this deals to bs kiting comps. The booster would need to be at least as fast as the kiting ships in order to continue to provide boosts, and it would also require the kiting ships to stick together to remain in range of the effect.
Additionally, as somebody who trained some leadership skills mostly to pass boosts other fleetmates were providing, I suppose I could extract those skills and sell the Injectors for ISK - but I would much prefer to reallocate those SP elsewhere in my character, without having to deal with the Injectors providing much less than 500k SP for my character. CCP, please consider a skill refund with the deployment of these changes.
Finally, for CASMA - I do not know how you operate as despite being in CCG I am only peripherally aware of you guys. But CCG does make use of Orca and Rorqual boosts a lot in our nullsec home, so these changes will effect us as well. I have no idea what the miners in CCG will do about the mining boosts changes, but you guys are totally welcome to come down and join us where at least you'll have some sort of PvP backup for protection. (But AFK mining, of course, is not really an option and we cannot help with that.) The ice and roids are quite valuable and should be more than enough compensation for the inevitable ship losses. Getting on some nice killmails in the meantime is another perk of nullsec mining.
(Pardon if a dupe - got a "we were ganked" message first posting.)
|
|
cannahbro
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:14:43 -
[121] - Quote
Colin Caepernic will not stand for this either!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Vic Vorlon
Aideron Robotics
56
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:14:56 -
[122] - Quote
This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!
To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it. |
JetStream Drenard
Black Fox Marauders
84
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:15:43 -
[123] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? Just canceled mine (5)! It is not just this patch, it is every patch and money squeezer since Phoebe. gg |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:16:07 -
[124] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here. Super links should be stronger than carrier links, carrier links in general should be as strong if not stronger than t3 links (jack of all trades master of none) and I think Command dessie links should (as a dedicated t2 specialist craft) be stronger than t3 links. Also the mod you're replacing the passive titan bonus with, we can't think of any one specific situation where we'd ever swap out a module on our titan for something that is beneficial to the enemy, probably want to go back to the drawing board. Every slot on a titan currently is like, at max value, there aren't any you'd trade from anywhere to anywhere so expecting Titan pilots to want to drop a mod from any slot at all to give a buff to the enemy fleet is silly Overall I like the changes, I just feel theres some spots that could use some help and or dont make sense
I agree why cant things like this just be baked into the hull? Its like the bastion mod on maroders why fit a mod when it should just be part of the ship.
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
35
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:03 -
[125] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal?
I'm not the only one not thrilled with this change if you'd spend 5 seconds looking at other posts and their likes going up. |
Always Shi
t Posting
46
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:27 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: After a ship has given a boost to a fleet mate, whatever happens to that source ship after that point has no effect at all on the boost. It can dock, jump out, die, unfit, biomass etc. Boosts become totally independent of the source once activated.
Are you sure that's wise?
Because uncatchable cloaky nullified T3Cs are gonna have tons of fun doing boosting drivebys and being caught way less often than current off-grid boosts. |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:31 -
[127] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change?
Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it.
Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback?
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
CPT Ashen
RONA Corporation Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:52 -
[128] - Quote
Is there truly a reason for the bursts giving a weapons timer?
I'm just thinking about hit and run situations where short warps would leave a booster stuck and unable to escape from hostiles with his group.
~Ash |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
383
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:18:09 -
[129] - Quote
JetStream Drenard wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? Just canceled mine (5)! It is not just this patch, it is every patch and money squeezer since Phoebe. gg Can I have your stuff?
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.
|
Lorelei Victoria Gilmore
Gilmore Mining And Manufacturing
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:18:59 -
[130] - Quote
Thank you for the change!
As a fairly new player to FW 1v1 PvP I do understand that someone can have better skills, better modules or better piloting abilities then I do. I can use these things to learn from my mistakes and get better at something I like doing in EVE.
Off-grid links though gave me the feeling that another player who just barely had the upper hand in a fight gained that advantage from one thing only: Paying money for a second account, therefore enabling him to outperform me.
And no, it is not the same if the boost character is piloted. Then it is clear to me that I fought against two players and that's why I lost. |
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
453
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:19:10 -
[131] - Quote
Always Shi wrote:
Are you sure that's wise?
Because uncatchable cloaky nullified T3Cs are gonna have tons of fun doing boosting drivebys and being caught way less often than current off-grid boosts.
That's actually a really good point. Although it'll at least require active piloting by the boost pilot. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:19:23 -
[132] - Quote
I'm just wondering if Incursions were taken into account for these features at all. Currently you'd have 1 (vanguards) or 2 command ships sitting offgrid afk; now every FC will have to train into a command ship and boost ongrid which is going to be a pain in the ass -_- (inb4 can't you just run with more logistics?) The efficiency is seriously hampered by either having ongrid boosters or not at all (both are viable ideas of what might happen.) Or just have the booster in fleet and leave fleet when site is about to end (so you don't affect site payouts) in any case there needs more thinking! |
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
35
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:20:08 -
[133] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it. Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback?
I gave feedback, my feedback is that I and many others DO NOT LIKE this change, it's more than just whiny bitching |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:20:10 -
[134] - Quote
Vic Vorlon wrote:This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!
Idea: ram the enemy boost ship, if you can't kill it, to get it out of position.
To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it. That's a surprisingly reasonable outlook for the Comments thread of a Dev Blog.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Ida Aurlien
Cerberus Federation Cede Nullis
79
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:21:13 -
[135] - Quote
Lets look at this your taking the rorqual out of the game as can't use in belts as if it gets pinned down yes it has a bubble to protect it for a few minutes. but it still can't move..and ppl drop lots of ships on it , it becomes a massacre. now links ships are worthless..
Your looking at things to make the game faster at destroying things. But your not looking at the life of the game. Or the cycle
of eve. it takes all aspects of the game to survive, changes are not always good have you looked at if people will accept and use these in field as you hope. If not the manufacturing dies and all cost rise. another way to kill your game |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:21:37 -
[136] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. OK, this is just bad. You're creating a viable form of counter-play by putting links on-grid. Good. But you're not making neutral bursts gain a suspect timer? That's bad.
In Highsec, in a wardec situation, the hostiles can use a neutral link alt to boost them, leaving the only counter-play against this a suicide gank against that link alt while under fire from the hostiles.
In Lowsec, if you have a neutral giving you boosts and you attack them, you're now under fire from gate and station guns even though the booster is essentially committing an act of aggression against you by boosting those attacking you.
Neutral boosters need to receive a suspect timer.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:22:21 -
[137] - Quote
Are the command modules "auto-repeat" or do they need to be activated each time like an interdictor bubble? |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:23:00 -
[138] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it. Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback? I gave feedback, my feedback is that I and many others DO NOT LIKE this change, it's more than just whiny bitching
No, that's exactly what it is until you give a solid reason or two for WHY you don't like it and maybe even propose a change or two. Or is anything involving any kind of effort too much to ask? That would certainly be one reason why you're so angry about this.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
922
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:23:02 -
[139] - Quote
From the devblog:
Quote:Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its power
Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful, it requires support that is not always available to small fleets or solo players. Bringing all fleet-affecting gameplay into visible range ensures that players have the ability to interact with all relevant elements of their opponentGÇÖs fleets.
Under the old fleet hierarchy system, this vulnerability would have become an undue burden on fleet commanders as reshuffling fleet positions as your booster ships die would involve unreasonable micro-management. Under the new Command Burst system fleet, hierarchy no longer matters for boosting, allowing Command Burst redundancy in the same way fleets already build logistics and interdictor redundancy.
What's the counter play in highsec?
So far, it seems this change means no counter play to combat based boosts used by wardeccers or station gamers, but greater risk to mining links, which will be more susceptible to ganks.
I have no problem with greater risk for the mining links, but where's the counter play to the use of combat links in highsec?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:23:44 -
[140] - Quote
Ida Aurlien wrote:Lets look at this your taking the rorqual out of the game as can't use in belts as if it gets pinned down yes it has a bubble to protect it for a few minutes. but it still can't move..and ppl drop lots of ships on it , it becomes a massacre. now links ships are worthless..
Your looking at things to make the game faster at destroying things. But your not looking at the life of the game. Or the cycle
of eve. it takes all aspects of the game to survive, changes are not always good have you looked at if people will accept and use these in field as you hope. If not the manufacturing dies and all cost rise. another way to kill your game
Probably should reserve judgement here until the entirety of the Rorqual changes are posted. You have no idea what other capabilities the ship may receive in terms of combat/defense
|
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
592
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:25:19 -
[141] - Quote
I have no problem with the boost changes. But not refunding SP for skills that no longer perform the same function is a mistake. Anyone and everyone who has ever been in a position to FC a fleet or even small gang trains those skills even though they are fairly sp intensive because even without any kind of links or boosts in system you have benefits to gain for your fleet by doing so. After these changes you will have nothing to gain from them unless you are flying a specific fleet role in a very limited set of ships. The explanation of "similar purpose" goes out the window when the requirements to get benefit from the skills becomes so narrow. CCP has no reason not to refund SP for these fundamentally reworked skills other than an intent to squeeze $ out of potentially 1000's of pilots for skill extractors.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Ducian
Moira. Villore Accords
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:25:25 -
[142] - Quote
Yo,
I must first say that I really like these changes...even if I did spend ages training. Links as they stand are bad and this new system sounds much better.
After a first read through and a bit of a think over a beer I would make two changes:
- Reduce the cycle time and duration of the effect. In smaller gang fights 60 seconds can be a long time, perhaps 30 seconds would be better? I don't know if basing the cycle time on the size of the ship (lower cycle time for smaller ships) would work as that might be seen as too much of an advantage.
- Allow effects to only carry in system if you warp without using an acceleration gate. This will keep boosts out of novice sites in faction warfare and actually force people to put their "links" on the field in larger sites rather than just sitting at the acceleration gate boosting people as they pass through. Would also affect missions I guess.
Cheers - Ducian |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1058
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:25:48 -
[143] - Quote
Triggered Liberal wrote:So RIP my entire community. This seems like a concerted attack on my alliance.
It absolutely is. I actually paid CCP to do this just because I hate you specifically. It was pretty cheap, really. Couple of six packs of beer and they were all in.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2779
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:26:03 -
[144] - Quote
Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:26:41 -
[145] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? I'm not the only one not thrilled with this change if you'd spend 5 seconds looking at other posts and their likes going up. Because Forum Likes are how we judge good or bad ideas, right? Using a populist approach like that sure worked wonders for Sony Online Entertainment with their still massively successful game Planetside 2.
Oh wait...
Sarcasm aside, how many times have we seen people initially freak out in the Comments thread on the DevBlog and then those same people are playing the game months later, still bitching but not having left like they swore they were going to?
**** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
Off-grid boosting was becoming a problem, and in the best case it represented yet another requirement for dedicated afk alts in order to be competetive. Is that really good design? Is that really the best way for people to have FUN in a game? Not being able to know if the small gang that your small gang just engaged with might have a fully tricked out Command Ship running Mindlink-buffed Warfare Links sitting in a safe?
Let's not forget how many times in that DevBlog CCP reiterated that they are going to be changing aspects of that design proposal based on all the player feedback they get. If you don't like the changes, post suggestions for how you'd like them to work and stop just threatening to drop your subscription.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
35
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:27:25 -
[146] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it. Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback? I gave feedback, my feedback is that I and many others DO NOT LIKE this change, it's more than just whiny bitching No, that's exactly what it is until you give a solid reason or two for WHY you don't like it and maybe even propose a change or two. Or is anything involving any kind of effort too much to ask? That would certainly be one reason why you're so angry about this.
1. it's been in the game for how long? 2. if it's not broke, why change it 3. if it has to change, why add mining boosts to it? with being near a citadel, you have to still pay attention or die as you're not tethered, putting a rorqual in a null belt is just guaranteed death 4. in the name of jesus tap dancing ******* christ, why is there an ammo requirement taped to it?
how's that for reasons? |
Vidork Drako
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:29:09 -
[147] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. OK, this is just bad. You're creating a viable form of counter-play by putting links on-grid. Good. But you're not making neutral bursts gain a suspect timer? That's bad. In Highsec, in a wardec situation, the hostiles can use a neutral link alt to boost them, leaving the only counter-play against this a suicide gank against that link alt while under fire from the hostiles. In Lowsec, if you have a neutral giving you boosts and you attack them, you're now under fire from gate and station guns even though the booster is essentially committing an act of aggression against you by boosting those attacking you. Neutral boosters need to receive a suspect timer.
That was my main concern about links .. and this is why I asked the question. Booster on Grid should get a suspect timer by boosting out of corp members who are fighting in wardec as logi does. Period. Not giving a booster that timer is a non sense. Or .. explain us why you didnt see it that way CCP :) |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
593
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:29:31 -
[148] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)?
The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? It would also mean you can forget about any kind of kite meta because unless your boost ship is attached to your hip and able to keep up with you, your bonuses are gonna drop before you have a chance to get back into boost range.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
384
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:30:17 -
[149] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone.
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.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1835
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:30:17 -
[150] - Quote
Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:I can repeat that 150km should be the minimum range, IMHO...
But can you justify why you should be able to have a ship in a central position able to apply boosts to two ships 300km apart? Not why it's convenient to only need that one ship doing it, mind you, but why it's preferable for people to be able to do that, rather than having boosters in among the ships they're boosting? |
|
Rixx Javix
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
533
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:31:03 -
[151] - Quote
So many salty tears in this thread.
http://eveoganda.blogspot.com
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:31:09 -
[152] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes?
Why is no boosts to frigates in novice plexes a bad thing?
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
194
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:32:55 -
[153] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Soo, where do I apply for the SP refund? Only reason I have those skills trained is for the passive benefit.. Or make Blops be able to fit links, pretty please?
Cry me a river... |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1058
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:32:58 -
[154] - Quote
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?
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1835
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:33:34 -
[155] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote: 1. it's been in the game for how long? 2. if it's not broke, why change it 3. if it has to change, why add mining boosts to it? with being near a citadel, you have to still pay attention or die as you're not tethered, putting a rorqual in a null belt is just guaranteed death 4. in the name of jesus tap dancing ******* christ, why is there an ammo requirement taped to it?
how's that for reasons?
1. Inertia's not a reason. 2. It's pretty darn broke. 3. Mining boosts currently tether, allowing a rorqual to sit between the two spires atop an Astrahus in perfect safety. 4. Hel if I know.
So call it 1 out of 4! |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
593
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:33:47 -
[156] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? Why is no boosts to frigates in novice plexes a bad thing?
Why is boosts on frigates in novice plexes a bad thing? If I can put a boost ship in a small plex and provide boosts to my dessi fleet why can't my booster pilot do something to assist my frig gang? Is he supposed to sit around and wait till we ship up?
Daemun of Khanid
|
Jasper Sinclair
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:33:56 -
[157] - Quote
I hope mining bursts don't activate an aggression timer.
I assume you have a plan for replacing existing modules in-game when the change occurs? It seems that if I have to pull a few T2 rigs and replace them with the new rigs that replace command modules I should get reimbursed for those (old) rigs.
You may have alluded to this, but can you remove any reference to "leadership" in the names/descriptions of skills and modules? We all know that being able to boost/burst/link/whatever has no relationship to one's ability to lead a fleet.
So now that the "My Fleet" tab has very reduced meaning, do you have any plans to enhance it? I have a few suggestions: 1) allow longer wing/squad names 2) provide ability to designate players that will automatically take fleet/wing/squad command position when the player filling that role leaves fleet. 3) provide existing functionality, like "regroup" and "show fleet comp" as small buttons to the right of the player name in the "my fleet" window. Obviously you can get rid of the fleet/wing/squad booster icon, as well as the "commander" icon since that fact is apparent by looking at the player's position in the fleet! 4) provide new functionality like, for example, requesting a burst! Probably not a good example but things like that. 5) give the fleet boss the ability to specify who, other than himself, can broadcast targets. 6) other things that will occur to me 5 minutes after I press "Post"
However, it may turn out that this is not a good idea because switching between the history and my fleet tabs is a pain in the middle of a big fight.
Overall I like the direction you are going but believe the removal of passive boosts drastically reduces the value of the skills I spent a long time training. We should get a fairly long evaluation period in which to decide whether or not we want to cash in skill points. And no, skill extractors do not adequately compensate.
Acting Blue CEO, Senior Combat Coordinator, admirer of Caracals
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
384
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:34:36 -
[158] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? Why is no boosts to frigates in novice plexes a bad thing? He's one of these "solo" pilots that always have boosts + at least 10 alts on standby in case things turn out bad.
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.
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1058
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:34:47 -
[159] - 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.
Did you miss the part where it said they would be really small and the boosters would have large ammo capacities? It's not like you're going to have to micromanage the damned things. Sheesh.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Demolishar
United Aggression
1141
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:34:53 -
[160] - Quote
This proposed change is an absolute disgrace.
It would be better if boosting were removed entirely than to just give the bigger blob the exclusive rights to having boosts, which is what the effective result of this change will be. |
|
Carlos LaManna
League of the Old World Worlds United Fedo Force
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:35:26 -
[161] - Quote
already sad as here the flag for CCP is kept high by some players no matter what you bring for ideas, love CCP do not forget that the players each month to invest your hard-earned money in this game, and if you want to change something then please so the game getting better |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1062
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:36:09 -
[162] - Quote
Geogeno wrote:What the **** with the new Boost modules that want to insert it? Who will give us back the money we have invested in the Chars to bring the Chars on all Level 5 goes so times not at all. You want probably the number to fall even more in the game, the player is doing as she does now fall. For my case prefer if that comes back all my 12 Chars from the game. I will 100% not be the only one who will do that. Just make it simple and draws the game but regardless of the traffic then you need to you make you not worry that your player number decreases as you make the game just broken. to destroy an existing system that is working for me the biggest bullshit.
With regards angry
An ex EVE Online players
And nothing of value will be lost
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
385
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:36:30 -
[163] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:Soo, where do I apply for the SP refund? Only reason I have those skills trained is for the passive benefit.. Or make Blops be able to fit links, pretty please? Cry me a river... Why would I? I don't even remember the last time I went to Provi for hotdropping. I'm not one of the Horrible Third Party losers.
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.
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
595
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:36:44 -
[164] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Obil Que wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? Why is no boosts to frigates in novice plexes a bad thing? He's one of these "solo" pilots that always have boosts + at least 10 alts on standby in case things turn out bad.
Never claimed to be a solo pilot. I'm a fleet pilot and have an alt to provide boosts to said fleet. I have no problem w combat dual boxing and bringing him on grid. If you want "honorable 1v1" take your pansy butt to high sec and cry for duels in empty systems.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:36:46 -
[165] - Quote
"you can only quote 5 times in a single post" Oh right, there was something...
>> Aliana Heartborne: Guess im done playing in november then. ah well, atleast i got to help new miners for 3 years before CCP wanted to ruin it, thanks. First, you should note the line saying; "Blog two will go into detail on the changes to Mining Foreman gameplay, including the Mining Foreman Bursts, changes to the Rorqual and Orca, and the new Porpoise-class industrial command ship." I suggest you don't pitch a fit now and wait for the blog to see what actually affects you. Still, care to elaborate why? Sounds like an Orca boost in highsec to me. Maybe sitting in a POS to be safe from gankers. I bet the offgrid POS changes affect you a lot. If you help new players with boosts, who protects these new players from gankers? If you don't get any gankers there, then your Orca should be safe as well. It's not like an Orca can't be tanked either. The only thing left is the proposed "inexpensive and low-cargo" ammo, which I'm sure after years of playing you have no issue funding? I'd say just wait for the second blog before jumping to conclusions.
>> Arrendis: I, for one, am looking forward to watching ships at 20% armor explode the moment the duration on the Armor Reinforcement booster expires and they end up with negative HP. That's a good point. Honestly, it always bothered me how it worked. I'd rather have it keep the relative percentage base, so if it runs out, then only 20% of the current ship HP will be deducted.
>> Esrevid Nekkeg: The blog states: Command Ship - Can fit two Command Burst modules. However, at this moment Command ships can fit 3 Warfare Link Modules. Why did you choose for this reduction? I second this question, I auto-read it as "3" in my head.
>> Tragot Gomndor: Make it that the Command Burst ALWAYS buffs yourself, no matter if in a fleet or not. I know, you can just activate a 1 man fleet, but that is kinda meh. Seconding this idea. and actually I don't think we still can make 1-man fleets of self boosting. Just undocked to check if they changed that. They didn't. you require at least one other person in the squad.
>> Sexy Cakes: It's actually not hard at all to catch a dual boxed OGB if you have level 5 sills, virtue implants and a brain. Mind if you look through the context I've written it in? I said attentive player with a second monitor. The math is fairly simple. We can map a button to "scan" on D-scan. Refresh cooldown + player reaction for second monitor + warp away time (if unaligned) = catch time in seconds. If your scan time + warpto time + lockon time is slower, you will never catch them as long as they're not distracted. Also, not every scanner has level 5 skills or virtue implants. And even if they have, it's not a guarantee to catch an attentive player by previous math. Sure it happens that OffGB get caught. Doesn't mean all get caught.
>> MidnightWyvern: Because Forum Likes are how we judge good or bad ideas, right? Using a populist approach like that sure worked wonders for Sony Online Entertainment with their still massively successful game Planetside 2. Meh, it's still not so bad :P But I do resonate with some of the other points you said. Just like the bounty system, I'd rather have CCP remove it along with boosting until they found a viable way of making it worthwhile. I'm convinced the new system is better, but I'm not convinced at the expense it is going to have currently, and not convinced it's going to be a good solution for ongrid boosting. There are still things left to be desired, but let's see how those pan out in future parses. Sisi feedback will remain an important role. If not, well, let's just see more subscriptions dwindle. ___
Again to emphasize: If you keep on as planned, then please remove fleet size based skills and refund them. The boost speciality skills can stay. Unless you factor in diminishing returns or other reasons why fleet size has to cater to skill, you are hard pressed to find a reason NOT to refund.
___
Oh and lastly, two personal comments of mine; Many years ago my main was going for a command ship with the fleet boosts up front. Yes, Main. My goal was to boost the fleet while fighting in it, regardless of how very inefficient that was in the long run. Seeing this become more viable after all that time, warms my heart.
This does not change anything about command ships and the like being still kill on sight up there with logi. So no offense, but I doubt that any change to boosting will have those ships survive any longer or be of any less priority. Except you completely get rid of magical bard boosting. |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:37:02 -
[166] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism.
Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2650
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:37:33 -
[167] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here. Super links should be stronger than carrier links, carrier links in general should be as strong if not stronger than t3 links (jack of all trades master of none) and I think Command dessie links should (as a dedicated t2 specialist craft) be stronger than t3 links. Also the mod you're replacing the passive titan bonus with, we can't think of any one specific situation where we'd ever swap out a module on our titan for something that is beneficial to the enemy, probably want to go back to the drawing board. Every slot on a titan currently is like, at max value, there aren't any you'd trade from anywhere to anywhere so expecting Titan pilots to want to drop a mod from any slot at all to give a buff to the enemy fleet is silly Overall I like the changes, I just feel theres some spots that could use some help and or dont make sense
I agree. I'm trying to figure out what module I would have to drop from my Titan to make this new module fit. The new module would have to be absurdly good to justify using it versus a DD.
I can see the humor in dropping an Amarr Titan buff on a hostile shield kite gang, but that implies I have a Titan on grid against a shield kite gang, which is just laughably stupid.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1587
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:38:03 -
[168] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: 4. Hel if I know.
So call it 1 out of 4!
Promoting ice consumption I guess. And being able to switch to different types of boosts.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:38:26 -
[169] - Quote
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. |
Kyoko Sakoda
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Wrecking Machine.
275
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:38:28 -
[170] - Quote
Since I'm a very visual person who sometimes works on user experience stuff, I have fewer strong feelings about the bonuses and the numbers being provided and far more about the visuals that were displayed.
While there is some deviation in the textures used, they are mostly color palette changes, particularly when viewed from afar. This is important to keep but I feel it's quite lacking in clarity overall. The skyboxes in EVE are quite busy and also contribute to getting in the way of some of these effects.
Is there any way the VFX team can draw some lines between ships -- think the Empyrean Age trailer and Jamyl's superweapon -- such that there is a better visual indicator of which ships are being Linked? This would be helpful indicator for instance if an enemy ship is just outside the AOE range of the effect and doesn't get Linked.
Yes, a lot of people play the game zoomed way out, but I feel there should be visual information parity between close up visuals and more tactical camera focal lengths. |
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1062
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:38:45 -
[171] - Quote
Clifffitir Awik wrote: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. If they dont listen to us now, they will feel with when all us industrialists with multiple accounts unsub them and they cant take nice company vacations.
LOL. If I had a plex for every time I have heard "grr rawr we'll unsub and that will show you CCP!", I could play until the day I die and never have to spend a dime.
If you're that mad, then put your money where your mouth is - biomass.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2252
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:38:49 -
[172] - Quote
Espen Onzo wrote:Dear CCP
My only adresse to this matter is simply in the realm of faction warfare, how does one fleet booster boost his fleet in a say medium size plex. PLZ do not answer with command destroyers because you are going to add a extra question mark of viability to fleet fighting in medium size plexes, simply on the basis that command destroyers just dont have the ehp to survive a cruiser size fleet fight.
This makes ****-all sense, as both sides of the engagement would be similarly affected.
Furthermore, probably not so smart to primary a command dessie in that situation, at least not because of his boosts. They have a duration, and killing him won't remove them.
Maybe if you want to get the MJFG off the field, but for the boosts? Not so much.
It's pretty telling how utterly ******* broken the current boosting situation is when you can't even fathom how to play the game without them.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
385
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:39:32 -
[173] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism. Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that. Page 1.
Links fittable on Blops. Though I honestly don't really care all that much about getting links. I don't need them.
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.
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:39:34 -
[174] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Arrendis wrote: 4. Hel if I know.
So call it 1 out of 4!
Promoting ice consumption I guess. And being able to switch to different types of boosts. Yeah, people who run boosts are actually getting buffed in some ways by this change. Being able to change boosts on the fly is a really cool change which has made me interested in a system I previously considered boring and didn't want to dedicate an alt to.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:40:11 -
[175] - 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) |
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
350
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:40:50 -
[176] - Quote
A small mining fleet will generally depend on passive leadership skills for any boosts - it will usually make more sense to bring another barge than a dedicated boosting ship. For the combat links, the boosting ships can also fight - we need mining boosters that can also mine. I understand that there will be a new mining drone for the Rorqual but there is no indication this drone can be used by the Orca or Porpoise so they can contribute to the mining yield.
There can be no doubt that the elimination of system wide boosts from an AFK Rorqual pilot hiding behind a POS forcefield will hurt but some people will stop mining, other will harvest less and the price of ore will go up! |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
707
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:41:10 -
[177] - Quote
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? ^ Yeah.. what?
Could you get any more melodramatic.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Cade Windstalker
546
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:41:34 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer.
So, what's the interaction here with Suspect or Criminal ships?
Currently with Remote Repair or other forms of targeted remote assistance if you assist a suspect you become suspect yourself, does this mean that this won't apply to Command Bursts?
Have you considered running it off of the player's safety setting? So for example if Player A is in a fleet with players B, C, and D and D goes Suspect, then A activates their boost with a Green safety, you could make it so B and C get the boost but D doesn't and A remains non-flashy. On the other hand if A has a yellow safety and activates their boost while D is Suspect then B, C, and D all get the boost but because A boosted a Suspect player they go Suspect themselves. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
707
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:42:58 -
[179] - Quote
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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Solecist Project
32632
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:43:27 -
[180] - Quote
So much whining. So many passive aggressive cowards.
I like this change. ANYTHING that removes cowards from the game is a good thing.
Quote:Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills Apples and Oranges.
That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
8 Golden Rules of EVE
|
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
243
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:44:08 -
[181] - Quote
I'm surprised that nobody asked this, yet:
Will the Industrial Core still make the Rorqual immobile while running?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:44:15 -
[182] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Draconas109 wrote: 1. it's been in the game for how long? 2. if it's not broke, why change it 3. if it has to change, why add mining boosts to it? with being near a citadel, you have to still pay attention or die as you're not tethered, putting a rorqual in a null belt is just guaranteed death 4. in the name of jesus tap dancing ******* christ, why is there an ammo requirement taped to it?
how's that for reasons?
1. Inertia's not a reason. 2. It's pretty darn broke. 3. Mining boosts currently tether, allowing a rorqual to sit between the two spires atop an Astrahus in perfect safety. 4. Hel if I know. So call it 1 out of 4!
apparently you do boost and tether, my bad. you still have to pay attention for bumping |
Desiderya
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Wrecking Machine.
1121
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:44:31 -
[183] - Quote
Finally \o/
Some feedback on the devblog.
- Removing the bonuses you get from skills does not feel well. By all means, effective boosting and unlocking some effects should only be viable through using the proper setups but there are many situations where you can't fit a traditional boosting ship in but still want to provide some bonus to a fleet (or rather, gang) with the SP investment you have done. I assume this has been sacrificed to make the new boosting system mechanically possible.
- I was hoping to see these modules being available (unbonused) for all ships as the selection of destroyer, battlecruiser and capitals doesn't cover all types of gangs.
- The visual effects still look very, very similar. Also it would be nicer if you could also spot which type of ammunition is running.
- Suspect timer: The same rules that are in effect for neutral logistics should apply. If not you have someone sitting on a war target fleet in HS providing a lot of assistance and you can do little about it.
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:45:14 -
[184] - Quote
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.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Baltrom
The Congregation No Handlebars.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:02 -
[185] - Quote
im probably going to catch a fair amount of flak for this but id like to be the voice of the probably unpopular opinion that theses changes are not thought through. (also please excuse my possibly bad enlgish)
at the moment , there is nothing wrong with links , everyone in the game can use them equally . if you have the isk to plex an alt or the rl money , for links , anyone can do it and use them equally .
right , now theres people saying , oh wow , why do i need to have an alt to be on par with the bois that have link alts ? thats unfair.
well . you need alts for everything in this game , the newest launcher is even designed to make launching alts easier . you cant really mine without having an army of mining alts (if you want to be on par with the people that have mining alts), you cant use supers effectively unless you have alts sitting in them , some lowsec alliances only recruit people with capital alts , people camp gates with re sebo alts etc etc ... the entire alt argument is ******** in a game like eve . so, you want to have links ? get someone with a links alt . not really a big deal in my opinion.
2nd , i obviously have no clue how the new links ships are gonna be flown on a combat grid . but to me it seems as if the new mechanic gives even more power to the blob. eve is a game of n+1 , if you have more people , you are stronger . now forcing links on grid means that 2 equally skilled fleets , both having their links on grid and, depending on how the ships are gonna be flown , also in dps range of each other . now one of the fleets is actually a bit bigger , which is already an advantage , but to me it seems that the bigger fleet will not only have an easier time keeping their links alive , but also killing the enemy links ship which is going to put them at an even bigger disadvantage as they already are .
i might be wrong with everything i am saying , maybe i dont see the big picture . i also didnt read every single comment and dont know if my concerns have already been voiced by someone else.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2779
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:08 -
[186] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? It would also mean you can forget about any kind of kite meta because unless your boost ship is attached to your hip and able to keep up with you, your bonuses are gonna drop before you have a chance to get back into boost range. Thanks for the reply. Exactly this case I had in mind when proposing this change. It shall be unfeasible to use boosted ships in novice plexes.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:25 -
[187] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:I'm surprised that nobody asked this, yet:
Will the Industrial Core still make the Rorqual immobile while running? We won't know until November. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:31 -
[188] - 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. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:43 -
[189] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism. Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that. Page 1. Links fittable on Blops. Though I honestly don't really care all that much about getting links. I don't need them.
you can blobs bridge a T3 for links? |
Pandora Carrollon
Dawn of a New Horizon The Republic.
637
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:48:32 -
[190] - Quote
Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
These changes will happen all the time. I really don't have an issue with the idea as long as CCP also hears that the mining ships and such need their ships to be able to defend themselves. Flying a cheap disposable destroyer up, vaporizing a mining ship then losing it in some kind of cosmic suicide pact is not realistic at all. Miners should be able to fight as well and the rats should be almost as brutal as the players.
Mining SHOULD be a badge of honor, not derision. Miners should embrace these changes and the boosters for miners should actually charge for the service, a percent of the take, etc. But ORCA's, Rorq's etc. should be able to fend off 1-2 groups of sub caps all day long. Drop in a fleet of a half dozen or more ships, then it should be a reasonable fight.
Making mining active should make the game more fun, not less. Give it a chance and see what happens. If it is completely unworkable then it likely won't live long. However, what I think you'll find is that you'll have to figure out all the wrinkles and costs, but eventually it will re-balance out and need only some tweaking to make it work right.
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.
8 Golden Rules of EVE GÇó EVE is entirely PvP
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3560
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:49:01 -
[191] - Quote
two questions:
will the command burst buff apply to the buffing ship too? in other words: will the magus get a free "lets tank a bit better" button?
will the buff apply to cloaked ships in fleet? will be relevant if you want to use something like a rapier as surprise.
comments so far: - the main thing i dislike is that the buff does not go away if the command ship dies, IMO it should since it would make target calling more interesting.
- you should not be able to cloak the links right after the buff.
- i would like to see shorter cycle times, unless you are fine with linked garmurs in novice plexes tbh i would like to see you losing links entirely if you leave grid
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
596
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:49:37 -
[192] - Quote
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.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:49:50 -
[193] - Quote
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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2717
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:50:54 -
[194] - Quote
Nice change over all.
I am missing some information about how this will interact with crimewatch. Will it be possible to boost people with a limited engagement timer or criminal timer without going suspect or getting CONCORDED as well?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2691
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:52:06 -
[195] - Quote
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.
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.
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
596
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:52:24 -
[196] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? It would also mean you can forget about any kind of kite meta because unless your boost ship is attached to your hip and able to keep up with you, your bonuses are gonna drop before you have a chance to get back into boost range. Thanks for the reply. Exactly this case I had in mind when proposing this change. It shall be unfeasible to use boosted ships in novice plexes.
So your next request is that only 2 ships be allowed in a novice plex at a time... well that kinda defeats the whole point of FACTION WARFARE so I guess we're just gonna have to create "EVE BATTLEGROUNDS" the place where all risk adverse cry babies can go to get a fair fight. Special combat plexes w 2 ship limits and no boosts or implants allowed....
Daemun of Khanid
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:53:36 -
[197] - Quote
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 |
William Weatherwax
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
22
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:54:07 -
[198] - Quote
Quote: When a fleetmate is hit by the Command Burst, their ship will receive a timed bonus lasting between 60 and 130 seconds that continues to operate even if they move out of range, or if the boosting ship dies. The bonus persists through warps within a system, but does not persist through docking and undocking or through system changes. [...]
[...] Like existing warfare links, multiple copies of any given Command Burst bonus do not stack on top of each other. The Command Burst system will only apply the bonus from the strongest version of each Command Burst effect that is applied to any given ship.
Right now it is useless speculation but I wonder if the boost would persist when you drop fleet. Otherwise I would come with two boosters with separate fleets. Booster A fires, fleet changes to Booster B. Would that be still considered stacking?
Also, I wonder if you could overheat the module for some extra boost.
|
ArmyOfMe
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
601
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:54:44 -
[199] - Quote
Awesome that links are finally getting changed to ongrid, and for the most part im quite positive about this change. There is one issue i am worried about tho, and that is small/micro gangs of nano ships, that will be a heck of a lot more nerfed then other types of gangs.
A normal ahac, bs, or close range ship gang of any kind really will be able to stay close together the entire time, which will be great. Microgangs on the other hand depends a lot on individual pilots flying around, trying to spread out the hostiles. Having to do all this and having to go back and forth to the link ship because of the limited time of the buff will be a massive pain, and will mean that most of the gang will either be flying close to the link ship the entire time, or that the hostiles will swarm the link ship, making sure that the nano gang wont be able to get boosts.
ArmyOfMe wrote:
1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything.
baltec1 wrote:
We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly.
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:54:45 -
[200] - 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 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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1063
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:56:05 -
[201] - Quote
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.
Wait, maybe they could fit tank instead and become harder to gank.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2779
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:56:23 -
[202] - Quote
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
1256
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:57:05 -
[203] - Quote
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 |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
386
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:58:57 -
[204] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism. Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that. Page 1. Links fittable on Blops. Though I honestly don't really care all that much about getting links. I don't need them. you can blobs bridge a T3 for links? But then I'd need a dedicated bridger. Easier to just continue blopsing without links. It's not like we need them anyway.
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.
|
Jennifer Cho
Oberon Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:59:03 -
[205] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
596
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:59:04 -
[206] - Quote
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-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 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
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
565
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:04 -
[207] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? I'm not the only one not thrilled with this change if you'd spend 5 seconds looking at other posts and their likes going up. Because Forum Likes are how we judge good or bad ideas, right? Using a populist approach like that sure worked wonders for Sony Online Entertainment with their still massively successful game Planetside 2. Oh wait... Sarcasm aside, how many times have we seen people initially freak out in the Comments thread on the DevBlog and then those same people are playing the game months later, still bitching but not having left like they swore they were going to? **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently. Off-grid boosting was becoming a problem, and in the best case it represented yet another requirement for dedicated afk alts in order to be competetive. Is that really good design? Is that really the best way for people to have FUN in a game? Not being able to know if the small gang that your small gang just engaged with might have a fully tricked out Command Ship running Mindlink-buffed Warfare Links sitting in a safe? Let's not forget how many times in that DevBlog CCP reiterated that they are going to be changing aspects of that design proposal based on all the player feedback they get. If you don't like the changes, post suggestions for how you'd like them to work and stop just threatening to drop your subscription.
And yet they don't do anything about neutral boosters?
I fully accept that off grid boosting or neutral boosting in a battle scenario could be annoying as ****.
But how the hell did boosting 4 or 5 miners ever have any impact on a battle?
Why not leave the cycle/range/cap boost for Miners out of it, the only thing it achieves is a nerf (again) to mining, nothing else.
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.
|
yuma detog
Skyrock
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:24 -
[208] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:35 -
[209] - 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). |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:02:34 -
[210] - Quote
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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
|
Locke Erasmus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:03:42 -
[211] - Quote
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
2650
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:06:06 -
[212] - Quote
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
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2692
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:06:26 -
[213] - Quote
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.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
565
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:07:21 -
[214] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: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. Did you miss the part where it said they would be really small and the boosters would have large ammo capacities? It's not like you're going to have to micromanage the damned things. Sheesh.
Nope but you're going to have to sit there left clicking every 30-90s to keep the boost going...
Wait...is there an app for that ;)
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.
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
587
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:07:54 -
[215] - Quote
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
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
314
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:08:20 -
[216] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism. Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that. Page 1. Links fittable on Blops. Though I honestly don't really care all that much about getting links. I don't need them. you can blobs bridge a T3 for links? What he said.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
386
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:08:29 -
[217] - Quote
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 Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:08:47 -
[218] - Quote
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? 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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Sulvorati Kunoki
Sunstrike Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:08:57 -
[219] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3087
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:10:12 -
[220] - Quote
Does the range of the module apply from the ships center mass or its model edge? |
|
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:12:20 -
[221] - Quote
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 sch+Śner K+ńse"
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2692
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:17:06 -
[222] - Quote
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
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:18:16 -
[223] - Quote
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
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:18:21 -
[224] - Quote
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
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
567
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:18:21 -
[225] - 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.
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.
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:18:22 -
[226] - Quote
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.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
ZzyyzzxX
Another Nameless Corp....
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:21:34 -
[227] - Quote
Question about PVE interaction with rats and the on grid boosters, specifically relating to incursion running:
Will Sansha consider boosting ships to be high value targets (like ships being auto-primaried when ewar modules are activated in a site)?
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
713
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:23:09 -
[228] - Quote
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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2927
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:23:32 -
[229] - Quote
Good job Fozzie & Co. I love the short duration of boost coverage. I love that it is ammo (I imagine this will be similar to bubble probes) rather than scripts or discrete modules. I love that it doesn't endure across gates. I love that it can't be received while tethered or in a force field. I love that you are going can see the boost effects on ships that you are fighting (I hope this is visible enough to see easily). I love that Command Processors are becoming rigs. I especially love that it gives the boosting ship a weapons timer.
I really love that you have pencilled in a wrap-up dev blog. The Citadel changes are very unclear because the early dev blogs are thoroughly out of date.
The only thing I don't really like it that this approach will strongly encourage anchoring in fleets so that everyone catches the boost. I don't think this is the right design goal. Could it be limited to a certain number of recipients for each boost to either encourage a larger number of boosters for large fleets or a separation into wings? I don't know if that would be any better.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
DJB16
DJB Alpha
27
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:23:41 -
[230] - Quote
ok whats the range going to be on a BC Command ship with lvl 5 skills? incursion runners move alot and have different anchor points sometimes 50km apart |
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:23:58 -
[231] - Quote
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 |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1105
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:24:08 -
[232] - Quote
Sounds like FW needs on-grid boosting frigs and high sec war stuff needs a suspect timer.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:25:29 -
[233] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Does the range of the module apply from the ships center mass or its model edge?
luxury problems of titan pilots ;) |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1845
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:25:46 -
[234] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:apparently you do boost and tether, my bad. you still have to pay attention for bumping
And this is why you sit between the spires the 'hus, right down at the base of them. good luck getting bumped out when you'll just bounce off the structure back into your original position. |
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD Tactical Supremacy
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:27:09 -
[235] - Quote
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. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:32:51 -
[236] - 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.
1. no refund. 2. rorqual will get a huge buff to be on grid.
|
Residium Fall
box26
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:34:01 -
[237] - Quote
Thankyou for doing this. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:34:18 -
[238] - 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. |
Sulvorati Kunoki
Sunstrike Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:35:12 -
[239] - Quote
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. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2692
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:35:42 -
[240] - Quote
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.
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.
|
|
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 |
|
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD Tactical Supremacy
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:54:20 -
[271] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote: 1. no refund. 2. rorqual will get a huge buff to be on grid.
1) that's CCPlease for u 2) Yes buff is insta die cuz can't leave in siege mode. Or. Insta die whole fleet since now you can't move for duration of the panic button and neither can ur buddies. yay welps. Oh the huge buff, meaning
-43.88% maximum cycle bonus? And complete removal of mining yield bonus? Yeeee haw, great bonus. Remind me what existing max cycle bonus time is?
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:58:07 -
[272] - 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. |
Vic Vorlon
Aideron Robotics
58
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:58:58 -
[273] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Vic Vorlon wrote:This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!
Idea: ram the enemy boost ship, if you can't kill it, to get it out of position.
To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it. That's a surprisingly reasonable outlook for the Comments thread of a Dev Blog.
I'm a pretty chill guy :) I prefer to trust that CCP know what they're doing and wait to see how the game feels BEFORE grabbing my pitchfork and rabble-rabbling my way to the castle (where I expect to be ignored anyway). I know they sometimes make mistakes, but if I freaked out with every big change I'd take years off my life.
That said, I'm a line member of a smallish lowsec FW corp. I dabble in lots of different parts of the game (including mining now and then) and I don't min-max the hell out of any given portion. If bits of it change, I adjust my fits and try it out, or try something else. My enjoyment doesn't depend on playing one part of the game really, really "well".
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:59:24 -
[274] - 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. |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:02:53 -
[275] - Quote
Sassura wrote:
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'.
also this nails it +1 |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:04:38 -
[276] - 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. |
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
417
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:05:12 -
[277] - Quote
Took some time and thought about this one for a bit...
First off I am 100% in full agreement that all ships (yes mining ones too) should have to be on grid or in a belt to provide boosts. I do also like the simplicity of the new system - not having to worry about hierarchy in a fleet and whether or not the boost is working or not is a good change.
I also like the idea of having the boosts use ammo/fuel - just a note CCP - if this can be done please apply this to cloaks - you want everyone to stop afk boosting then stop afk cloaking by making them use ammo/fuel.
I think that the only issues I am having are with the mining changes. There is one direct change - being in a belt - and as I said above we need to get over that and move on.
However the range that the boosts are provided is I think a major issue. Here's why: Current gameplay - boosts are provided system wide - many new corps/starter corps and CASMA provide newbros with boosts and advice by providing an often free service of boosting their mining. When doing this you often have large sized fleets where having everyone in one belt would simply be daft....players often spread out over several belts in a system. This new system will prohibit that. I started EvE many moons ago, and it was groups like CASMA that kept me playing and interested and eventually hooked up with some friends who took me to the stars in null. I think the range change on the mining boost may end the days of some of these awesome starter entities that imho have kept more people than some other things I have seen in the game. I still support that the booster should have to be on grid/in a belt/anom but i think the mining boost should apply system wide or perhaps within x AU vs km ranges. I am not sure how you can do this maybe tie the mining booster to have to be within x kilometers from a asteroid/anom belt beacon of some sort so they are not off in some safe doing what they do now.
2nd there is a subtle nerf here by the elimination of the passive boosts. Currently no mining fleet has a t3 or command ship included to provided armor/shield boosts we get that from the years of skilling up that the fleet booster did. Again as I said above i do like the simplicity of the change - but will there be an adjustment/balancing of mining ships to offset the loss of this? Mining barges are already weak (proc/skiff class excepted) your now removing 1000s of ehp from them with this change - this may drive even more people to use one class of ship - defeating your goal of having some balance within the class.
Thats it for now, as I said changes overall are reasonable, and we all just need to take a big breath, put our big space panties on and say okay on grid its happening, we have been warned for years.
Cheers ~R~ |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1257
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:07:00 -
[278] - 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? 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?
there aren't any stacking penalties on hp increases at the moment, even though there really should be |
Don Trust
Bucket of Blood
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:07:31 -
[279] - Quote
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 |
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:07:37 -
[280] - Quote
After receiving some mental help from my friends and reading through this thread i'm now ready to provide a more detailed feedback.
1. This is a huge kick in a sensitive area for all miners. Assuming Rorq will be unable to move while Industrial Core is active it makes 3bn ship just a sitting duck with a very marginal profit. Having atleast as many boosting ships and toons as the number of belts your community wants to mine doesn't help either.
2. Home defence in 0.0. Usually attacking fleets are larger than defending due the schedule on one side and lack of there of on another. This change will degrade that part of the game.
3. FW. It is as it is, who's got the bigger numbers wins, pretty much the same goes for larger fleet fights. Those communities will be able to spare someone to this new role.
4. Incursions. In some cases this change can even help by increasing EHP of each fleet member, though on a larger scale this is a decrease in fleet DPS.
5. War-dec. As it is there might be an issue with neutral alts boosting fleets. This needs to be looked at.
Overrall i think there are some massive issues with the whole idea.
A. Too small base area of effect, especially for mining and cap fleet engagements.
B. Another case of taking away something that ship already had and offering it as a module. Yes, i'm talking about titans.
C. Not refunding SP after taking away passive skill bonus seems wrong. Although in 6 years i had so much of that on all my toons i could probably make another supercap pilot out of that ammount of SP. I'm well over my rage on that point.
D. People owning boosting toons usually don't just go AFK. They have stuff to do, forcing more activity on them will result in abandoning one thing or another. My guess is that they'll abandon more boring thing to do and "smatbombing" fleet members once in a minute or two is an obvious choice.
I agree, existing system is not great, but there are player communities build upon it. Ruining them somehow seems not a good idea.
On the last note, i want to mention all that "cry me a river" motive in this thread. From my gaming experience that aproach to other people's feelings and thoughts leads only to one thing: your dreams will also get wrecked someday and what you'll get is the same "i love your tears". |
|
Nicemeries
23
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:09:22 -
[281] - Quote
In before battle Rorqs hit the invul timer! Jump Rorqs now! |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:13:59 -
[282] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:Took some time and thought about this one for a bit...
... I also like the idea of having the boosts use ammo/fuel - just a note CCP - if this can be done please apply this to cloaks - you want everyone to stop afk boosting then stop afk cloaking by making them use ammo/fuel. ... yes mate, another strong point that is a must have change +1 |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2651
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:14:03 -
[283] - 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? 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?
Yes, this is exactly how it works.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2651
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:15:44 -
[284] - Quote
Rowells wrote: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
It's the same as it is now, just at applied differently.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
570
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:04 -
[285] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote: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.
Finished trolling yet idiot? BTW, it just saved me 2.2 bil plus fittings :)
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.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:10 -
[286] - 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 :(. |
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
200
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:49 -
[287] - Quote
There's a few important details missing.
- Will the bursting ship receive the same benefits? It would appear not.
- Will the bursts use similar rules to remote reps as far as inheriting and gaining flags is concerned? If not, why not?
- You liken the module to a smartbomb, will they be restricted in the same way regarding activation near gates and stations?
- Will there be an overlap between cycle time and reload time to allow for buff juggling? If the aim is to encourage active gameplay, this should be a possibility. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
714
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:25:48 -
[288] - Quote
Will all these bonuses apply to capital ships?
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
404
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:28:39 -
[289] - Quote
it is absolutely mind boggling how seagull allows this kind of work done by folks who have zero knowledge about industry.
prepare for epic market disruptions in November. |
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
187
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:40:06 -
[290] - Quote
One question only:
what defined the decision to make the "ammo" for the burst module to be crafted from ice products? why not PI or regular minerals?
|
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:44:22 -
[291] - Quote
Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:50:23 -
[292] - Quote
When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE.
While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log.
This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus.
This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
575
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:53:20 -
[293] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful.
From the dev blog:
"Unlike Command Bursts, Effect Generators impact ALL ships within their defined area (friend or foe)." |
Ristari
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:00:27 -
[294] - Quote
Getting boosts on grid is a good thing, but do we really need to have 3 separate (and very SP intensive) skills for increasing burst radius? 5,376,000 SP in this alone, which would be just about 3 times the amount you put into range support skills for EW.
Considering the skills changed from giving you the ability to boost larger groups to a range increase that even small scale boosters will want, I'd say do away with the fleet command skill, and just have its benefits applied to the remaining two skills. |
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
419
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:00:59 -
[295] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
omg...i liked a goon post
what is the world coming to ..... |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
590
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:01:22 -
[296] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking. The Rorqual still receives better boosts outside of its siege mode than does the Orca.
Fit a Higgs rig to the Rorqual, drop it in a belt, and align out at 75% speed. You'll be outpaced by a snail, so you'll be able to stay in range of your mining fleet, and because you're aligned and most certainly not AFK, you can warp out just as soon as a hostile shows up in your system or intel channels.
I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense.
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).
The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
406
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:01:29 -
[297] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Zappity wrote:Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful. From the dev blog: "Unlike Command Bursts, Effect Generators impact ALL ships within their defined area (friend or foe)."
so that means you're boosting everyone?? or shall i say... errrrrrrybody near you will get impacted by boost rings?
im simply amazed at the thought process this took and how incredibly their blogs makes things even more confusing to even understand.. no wonder they wait forever to release a dev blog these days. it hurts my head to think what the fawk are they saying? |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
431
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:01:32 -
[298] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
It's mechanical. Keeping in current OGB for mining means that all the code for OGB and their relation to fleets/wings/squads has to stay in AND those corresponding skills must maintain their current use as well as the corresponding modules. That makes no sense from a game design and coding perspective.
The positive effect depends on your perspective. You may not view it as positive that your invulnerable bonuses are coming to an end, but the overall game health could certainly be positively impacted by 1) content creation resulting from boosting ships being on grid. 2) competitive advantages from groups that refuse to use on grid boots vs. other groups that do. You do not have to give kill mails by simply not risking your ships but then you also lose the advantage those boosts provide. Contrast this with the current environment where basically everyone has mining boosts offering no gameplay distinction at all and tell me what the true value is there?
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:02:16 -
[299] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Looks really good, with one extremely glaring exception.
What was the justification for reducing Command Ships from three Links to two, other than forcing gangs to bring multiples?
Or was this just a typo?
Yeah, that is the main thing I'm kinda "eh" about... that means that all command ships will have 2 links by default and with 1 "command processor" rig 3 links and with 2 "command processor" rigs 4 links... and... command burst modules, I mean, not links. heh.
Though people will probably still call them links, really. or maybe "bursts".
Anyway... that means all command ships will be limited to 4 of the modules in their highslots no matter if they're 7 or 6 high slot ships... (really feel like a limit of 5 would be better than 4... 3 by default + 1 per each rig = 5 total max)... But it's very hard to react to this fully without knowing how the 8 command ships themselves will be changed and rebalanced (blog #3 will have more details on this, sounds like). I hope they have some major buffs to tank and damage/application to make up for the reduced amount of boosting each one can do + the whole needing to be on grid almost all the time part.
Though I DO look forward to no midslots taken up by command processors and no lowslots taken up by CPU modules bit that seems to be coming as well... the fitting costs for the new modules better either be low to begin with, or all (subcap) ships that can fit them should have role bonuses to reduce the fitting or something. The days of the 6 or 7 link booster will be dead, but at least the two rep-related links of both armor and shield are being condensed into one ammo type (that is good). |
Jeinvay Kunsu
Dot.Inc TRUE VINE
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:03:27 -
[300] - Quote
As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. |
|
ZzyyzzxX
Another Nameless Corp....
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:08:13 -
[301] - Quote
Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree.
Thank you Mr. forum troll, your criticism provides so much insight into how things might need to be tweaked, in order to provide a better fit for the player base who DO actually fly logistics/support roles. |
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
504
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:11:08 -
[302] - Quote
Very happy to be back
@lunettelulu7
|
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:12:06 -
[303] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:
The Rorqual still receives better boosts outside of its siege mode than does the Orca.
Fit a Higgs rig to the Rorqual, drop it in a belt, and align out at 75% speed. You'll be outpaced by a snail, so you'll be able to stay in range of your mining fleet, and because you're aligned and most certainly not AFK, you can warp out just as soon as a hostile shows up in your system or intel channels.
I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense.
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).
The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.[/quote]
No. A perfect Orca booster out performs a perfect non-sieged Rorqual. Thus no point to run the Rorq unless you have a immobilized it and put it at significant risk for 5 mins.
If you don't understand the outcry, I guess the hold/cancellation on the last POS boosting changes escaped your attention.
I agree with additional risk vs. reward. They were talking about giving the Rorqual capital mining drones and that would be an incentive to get Rorqs into the belts. But that's and additional feature, not a replacement. They need to give the Rorq additional incentives to get them to come out. Not turn them into PVP/Defense death pinatas. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
407
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:12:09 -
[304] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking. The Rorqual still receives better boosts outside of its siege mode than does the Orca. Fit a Higgs rig to the Rorqual, drop it in a belt, and align out at 75% speed. You'll be outpaced by a snail, so you'll be able to stay in range of your mining fleet, and because you're aligned and most certainly not AFK, you can warp out just as soon as a hostile shows up in your system or intel channels. I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense. 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). The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.
Its too easy to kill a rorqual on grid.. especially with the use of cloaky campers in the system (which will spot the anon/belts) which simply could tell a friend to (drop drag bubble aligned to the station/citadel). needless to say the hotdroppers will easily jump in and tackle the ship with what ever they have so its dead in the water, meanwhile the pilot in a panick could hit is "captain savior mod" which locks him and all his miner buddies (ones who could have reshipped but no they're stuck like chuck as well) into place to provide even more supper for the ganking beasties....
this is just a bad idea, of course those will say join a greater alliance/coalition (which i think is the main agenda to force consolidation) but thats no longer making this side of the game a sandbox now is it? Null mining has standing fleets to defend its sov not miners 24/7 every ganker knows this, every camper knows this, everyone in null knows their miners most of them avoid pvp like the plague.. this entire motive came up by nothing but folks who want to kill miners and basically gank easy targets.
null mining is ruined, its totally ruined, plus what they did to the rorqual puts her even in a worse place than ever before.. they honestly think some funky looking miner-fighter drones plus this woooshaaa command burst boost crap will be enough to save her.. nooo not at all.. they just provided juicy targets for those with the end-game capital ships thats all.
a friend once chatted with me once and said "i wish they'd give the rorqual a weapon that if it was able to lock onto a cap ship it could suck it in and refine it in one cycle, that'll put fear into cap/super/titan pilots atleast!"...i think he's right, but of course fozzie would never do that cause it hurts his friends and makes too much risk vs reward balanced. |
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
22
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:17:41 -
[305] - Quote
My 2 Cents:
First - the orca has long been more then just a mining boosting ship. For instance, there has been or was considerable emergent game play centered around the use of hot swapping ships from orcas. So why limit the orca bonus to mining boosts? Why not make it more generic? The orca certainly would not supplant command ships since there are significant differences between the two, but by giving a more generic command ship like bonus to the orca, ccp would be encouraging emergent game play with the orca and certainly there is nothing wrong with encouraging the use of orcas in combat situations.
Second - the burst gives a weapons timer but does it also give a limited engagement timer? How does all of this interact with crime watch? If you are boosting and someone goes criminal will you get concorded? Will gate and station guns shoot you? Can other players shoot the booster?
Third - while the proposed method seems like a good thing from the perspective of fleet combat - it strikes me that this will have a negative effect on solo and ultra small grp play. Right now boosting is usually done by an alt - which a player pays a minimum of attention to. The boosting allows for force multipliers so that solo and very small grps can engage larger grps to greater effect. Now with a booster having to be actively on grid, it will be vastly more difficult for solo and small grps to juggle the boosting alt, reducing their effectiveness immensely. As a result where players in the past would have taken certain fights even though outnumber, they may very well pass up these fights in the future. In short, these changes reinforce blob size being the ultimate trump card in solo and micro small grp game play.
Finally - why does the orca not get a smaller version of the immunity burst that the roquel gets? |
Jeinvay Kunsu
Dot.Inc TRUE VINE
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:19:12 -
[306] - Quote
ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. Thank you Mr. forum troll, your criticism provides so much insight into how things might need to be tweaked, in order to provide a better fit for the player base who DO actually fly logistics/support roles.
I like to think my 'criticism' is a summary of the feelings of the majority: Good Idea, bad execution. Really bad.
But if it really makes you happy, here's a real simple suggestion: If CCP REALLY wants to change how one initiates boosts, make the modules use scripts, not ammo that needs to be reloaded. That way, at least we can stop wondering what'll happen to a borderline dead ship that suddenly loses HP boosts due to the boosting ship having to reload the ammo to keep the boost going.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:19:43 -
[307] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Looks really good, with one extremely glaring exception.
What was the justification for reducing Command Ships from three Links to two, other than forcing gangs to bring multiples?
Or was this just a typo?
It's because two of the old link abilities for the Armor, Siege/Shield, and Informmation links has been combined into a single burst, meaning a new command ship with two bursts can provide the exact same kind of buffs as an old command ship with three links.
Eg, Damage Control and Rapid Repair link abilities are now provided by the Rapid Repair command burst on its own.
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
715
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:21:56 -
[308] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote: The Rorqual still receives better boosts outside of its siege mode than does the Orca.
Fit a Higgs rig to the Rorqual, drop it in a belt, and align out at 75% speed. You'll be outpaced by a snail, so you'll be able to stay in range of your mining fleet, and because you're aligned and most certainly not AFK, you can warp out just as soon as a hostile shows up in your system or intel channels.
I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense.
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).
The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.
No. A perfect Orca booster out performs a perfect non-sieged Rorqual. Thus no point to run the Rorq unless you have a immobilized it and put it at significant risk for 5 mins. Nope, check your maths.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
A Nony Mouse
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:22:34 -
[309] - Quote
Ok, so the modules take ammo, how about making them some sort of "boost probe launchers", which can be fired at friendly fleet mates, or perhaps any lockable target (instant effect, so no travel time), and the range effect applies where the charge detonates rather than just around the command ship (perhaps two ammo types, local and remote versions, maybe with different strengths so remote are ~25% weaker).
This works as currently designed for bulky fleet combat, but for kiting doctrines, you don't need the boosts to keep up, for nano gangs, you can split up a little more. It allows you to apply buffers to brawlers orbiting a target at zero, but still requires the command ship to be on grid and within target range.
It also allows for negative effects to be add which could be fired at opposing ships, and generally increases the activity and engagement of the booster while allowing for more interesting battles (who doesn't want a buffing/nerfing mage in EVE, then if we could just carry swords and move this game planetside...) |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
591
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:22:35 -
[310] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote: No. A perfect Orca booster out performs a perfect non-sieged Rorqual. Thus no point to run the Rorq unless you have a immobilized it and put it at significant risk for 5 mins.
If you don't understand the outcry, I guess the hold/cancellation on the last POS boosting changes escaped your attention.
That's the current set-up. Look over the dev blog again. The Orca is going to have a 3% per level base, the Rorqual will have a 4% per level base for mining and an additional 3% per level base for shields. Industrial Cores will then boost the Rorqual's boosts further (+25% for T1, +30% for T2).
In other words, the Rorqual is getting a 1% higher boost strength for mining over the Orca when not using its Core.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
576
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:27:53 -
[311] - Quote
Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:But if it really makes you happy, here's a real simple suggestion: If CCP REALLY wants to change how one initiates boosts, make the modules use scripts, not ammo that needs to be reloaded. That way, at least we can stop wondering what'll happen to a borderline dead ship that suddenly loses HP boosts due to the boosting ship having to reload the ammo to keep the boost going. My impression from CCP's vague statements on the boosting ammo is that the ammo will be small enough and burst modules have enough capacity that you'll be able to provide boosts for several hours without having to reload.
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
160
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:27:54 -
[312] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful.
both |
big miker
Syndicate Enterprise Northern Coalition.
485
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:29:43 -
[313] - Quote
Awesome changes, I love it!
There's just one small concern I have about tech 3 Cruisers. I have a feeling they can still be somewhat used safely.
Let's consider the Tengu for this example.
[Tengu, New Setup 1] Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator Co-Processor II Inertial Stabilizers II
Command Processor I Command Processor I 'Thurifer' Large Cap Battery 'Thurifer' Large Cap Battery Cap Recharger II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II [empty high slot] Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot]
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II COMMAND RIG COMMAND RIG
Tengu Defensive - Warfare Processor Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
If you add mid-grade ascendacy implants to this fit it'll do 6.2 au/s. Yeah that's all great and all but what's the issue with that? Every 60 / 130 seconds you warp in the Tengu with a alt. You align out with the cloaking device running. Deactivate cloaking device, hit link buffs and warp off to a safespot.
It's almost uncatchable since you'll be able to instantly warp it out after decloaking. Not to mention it's nullified so bubbles won't be a issue at all. Blog also mentioned link buffs will require alot of capacitor, which will be no problem for t3c at all ( yay cap battery's ).
I've got 2 proposals: 1: Proposal one is to make it impossible for tech 3 cruisers to use the nullification subsystem together with the warfare processor subsystem. 2: Penalize the link buff ship for 10 / 15 seconds not being able to warp.
Let me know what you guys think! Other than that, very very stoked about the changes!!!
Latest video: Ferocious 9.0 - Vertical Supremacy
Nano Naglfar!
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
433
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:31:04 -
[314] - Quote
Great stuff CCP. It took you long enough, but it really looks good. Thanks from all us true solo pilots out there!
And you gotta love the whine in here. The current boosting mechanics where ****, good riddance it's finally removed! |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
407
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:31:06 -
[315] - Quote
In other words, the Rorqual is getting a 1% higher boost strength for mining over the Orca when not using its Core.[/quote]
no disrespect to you at all winter so please do not take it that way
but a 1% difference between a capital ship and a sub capital ship.. is just total bullchit and someone who came up with those figures didn't even bother to look at the price difference between the two ships. "oh hey spend 2.2bn+ for an extra measly 1% difference"..that guy must wear plaid panties.
what i dont understand is how they seemingly want the rorqual to be held back from having a lot of power in its own industry? its a capital industrial ship.. why not give it full meaning of why its capital indy ship and not just some transformer that blows fire out of its head? |
Sulvorati Kunoki
Sunstrike Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:32:13 -
[316] - Quote
Seems to me that combat boosts and mining boosts should be a separate thing, because fundamentally they do different things. You do still have to train different skills though so I'm unsure why they should remain linked in any way. |
Wayne Caderu
New Eden Scallywags The WeHurt Initiative
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:32:39 -
[317] - Quote
Didn't think of this, but this is most certainly an issue.
big miker wrote:Awesome changes, I love it!
There's just one small concern I have about tech 3 Cruisers. I have a feeling they can still be somewhat used safely.
Let's consider the Tengu for this example.
[Tengu, New Setup 1] Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator Co-Processor II Inertial Stabilizers II
Command Processor I Command Processor I 'Thurifer' Large Cap Battery 'Thurifer' Large Cap Battery Cap Recharger II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II [empty high slot] Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot]
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II COMMAND RIG COMMAND RIG
Tengu Defensive - Warfare Processor Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
If you add mid-grade ascendacy implants to this fit it'll do 6.2 au/s. Yeah that's all great and all but what's the issue with that? Every 60 / 130 seconds you warp in the Tengu with a alt. You align out with the cloaking device running. Deactivate cloaking device, hit link buffs and warp off to a safespot.
It's almost uncatchable since you'll be able to instantly warp it out after decloaking. Not to mention it's nullified so bubbles won't be a issue at all. Blog also mentioned link buffs will require alot of capacitor, which will be no problem for t3c at all ( yay cap battery's ).
I've got 2 proposals: 1: Proposal one is to make it impossible for tech 3 cruisers to use the nullification subsystem together with the warfare processor subsystem. 2: Penalize the link buff ship for 10 / 15 seconds not being able to warp.
Let me know what you guys think! Other than that, very very stoked about the changes!!!
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3909
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:33:27 -
[318] - Quote
CCP: I recommend you release the ammo BPOs a few weeks ahead of the major release.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
599
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:34:01 -
[319] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:
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.
It's not a question of being able to fly the ships but even if it were just because you had leadership V that doesn't mean you can fly a command ship. But more importantly someone who trained a skill that required no specific ship or module shouldn't be forced to fly a specific ship/module to get use out of a skill they trained without those restrictions. A person doesn't just train basic leadership skills so they can be a link pilot flying a t3 cruiser they train them so they can command small gangs and fleets and get bonuses no matter what ship they are flying. This change says "well, if you want to get anything out of the skills that you've already devoted time training then you will be a boost ship" or "you can pay us to extract your skills and you can put the sp towards something that you'll actually use."
If you can't figure out the analogy that's your intellectual deficiency and not my fault but I'll break it down for you anyway. Player plays monthly fee which allows them to train a skill. (Consumer buys a guy that drives just fine and runs on gas like any other)
After making your purchase CCP says sorry but that skill doesn't do that any more. (Consumer is told they can't buy gas anymore)
CCP says BUT if you fly fleet boost focused ships and used fleet boost modules you'll still get use of your skills (Car dealer says, you can drive your care on these special roads and it'll work just fine)
CCP says you can always buy extractors from us and redistribute your sp (Car dealer say, you can by this special upgrade and drive wherever you want)
Understand now? They sell you a product, then decide after the fact that the product you paid for is no longer going to perform the task that you intended it for when you paid for it. They then try to upsell you more products just so you can get the same benefit from your purchase that you already paid for. More commonly referred to as a scam.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Hal Morsh
Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem
542
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:36:22 -
[320] - Quote
I remember buffs in mmos.
I got kicked from a guild for buffing someone kicking someone elses ass.
Besides, you don't HAVE to fly command ships people, don't get so butthurt because you must put your link alts on field.
Omar Alharazaad > Pretty much any time you blow something up in space it's bound to annoy someone or something.
|
|
Rualan
Chiron Industries
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:38:33 -
[321] - Quote
So the Rorqual will now be OFFICIALLY KILLED BY CCP, figures!!!
RORQUAL on GRID will always = a DEAD RORQUAL!
Will extract ALL Fleet bonus SP for industrial BOOSTS and re-purpose my Rorqual as POS MAINT JF until death by reprocessing |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:40:08 -
[322] - Quote
It's going to take awhile for CCP to recover from the loss of Revenue. Very pro-pvp change but does not take into account that all the targets will be gone.
Not saying that it's a bad change for players but it is an incredibly terrible change for CCP
1. Cancel four accounts 2. reprocess all industrial related ships and modules 3. Reprocess of all leadership and command skill related modules and ships 4. Extract usesless skill points 5. Sell all and buy plexes for remaining accounts |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3089
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:40:16 -
[323] - 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. |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
592
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:40:37 -
[324] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote: but a 1% difference between a capital ship and a sub capital ship.. is just total bullchit and someone who came up with those figures didn't even bother to look at the price difference between the two ships. "oh hey spend 2.2bn+ for an extra measly 1% difference"..that guy must wear plaid panties.
The Porpoise is going to be a Battlecruiser (so far as I understand), and receives a 1% boost. The Orca, roughly 12-14x the cost of a BC, gives a 3% boost. The Rorqual, a 3-4x cost of an Orca, gives a 4% boost. Even if you took ISK as the sole balancing factor, a 1% boost for a 3-4x cost is significantly better than a 2% boost for 12-14x cost.
ISK isn't the only balancing factor (and isn't a good one, even when it gets used as one). The Rorqual isn't going to be getting only a 1% boost to mining. It's also receiving a 3% per level boost to shields.
If the desire is for the Rorqual's boosts to be improved for mining, be prepared to sacrifice that boost for shields. Neverminding the issue that we don't know the full changes for the Rorqual yet, nor what's going to be happening with fighter-sized miners.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Hal Morsh
Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem
542
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:43:18 -
[325] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:It's going to take awhile for CCP to recover from the loss of Revenue. Very pro-pvp change but does not take into account that all the targets will be gone.
Not saying that it's a bad change for players but it is an incredibly terrible change for CCP
1. Cancel four accounts 2. reprocess all industrial related ships and modules 3. Reprocess of all leadership and command skill related modules and ships 4. Extract usesless skill points 5. Sell all and buy plexes for remaining accounts
More money for my ores, tyvm.
Omar Alharazaad > Pretty much any time you blow something up in space it's bound to annoy someone or something.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3910
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:43:31 -
[326] - Quote
Jeinvay Kunsu wrote: But if it really makes you happy, here's a real simple suggestion: If CCP REALLY wants to change how one initiates boosts, make the modules use scripts, not ammo that needs to be reloaded. That way, at least we can stop wondering what'll happen to a borderline dead ship that suddenly loses HP boosts due to the boosting ship having to reload the ammo to keep the boost going.
My guess is given this: " Base module reload time: 1 minute (reduced by skills and ship bonuses) Base Command Burst AoE range: 15km (increased by skills and ship bonuses) Base bonus duration: 1 minute (increased by skills, implants and ship bonuses)"
The reload time, with skills, will be less than the bonus duration. So, once you hear "The module has run out of charges" you will have a few seconds to reload and restart the booster, and still keep up continuous boosts.
But, CCP: What does happen when armor or shields go below zero due to loss of a boost?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1593
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:46:49 -
[327] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote: The Rorqual still receives better boosts outside of its siege mode than does the Orca.
Fit a Higgs rig to the Rorqual, drop it in a belt, and align out at 75% speed. You'll be outpaced by a snail, so you'll be able to stay in range of your mining fleet, and because you're aligned and most certainly not AFK, you can warp out just as soon as a hostile shows up in your system or intel channels.
I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense.
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).
The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.
No. A perfect Orca booster out performs a perfect non-sieged Rorqual. Thus no point to run the Rorq unless you have a immobilized it and put it at significant risk for 5 mins. If you don't understand the outcry, I guess the hold/cancellation on the last POS boosting changes escaped your attention. I agree with additional risk vs. reward. They were talking about giving the Rorqual capital mining drones and that would be an incentive to get Rorqs into the belts. But that's and additional feature, not a replacement. They need to give the Rorq additional incentives to get them to come out. Not turn them into PVP/Defense death pinatas.
It's too early to start speculating about how the Rorq is going to be balanced in November. Personally I see the issue with running the core in a belt and locking yourself in for at least 5 minutes. In that respect the most fair trade off, IMO, would be to remove the sieging aspect of using the industrial core and increase the fuel cost per cycle. Keep it mobile at all times but make each 5 minute cycle cost 500k to 1m in fuel.
Either way, I guess we'll see what CCP has planned. I dare assume they'll present their plans for feedback well in advance and that they have actually thought the belt part through. Time will tell.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Longdrinks
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
247
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:48:53 -
[328] - Quote
Looks like ill finish my boosting skills just in time for this |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
600
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:48:53 -
[329] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:It's going to take awhile for CCP to recover from the loss of Revenue. Very pro-pvp change but does not take into account that all the targets will be gone.
Not saying that it's a bad change for players but it is an incredibly terrible change for CCP
1. Cancel four accounts 2. reprocess all industrial related ships and modules 3. Reprocess of all leadership and command skill related modules and ships 4. Extract usesless skill points 5. Sell all and buy plexes for remaining accounts
Extractors for all that sp cost $$. As do the plex that you use that isk for to plex your remaining accounts. They may lose money over time due to a reduction in multi-account usage for link alts but they'll get a boost of income for the extractors, they always have and will continue to make even better money off plex than account subs and some ppl like myself will continue to fly multiple accounts they'll just be combat piloting them. Not as easy as sitting afk at a safe obviously but possible.
And cancel 4 accounts? Who's running 4 link alts and why is that a mining thing?
Daemun of Khanid
|
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
51
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:50:52 -
[330] - Quote
Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.
Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.
Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
|
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
841
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:54:54 -
[331] - Quote
I kinda hope you don't screw the Orca pilots royally...like myself who love and live in an Orca.
I'm curious on this new Porpoise ship. I don't see how a new ship is needed where a revamp of the Orca could fix this. But, a new ship is a new ship...just don't screw it up! |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:55:53 -
[332] - Quote
ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. Thank you Mr. forum troll, your criticism provides so much insight into how things might need to be tweaked, in order to provide a better fit for the player base who DO actually fly logistics/support roles.
haha, this player base of logi and support roles is small my friend... lets do a rough guessing not ment to be precise yet pictorial - say 10% of player chars do regular pvp and of these less then 10% are doing logi and therefore support role - I dont think you can agrue with that little amount of people 1or2 out of 100
|
Galaxy Mule
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:56:25 -
[333] - Quote
As someone who doesn't use or care about this feature, HA! |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2780
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:56:47 -
[334] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:it is absolutely mind boggling how seagull allows this kind of work done by folks who have zero knowledge about industry.
prepare for epic market disruptions in November. Can you elaborate, I want to be prepared?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
139
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:00:54 -
[335] - Quote
At the least I'd like to see the Leadership range bonuses flipped (4%/5%/6% rather than 6%/5%/4%). Wing Command and Fleet Command cost additional time to train and should carry more significant payoffs as a result. This carries well with the logical fact that a fleet or wing will generally spread out more than a squad and thus need more range to hit them all. |
ZzyyzzxX
Another Nameless Corp....
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:00:58 -
[336] - Quote
Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. Thank you Mr. forum troll, your criticism provides so much insight into how things might need to be tweaked, in order to provide a better fit for the player base who DO actually fly logistics/support roles. I like to think my 'criticism' is a summary of the feelings of the majority: Good Idea, bad execution. Really bad. But if it really makes you happy, here's a real simple suggestion: If CCP REALLY wants to change how one initiates boosts, make the modules use scripts, not ammo that needs to be reloaded. That way, at least we can stop wondering what'll happen to a borderline dead ship that suddenly loses HP boosts due to the boosting ship having to reload the ammo to keep the boost going.
I think the reason they are opting for ammo rather than a script is to make the player running boosts remain actively engaged with the fleet. If they were scripts, they wouldn't really need to be monitored. I think a compromise to this could be a destructible script akin to a laser crystal (i.e. runs up to 1000 times until depleted, with a proportionate chance of "breaking" and requiring replacement). |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:03:05 -
[337] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer?
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.
Just for the gameplay and the deeper meaning of flying in space, EVE is unique and wonderfully we love it, yet I never seen any movie or read a fiction that tells a story about a bonus applied by amunition shoot in space - its so unlogical as a cat.
Scripted, yes, or lets say smartbombs kind of enhancing waves but please no launching magic bombs, rockets whatever "...beam me up scotti" |
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
52
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:05:31 -
[338] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote: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?
|
Borat Guereen
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
66
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:05:48 -
[339] - Quote
With an initial range (before skill modifiers) of 15km for the radius you are restricting the usage of burst to the current FC anchor tactic, and limiting the development of new, more independent, fleet tactics.
If my calculations are correct (please tell if they are not...) with skills (-/L5/W5/F5) the AOE range will be 15km/18.5km/22.2km/26.6km, doubled with command ship to a max of 53km or so.
Please consider increasing the burst range to around 80-100km with max skills only.
Do not kill new emerging fleet tactics and force all the fleets to anchor with this new AOE range...
Join our Minarchist Revolution!
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
140
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:05:56 -
[340] - Quote
ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. Thank you Mr. forum troll, your criticism provides so much insight into how things might need to be tweaked, in order to provide a better fit for the player base who DO actually fly logistics/support roles. I like to think my 'criticism' is a summary of the feelings of the majority: Good Idea, bad execution. Really bad. But if it really makes you happy, here's a real simple suggestion: If CCP REALLY wants to change how one initiates boosts, make the modules use scripts, not ammo that needs to be reloaded. That way, at least we can stop wondering what'll happen to a borderline dead ship that suddenly loses HP boosts due to the boosting ship having to reload the ammo to keep the boost going. I think the reason they are opting for ammo rather than a script is to make the player running boosts remain actively engaged with the fleet. If they were scripts, they wouldn't really need to be monitored. I think a compromise to this could be a destructible script akin to a laser crystal (i.e. runs up to 1000 times until depleted, with a proportionate chance of "breaking" and requiring replacement).
My biggest concern with the ammo is, I'm assuming that it'll be three types of ammo that have a different effect in each Burst type. That means remembering what each of those is in the middle of a fight. I don't like that because it's complicated.
What would work better (if it can be done), is to have a non-destructible script (clearly named) define the Burst sub-type and a single type of consumable ammo power the module. |
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
52
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:06:56 -
[341] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote: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?
I never mined afk in all of my 2768 hours of being logged, nor do I ever intend to. my spot in null is anything but peaceful with blobs of reds coming in multiple times an hour, nor is there enough pilots with the patience to play **** **** games with said blobs of reds for 23/7.
seriously, be in my shoes for a week and experience it from my point of view, or shut the hell up. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
715
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:07:35 -
[342] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:but a 1% difference between a capital ship and a sub capital ship.. is just total bullchit and someone who came up with those figures didn't even bother to look at the price difference between the two ships. "oh hey spend 2.2bn+ for an extra measly 1% difference"..that guy must wear plaid panties. It's not 1%, it is 5% as it is 1% per level. And then that is multiplied with all the other multiplication factors which actually makes a meaningful difference. You know how multiplication factors work right?
And if you put it into siege then you get another 30% boost on top of that which is already better than the Orca. And I am hoping siege will be reduced to 1 minute to encourage people to use it a bit more.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
140
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:08:04 -
[343] - Quote
Silven Rubis wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer?
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing. Just for the gameplay and the deeper meaning of flying in space, EVE is unique and wonderfully we love it, yet I never seen any movie or read a fiction that tells a story about a bonus applied by amunition shoot in space - its so unlogical as a cat. Scripted, yes, or lets say smartbombs kind of enhancing waves but please no launching magic bombs, rockets whatever "...beam me up scotti"
Psst, large quantities of ANY game mechanics (and especially EVE) are completely illogical = P I fight with this fact every time I try to write realistic fan-fiction. |
ZzyyzzxX
Another Nameless Corp....
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:12:45 -
[344] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:ZzyyzzxX wrote:Jeinvay Kunsu wrote:As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. Thank you Mr. forum troll, your criticism provides so much insight into how things might need to be tweaked, in order to provide a better fit for the player base who DO actually fly logistics/support roles. I like to think my 'criticism' is a summary of the feelings of the majority: Good Idea, bad execution. Really bad. But if it really makes you happy, here's a real simple suggestion: If CCP REALLY wants to change how one initiates boosts, make the modules use scripts, not ammo that needs to be reloaded. That way, at least we can stop wondering what'll happen to a borderline dead ship that suddenly loses HP boosts due to the boosting ship having to reload the ammo to keep the boost going. I think the reason they are opting for ammo rather than a script is to make the player running boosts remain actively engaged with the fleet. If they were scripts, they wouldn't really need to be monitored. I think a compromise to this could be a destructible script akin to a laser crystal (i.e. runs up to 1000 times until depleted, with a proportionate chance of "breaking" and requiring replacement). My biggest concern with the ammo is, I'm assuming that it'll be three types of ammo that have a different effect in each Burst type. That means remembering what each of those is in the middle of a fight. I don't like that because it's complicated. What would work better (if it can be done), is to have a non-destructible script (clearly named) define the Burst sub-type and a single type of consumable ammo power the module.
Sounds a little too complicated to implement. It would be easier to create the destructible scripts as new items, with bpo's and industry skill/input material requirements (isotopes, stront, minerals, whatever), and use the existing degradation mechanic from the laser crystals. This would give some respite to the constant reloading concerns, and still require the booster to pay attention.
|
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
151
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:13:43 -
[345] - Quote
I've 10 million SP in leadership and I really like these changes. You know why? because I always give my boosts on the field in a BC or Command Destroyer anyway rather than sit in a safe spot.
|
Tex Bloodhunter
State Protectorate Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:13:48 -
[346] - Quote
What about fleets where the main ship type is a command ship (or any ship that can fit a command burst)? Everyone fits one or two command bursts. Now you literally have 100% of all the boosts available. In the current system this is limited by the need to be in fleet/wing/squad command positions. The new system does not have such limits. Is the new system intentionally designed this way? |
DoctorABC
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:18:25 -
[347] - Quote
It would be great to have back those leadership skillpoints, as now they will be useless wihout special ships. So everybody who trained them just for passive bonuses in small fleets (me and my alts, yes) will have another bunch of unneeded skills. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3089
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:19:08 -
[348] - 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). |
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1520
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:19:36 -
[349] - Quote
Most of these changes seem fair and well balanced at first glance.
I think my only concern is the AoE on Bursts. With max skills and a CS, and assuming the bonuses are not stacking penalized but are multiplicative, the max range of a CS Command Burst is 58.5km? That's pretty darn small.
Leadership 5, 6% x 5 = 30% WC 5, 5% x 5 = 25% FC 5, 4% x 5 =20% Command Ship Role Bonus = 100% Base Range 15km.
15 x 1.3 x 1.25 x 1.2 x 2 = 58.5km.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
230
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:19:52 -
[350] - Quote
Soo, it looks like the max number of fleet boosting modules while be limited to 4 on the Command Ships now? (or even less due to rig calibration specs) You used to be able to sacrifice almost everything and fit 7 on some...
This seems like a nerf for the smaller groups. Yes large fleets will easily be able to have the same bases covered...but small fleets will not.
Mining Bursts
The thing i don't like about these "Bursts" and mining...it will need to be very possible to perma run the 3 modules or else there will be alot of ore dropped due to laser range being reduced between cycles, of which every pilot will have different cycle times after the last iteration of mining changes changed everything to a 'cycle time' boost instead of a 'yield' boost.
New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!
An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
|
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
233
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:21:23 -
[351] - Quote
Cpt Hidoshi Ambraelle wrote:Absolutely the FIRST thing to say about this is IT'S TERRIBLE. Here is why I currently have 2 Rorq's If your currently planned changes go ahead As soon as the November expansion hits I will Reprocess them Plus My Orca as I would rather mine with NO Boosts at all than to put a rorq on grid NO MATTER what you do to it. I would Rather put the capital parts from the 2x Rorq and 1x Orca towards some more dreads to sell than to keep and use them. Rorq's currently cost what 2bill why in hell would someone want to try and boost with it on grid while trying to micro manage everything else.
WTS Rorqual I will never take one out to the belt as it is suicide.
The freeze fleet for 5 minutes will only give the bad guys more time to get more people on the KM |
Careby
289
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:21:50 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...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.
Whether or not it's "the same type of gameplay" depends on your perspective, and I'm quite sure that many will consider the skills they have trained no longer useful to them. Since we now have skill extractors and a strong market for characters with extractable skills, converting unwanted skills or characters to ISK is easy and, most probably, profitable. The problem is the SP loss one experiences when re-applying extracted SP to the same character. For those not interested in converting their unwanted skills to ISK, the cost and waste associated with skill extraction for re-allocation is going to leave a very bitter taste.
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
600
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:22:06 -
[353] - Quote
Without running any of the numbers; taking into consideration that we'll be losing all of our standard leadership bonuses, even though links will indeed be on grid won't the gap between the power of a boosted fleet and a non boosted one be even worse than before? Those passive bonuses might not have been huge but they at least conveyed some sort of bonus just to being in a fleet together. Without them the boosted fleet is going to be even more powerful in comparison. So ppl complaining that you had to have links to win before are gonna really be butt hurt when that reality sets in aren't they? Just wondering, like I said I haven't ran the numbers on the bonuses provided by the new boosts but just assuming they are comparable to what we have now it looks like boosts will be even more mandatory than before.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Chris Kelvin
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:22:36 -
[354] - Quote
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? |
Ben Ishikela
78
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:23:37 -
[355] - Quote
Hmmmmmm......... interesting....... thanx for sharing the devblog.
My issues i had with the old system seem to not be fixed. It just looks pretty and i can see the booster now. The aggression timer is nice.
However: It can still be done by a dual-box alt and requires very little attention. ONCE PER MINUTE WTF?`you could have done so much better. What is the downside in boosting?! I dont see any. Thats so bad in many boooks. .... rant continues ..... *sigh* ok ... what i try to say: Please make battles more spikey in general! How does this go with commandBURSTS? 1) Apply a strong short positive buff (10seconds. +60% speed) 2) Apply a long negative buff (60seconds. +10% signature) 3) Cycle time of module is that of the positive buff. 4) positive does not stack. negative does. 5) the module decides the negative. the ammo the positive effect. 6) heating the module has an effect. Optional: apply effect to all ships on grid. not only the fleet. ( ==> picking the right module and debuffing the enemy appropriately should be viable gameplay as well) ==> the "commander" has to think of WHEN to boost because boosting all the time is not an option
you are currently not changing the exitement of this fleetrole, just a nerf. please consider my suggestions!
Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3089
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:23:58 -
[356] - 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? |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
601
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:26:16 -
[357] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Hmmmmmm......... interesting....... thanx for sharing the devblog.
My issues i had with the old system seem to not be fixed. It just looks pretty and i can see the booster now. The aggression timer is nice.
However: It can still be done by a dual-box alt and requires very little attention. ONCE PER MINUTE WTF?`you could have done so much better. What is the downside in boosting?! I dont see any. Thats so bad in many boooks. .... rant continues ..... *sigh* ok ... what i try to say: Please make battles more spikey in general! How does this go with commandBURSTS? 1) Apply a strong short positive buff (10seconds. +60% speed) 2) Apply a long negative buff (60seconds. +10% signature) 3) Cycle time of module is that of the positive buff. 4) positive does not stack. negative does. 5) the module decides the negative. the ammo the positive effect. 6) heating the module has an effect. Optional: apply effect to all ships on grid. not only the fleet. ( ==> picking the right module and debuffing the enemy appropriately should be viable gameplay as well) ==> the "commander" has to think of WHEN to boost because boosting all the time is not an option
you are currently not changing the exitement of this fleetrole, just a nerf. please consider my suggestions!
nope.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
456
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:27:38 -
[358] - Quote
How about we move these bastards on grid and then if we want to rework the whole command structure work at it next? Pretty much everything after 'on grid' is pretty terrible. |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
601
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:30:44 -
[359] - Quote
Just put links on-grid and get rid of the need to assign boosters and call it good. I have to agree. All this buff timer/range/skill rework stuff is just silliness imo.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:32:04 -
[360] - Quote
looks interesting to me and will definitelly affect some of my long term plans,
now I need to see that "porpoise" ship.
[also reading all those ppl claiming how this will ruin the game is.... amusing] |
|
Chris Kelvin
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:32:06 -
[361] - Quote
Huydo wrote:It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...n++
Yep. It's going to be really funny as they laugh at us and ask if they can have our stuff; right up until they start complaining about no content and no stupid minor or idiot industrialists to shoot at. I would like to ask Fozzie if he wants my stuff? |
Zifrian
Distortion. Amplified.
1750
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:33:03 -
[362] - Quote
Will the industrial cores work the same as they do now? What is the change from t1 to t2?
GÇŁAny fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.GÇĽ - Dale Carnegie
Industry guy, third-party developer, jack-of-all-trades - master of none
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Zifrian
Distortion. Amplified.
1751
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:38:57 -
[363] - Quote
On the mining boost changes, I think the biggest issue is that a rorqual or orca in a belt is generally a good way to lose it. I don't see how these new mods and boosts will change that.
Perhaps it's a good idea to now revert to the old system where upgrade and wormhole belts had to be scanned down? They would still be vulnerable but it lessens the high risk of going into siege mode with a rorqual in a belt (assuming they work the same), which is basically a free ship kill for any sizable fleet. Seriously, no one is going to use them in a belt unless you have some major changes coming up.
GÇŁAny fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.GÇĽ - Dale Carnegie
Industry guy, third-party developer, jack-of-all-trades - master of none
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:47:06 -
[364] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Just put links on-grid and get rid of the need to assign boosters and call it good. I have to agree. All this buff timer/range/skill rework stuff is just silliness imo.
No need for new modules, no need to make command processors into rigs, no need for silly ass ammo or scripts. Just give them a 500k/m max range. They try to warp at range to stay safe and a single interceptor ruins their day. Links are vulnerable, job done.
This ^^.
This entire list of changes is greatly unnecessary and would have been better implemented first by just moving combat boosts to on-grid and keeping mining boosts as is. |
Johiah Parmala
Fyrcrest
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:48:49 -
[365] - Quote
Ok, so I have seen quite a few badly formulated posts about why this is or isn't a good change. Time to make a well formulated post with both the pros and cons. First of all, instead of an endless debate why not have a poll? Maybe a month after the release have people vote on whther they like it or not. If they don't like it, instead of moving back to the old system, Why not make a special forum section where people can post their ideas. Then for any ideas that gain traction you could then move similar ideas into a folder for that one idea. Eventually ideas would either be assimilated or die out, and you would end up with a few good ideas that people like. Ok, rant time. Personally I do not like the change, however the old system was not balanced either. Now, I am not a pvper so I will not have as much knowledge about that side of things, but I am an industrialist. Pros of new system: Stops off grid alts from boosting and being difficult to catch Cons: Replaces an old broken system with a new broken system Makes mining more difficult (Industry rant below) Small gang pvp and solo pvp are now even harder No skill refund Forces people to buy skill extractors or just have a useless skill on an alt that was only around simply for the boosting
I may have missed some pros, if I did please point them out.
Ok, now industry rant. First off, some of you may not know this but the economy is almost 100% player based. Like 99% So what happens when you made the lucrative null sec mining more difficult, as difficult as it already is with simply having to haul the minerals to jita and risk losing it all and a jump freighter. The result of this update will be fewer orcas. Null sec mining becomes harder. Orcas can no longer afk boost in hisec, even though they aren't in danger of being ganked. So now what happens is mining becomes slower, and the number of ships being blown up increases. So prices go up. Yay, right? No. Increased mineral prices may mean that mining wil stay the same, but pure industrialists will have a harder time making a profit. Not only that, but needing to make a profit then causes prices to rise. Now isk is even more inflated, even though there is not more isk in the game. So now everything is more expensive. Things blown up are harder to replace. This makes null mining even LESS profitable. So fewer again do it. Prices rise, titans and supercaps will be more reluctant to be used in fights, so less content. Now prices have stopped rising because industrialists start quitting. So more think "Hey, I can do that". Prices rise. Unless you make mining boosts not use ammo and be effective from 14.2 au away, all I just said WILL happen, and it will be the final nail in Eve's coffin. Make it so boosting isnt so easy and op, but not so difficult that it wrecks the delicate economic balance. |
Chris Kelvin
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:58:25 -
[366] - 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.
While I do agree with your post and support it very, very much. The answer (which you already know) is that they (CCP) really don't care about anybody else in this game except the PVP crowd. I'm sorry, it is very frustrating and it's taken me a long time to come to accept but, it is just a fact.
I don't say this to convey any disrespect or to give any ammo to the hardcore pvper's, it is just the way it is. The only way to effect any change is for anyone who is not interested in pvp to leave the game but, if that ever happened I'm afraid it would be too late for EVE anyway.
So many non-pvper's have already left and I'm not really sure why I'm still here except in the vain, unrealistic hope that someone at CCP will actually listen. However, the second someone like you or I stands up to say something they are immediately drowned out by a wave of pro-pvp comments that are not only designed to make it look like you are a minority but, that you are extremely unintelligent (thus, your opinion is not worthy of consideration) and, it serves to intimidate anyone who might also have the same interests (thus, reducing if not eliminating any supporting opinions). It is sad, I know you enjoy this game as do I but the actions of CCP are slowly, steadily forcing us out of the game.
However, good for you and thank you for standing up to say something!! |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
577
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:59:05 -
[367] - Quote
Chris Kelvin wrote:Huydo wrote:It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...n++ Yep. It's going to be really funny as they laugh at us and ask if they can have our stuff; right up until they start complaining about no content and no stupid minor or idiot industrialists to shoot at. I would like to ask Fozzie if he wants my stuff? As somebody who has been on 1878 killmails of which only 9 have been industrials and 1 a mining barge I would say fewer miners/industrials in space wont effect my kills whatsoever. It would actually improve it, I suspect, because the folks who do hunt miners would have to come to null for content, where I can finally shoot them.
|
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
132
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:59:55 -
[368] - Quote
Overall, it's a good plan to get ships providing boosts into the fight.
I do hope you reconsider how you are handling Wing Command and Fleet Command skills.
Fleet Command is a 12x skill and required months of training. For a slight range increase of bursts, it's not an equitable trade-off for the sunk skill points.
For those of us that have Wing Command and Fleet Command on our mains, not low SP link alts, I hope you consider an alternative plan on how to handle these skills in the transition.
Thanks! |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1854
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:03:27 -
[369] - Quote
Johiah Parmala wrote:Time to make a well formulated post with both the pros and cons. First of all, instead of an endless debate why not have a poll?
Congratulations on contradicting yourself in immediately consecutive sentences.
|
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:05:41 -
[370] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Just put links on-grid and get rid of the need to assign boosters and call it good. I have to agree. All this buff timer/range/skill rework stuff is just silliness imo. .
yo man +1
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3090
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:06:01 -
[371] - Quote
Any consideration to allowing overheating for these modules? Could affect range, strength, duration, etc. |
fredricko smit
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:06:03 -
[372] - Quote
For all yous that want to quit, instead of going to local and posting quitting eve here is all my stuff, come see me with all your stuff. |
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:06:52 -
[373] - Quote
Overall I like the changes, there are some things that I would tweak.
So the scan res bonus for non-boosted fleets just goes, not sure thatGÇÖs a bad thing but this means there are three skills for range boost? This seems high and skill point intensive now these are not really needed for supporting fleet numbers. The norm for skills is a single secondary specialisation, these bonus seem implemented because you werenGÇÖt sure what to do with the three skills. Leadership skill could remain the same or you could just scrap one skill.
Also the scan res bonus for fleeting is small but is at least something that encourages fleeting up, I would be unsure of the consequences for such a social game to remove that bonus. Same could be said for other passive bonuses in the various skills.
Others have done the maths the range seems a little short, it seems balanced around command ships and yet the blog talks about lower entry level and with the passive bonuses removed encouraging entry level boosters in fleets may be beneficial. I would like to see that range boosted up so command destroyers and combat battlecruisers donGÇÖt need to be right on top of the enemy, going from off grid to on grid is one thing but being right in the mix is a big step, I expect boosting ships to skirt the engagement, this forces an enemy to choose to go after them. 25-30km base at least is reasonable where most individuals can be expected not to have maxed the three skills for range.
Might be nice to increase potential choices to have strategic cruiser have more range than a command ship as it has lower bonuses.
There are perhaps some justified gripes about how these impact mining, not sure anyone ever really complained about off grid mining boosts. This could be mitigated a little by putting the base duration way up for mining boosts like 5 minutes plus at least. That would enable mining ships to move to and fro from an orca or rorqual. Again it creates a bit of usage choice play it safe lose a bit of time. For mining ships I feel the duration may trump area of affect in usage this may be the reverse of combat situations.
A comment was made about faction warfare plexes. There is perhaps a design choice here for these situations including PVE, some activities can be over very quickly, missions, incursion sites, small ship PVP, without acceleration gates cancelling these boosts off grid boosting lives and is in fact stronger as the target no longer has any basic fleet boosts, and it would appear that a ship could receive all combat boost types from very few boosting ships then warp to its target. Even if the boosts do not last the duration of a fight the effect could give an overpowered advantage.
DonGÇÖt want to come across as to negative, there are some great basic changes here and the capital mod change seems very interesting.
|
ugh zug
118
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:11:19 -
[374] - Quote
Oh hey look at that, i had a need for SP to liquidate and here comes ccp to save the day, by by booster alts. While it is good that you are balancing the game, you have waited so long to do anything about it. it's going to make many pounds of salts. Expect many leet pvprs and their power of 2 accounts to be canceled.
Invuln on the roq does not offset the risk of having it on the belt with the fleet. Hurry up with the cheapo industrial booster ship in the name of content.
Where's the rest of the citadels? I bet you had all the art assets already finished 6-9 months ago. Where's the insurance button and rookie ships on the current citadels? Where's the no bumping while tethered? Where's the assets list on the API for citadels? Stop playing with your cockroach rocket and vr headset, and deliver on promises made.
One final suggestion, seeing as how your overstaffed art department is doing nothing right now, you should consider having them redo carrier, fax, and super models. thanatos, ninazu, aeon, revenant should all be redone completely because they look like something that only a mother could love.
Want me to shut up?
Remove content from my post,1B.
Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.
|
Loki-the-Trickster
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:12:47 -
[375] - Quote
Hi,
Just curious if your planing on changing the skill requirements to make it easier to get into the fleet boosting role (command battle cruiser and boosting skills) - which to some extent I can understand as it does take an extremely long time to train currently for both armor and shield command ships as well as the leadership skills - will there be some sort of reimbursement of skill points or anything for those of us who spent the time under the current system to train for it?? Or is the plan to just roll the skills over and that be it?
|
Golek Gaterau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:14:29 -
[376] - Quote
Excellent changes - keep it up like this CCP.
Of course there will be some fine tuning, of that I am sure. The proposed ranges need practical testing with different fleet doctrines.
I would decrease boost effects in general - boost stay immense powerful after the changes.
Also if a boost can become a negative number when the boost ends needs further clarification (armor boost cycle ends in 5% armor of a given fleet memberd ship, what happens?).
High sec boosting is a problem - I see the weapons timer is a trade off between mission booster and neutral third party booster. There will be no other solution as the weapons timer - sadly.
The idea with ammo for booster ins brilliant. It is only logical to change cloaks to ammo too.
The tears in this thread are absolute fantastic.
Every single page is worth reading. All the bears ranting about them having to take a risk - this is where broken game mechanics like OGB take the crowd of the entitled and the mental weak.
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
422
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:17:16 -
[377] - Quote
"Tech 2 Command Bursts will require Leadership level 5 and their group specialist skill such as Armored Command Specialist (formerly known as Armored Warfare Specialist) level 1"
If you want it to be in line with other skills trees in game, this should be LVL IV, not LVL V.
*
Nice, I like the "ORE Mining Director Mindlink", what would be the price range?
"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 =-
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
741
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:17:30 -
[378] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote: It's not a question of being able to fly the ships but even if it were just because you had leadership V that doesn't mean you can fly a command ship. But more importantly someone who trained a skill that required no specific ship or module shouldn't be forced to fly a specific ship/module to get use out of a skill they trained without those restrictions. A person doesn't just train basic leadership skills so they can be a link pilot flying a t3 cruiser they train them so they can command small gangs and fleets and get bonuses no matter what ship they are flying. This change says "well, if you want to get anything out of the skills that you've already devoted time training then you will be a boost ship" or "you can pay us to extract your skills and you can put the sp towards something that you'll actually use."
If you can't figure out the analogy that's your intellectual deficiency and not my fault but I'll break it down for you anyway. Player plays monthly fee which allows them to train a skill. (Consumer buys a guy that drives just fine and runs on gas like any other)
After making your purchase CCP says sorry but that skill doesn't do that any more. (Consumer is told they can't buy gas anymore)
CCP says BUT if you fly fleet boost focused ships and used fleet boost modules you'll still get use of your skills (Car dealer says, you can drive your care on these special roads and it'll work just fine)
CCP says you can always buy extractors from us and redistribute your sp (Car dealer say, you can by this special upgrade and drive wherever you want)
Understand now? They sell you a product, then decide after the fact that the product you paid for is no longer going to perform the task that you intended it for when you paid for it. They then try to upsell you more products just so you can get the same benefit from your purchase that you already paid for. More commonly referred to as a scam.
Honestly it really doesn't effect me that much. I started training my link alt to be ongrid combat links back when the command dessi's were released because their creation was an obvious move in the direction of on grid links. It wasn't a matter of if boosts were going on grid it was just when. I extracted my leadership skills from my main and injected the sp into my combat links alt. So again, I planned ahead and don't really have anything to lose w these changes. That still doesn't make their approach to the skills and potential profit from extractors less shady.
Passive bonuses that apply all the time with no effort involved in applying them are exactly what CCP is trying to get rid of with these changes, its something thats been widely disliked for a long time by both players and devs. Yes that going to change how the skills apply in the game but guess what, you're not entitled to have your skills remain a certain way just because its what they were like when you trained them.
Should I complain that theres no longer just one skill for flying Battlecruisers despite it being that way when I trained for them? Should I complain that a lot of my skills have had their prerequisites reduced since I trained them, making them easier to get for others than they were for me?
And yes CCP are pushing skill extractors as a solution. Why? because thats what they were designed to do, to allow people to take skill points they either no longer want or no longer use and put them somewhere else. Yes they cost money but guess what again, CCP is a business not a charity and a business that doesnt try to make money is a business that doesnt last very long. I honestly struggle to see whats in any way shady about pushing a product that function as a direct address to an issue your customers have raised.
Finally I understood your analogy perfectly well, i just thought it was shite and being jaw droppingly condescending about it doesn't make me think its any less shite.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome
|
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
45
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:17:34 -
[379] - Quote
warfare links will rust upon the scrapheap of history
counterrevolutionaries will be reprocessed
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
577
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:18:00 -
[380] - Quote
Dunk Dinkle wrote:Overall, it's a good plan to get ships providing boosts into the fight.
I do hope you reconsider how you are handling Wing Command and Fleet Command skills.
Fleet Command is a 12x skill and required months of training. For a slight range increase of bursts, it's not an equitable trade-off for the sunk skill points.
For those of us that have Wing Command and Fleet Command on our mains, not low SP link alts, I hope you consider an alternative plan on how to handle these skills in the transition.
Thanks! This parallels other skills. Small Hybrid Turret is a 1x skill that provides a 5% damage bonus per level to both blasters and rails. Small Blaster Specialization is a 3x skill that provides a 2% damage bonus to just rails. The intent is that a newish player can get pretty good pretty quickly, but only those truly dedicated to the specific aspect can maximize it. If you reserve the biggest bonus for the 12x skill, you create a disproportionately large skill gap between young and old characters.
I have several specialization skills trained, but not a single one of them to V. |
|
Steroidastroid Ormand
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:21:23 -
[381] - Quote
If I may suggest a simple and elegant solution: You're comparing command bursts with smartbombs?
Then make exactly as smartbombs! Fittable to any ship! and leave a single one skill that affects them - burst range. This is so radical that it's not even comparable to current mechanics. But more I think about it, better it seems. Command ships? Leadership skills? passive bonuses? lots of CPU time to process it... This all is so redundant really
P.S. please, I realize that it's a total heresy, don't rage me
Hail blobs! Rip solo!
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
433
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:23:19 -
[382] - Quote
Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. |
Chris Kelvin
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:24:44 -
[383] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. THAT is a total load of crap. Youre taking a passive bonus set of skills (a rather investment intensive set at that) and turning it into a set of skills that require active module usage to perform any function whatsoever. I would go out on a limb and say a MASSIVE percentage of the population has these skills trained at the moment and benefit from them and after these changes the vast majority of them will never see usage or benefit from these skills ever again. Could you try just a little bit harder to farm your players for $ from skill extractors because this move isn't obvious enough.
Just.... Thank you!!! |
Chris Kelvin
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:29:57 -
[384] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal?
Actually, no, not at all. But thank you for asking. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:31:59 -
[385] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:It's going to take awhile for CCP to recover from the loss of Revenue. Very pro-pvp change but does not take into account that all the targets will be gone.
Not saying that it's a bad change for players but it is an incredibly terrible change for CCP
1. Cancel four accounts 2. reprocess all industrial related ships and modules 3. Reprocess of all leadership and command skill related modules and ships 4. Extract usesless skill points 5. Sell all and buy plexes for remaining accounts Extractors for all that sp cost $$. As do the plex that you use that isk for to plex your remaining accounts. They may lose money over time due to a reduction in multi-account usage for link alts but they'll get a boost of income for the extractors, they always have and will continue to make even better money off plex than account subs and some ppl like myself will continue to fly multiple accounts they'll just be combat piloting them. Not as easy as sitting afk at a safe obviously but possible. And cancel 4 accounts? Who's running 4 link alts and why is that a mining thing?
Somebody already answer your question in this forum, most worthwhile belts require minors to spread out which will not be within boost range and therefore decrease the value of having and Mining character |
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:42:56 -
[386] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Just put links on-grid and get rid of the need to assign boosters and call it good. I have to agree. All this buff timer/range/skill rework stuff is just silliness imo.
No need for new modules, no need to make command processors into rigs, no need for silly ass ammo or scripts. Just give them a 500k/m max range. They try to warp at range to stay safe and a single interceptor ruins their day. Links are vulnerable, job done. This ^^. This entire list of changes is greatly unnecessary and would have been better implemented first by just moving combat boosts to on-grid and keeping mining boosts as is.
This^^ |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2651
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:45:16 -
[387] - Quote
Dunk Dinkle wrote:Overall, it's a good plan to get ships providing boosts into the fight.
I do hope you reconsider how you are handling Wing Command and Fleet Command skills.
Fleet Command is a 12x skill and required months of training. For a slight range increase of bursts, it's not an equitable trade-off for the sunk skill points.
For those of us that have Wing Command and Fleet Command on our mains, not low SP link alts, I hope you consider an alternative plan on how to handle these skills in the transition.
Thanks!
The way I look at is this: why would I train from FC IV to FC V for a mere 4% more boost range. They need to adjust Fleet Command to 10-15% more range per level to make it really rewarding, without becoming mandatory.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:46:36 -
[388] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers.
Excellent post |
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:47:05 -
[389] - Quote
Chris Kelvin wrote: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. While I do agree with your post and support it very, very much. The answer (which you already know) is that they (CCP) really don't care about anybody else in this game except the PVP crowd. I'm sorry, it is very frustrating and it's taken me a long time to come to accept but, it is just a fact. I don't say this to convey any disrespect or to give any ammo to the hardcore pvper's, it is just the way it is. The only way to effect any change is for anyone who is not interested in pvp to leave the game but, if that ever happened I'm afraid it would be too late for EVE anyway. So many non-pvper's have already left and I'm not really sure why I'm still here except in the vain, unrealistic hope that someone at CCP will actually listen. However, the second someone like you or I stands up to say something they are immediately drowned out by a wave of pro-pvp comments that are not only designed to make it look like you are a minority but, that you are extremely unintelligent (thus, your opinion is not worthy of consideration) and, it serves to intimidate anyone who might also have the same interests (thus, reducing if not eliminating any supporting opinions). It is sad, I know you enjoy this game as do I but the actions of CCP are slowly, steadily forcing us out of the game. However, good for you and thank you for standing up to say something!!
This^^
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
715
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:47:51 -
[390] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Any consideration to allowing overheating for these modules? Could affect range, strength, duration, etc. ^ another way to reward skilled piloting; good idea.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
|
Hong Hu
Licence To Kill Mercenary Coalition
27
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:50:35 -
[391] - Quote
Clifffitir Awik wrote:I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book.
Its not to late CCP. You can save yourselves from being the next SOE and eve being the next SWG. Listen to the people who actually use the system you are about to change.
Pity there's not a down-vote butan. |
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:51:28 -
[392] - Quote
Aliana Heartborne wrote:Guess im done playing in november then. ah well, atleast i got to help new miners for 3 years before CCP wanted to ruin it, thanks.
Can I have your stuff ? |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
715
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:52:56 -
[393] - Quote
Golek Gaterau wrote:Also if a boost can become a negative number when the boost ends needs further clarification (armor boost cycle ends in 5% armor of a given fleet memberd ship, what happens?). I would suggest leaving the ship with either 1 HP in shield or armour depending on the type of command link used. Having ships explode because they lost the boost would be silly.
Also if a ship is on 1HP out of a maximum of let's say 10,000 HP for instance and it gets the command burst applied (for simplicity's sake let's say 20% increase in HP), then will it suddenly gain 2,000 HP?
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed Agony Empire
4267
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:53:59 -
[394] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Dunk Dinkle wrote:Overall, it's a good plan to get ships providing boosts into the fight.
I do hope you reconsider how you are handling Wing Command and Fleet Command skills.
Fleet Command is a 12x skill and required months of training. For a slight range increase of bursts, it's not an equitable trade-off for the sunk skill points.
For those of us that have Wing Command and Fleet Command on our mains, not low SP link alts, I hope you consider an alternative plan on how to handle these skills in the transition.
Thanks! The way I look at is this: why would I train from FC IV to FC V for a mere 4% more boost range. They need to adjust Fleet Command to 10-15% more range per level to make it really rewarding, without becoming mandatory.
I generally believe in diminishing returns, so the 6%, 5%, 4% seem reasonable modifiers for Leadership, Wing Command, and Fleet Command.
However, a 14x skill providing a marginal increase in area of effect seems rather..... weak. Fleet command is currently important because each level allows you to transfer boosts to an entire extra wing of pilots. I don't foresee the extra 4% range nearly as valuable. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
435
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:54:09 -
[395] - Quote
Aliana Heartborne wrote:Guess im done playing in november then. ah well, atleast i got to help new miners for 3 years before CCP wanted to ruin it, thanks. Yeah, cause afk boosting was the only way to help newbie miners... -.- /sarcasm
The tears from miners in this thread has been delicious.
|
Geogeno
League of the Old World Worlds United Fedo Force
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:56:46 -
[396] - Quote
It's just embarrassing that is thought in almost all changes only to the PVP fraction. But what do the PVP Fighter if they get no ships or equipment. I would say suck on your finger and look stupid out of the laundry. The miners will be taken everything and get horny the PVP everything so it makes no sense, this game what else I find very well continue to play. I think I speak because many people from the soul. CCP can turn off in my opinion the same server when they do something like this new Mining Boost things. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
716
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:57:00 -
[397] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. I am guessing this is to prevent Orca pilots getting suspect timers. Perhaps we could just exclude mining links from giving the suspect timer. It seems wrong for something that powerful to be protected by concord.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:03:18 -
[398] - Quote
Question #1:
Will the Porpoise be using the Echelon hull?
Question #2:
Do you honestly expect anyone to use the Rorqual the way you are suggesting it be used? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:04:25 -
[399] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. I am guessing this is to prevent Orca pilots getting suspect timers. Perhaps we could just exclude mining links from giving the suspect timer. It seems wrong for something that powerful to be protected by concord. You should never be allowed to get someone CONCORDOKKEN for a passive action.
Are the boosts maintained on system change? That would also be "fun". |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
436
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:09:19 -
[400] - Quote
Geogeno wrote:But what do the PVP Fighter if they get no ships or equipment. Then we would make miner alts and rejoice about the increased profits gained from mining, since all the miners/industrialists who have no idea about economy has left.
I never understood, how the part of the community that specialize in mining/industry does not understand opportunity cost or simple cost calculations, leaving many items with negative profit margins.
But alas, there will always be miners around, since some are not baddies and will learn to work with on-grid boosts.
|
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:09:55 -
[401] - Quote
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.
Maybe eliminate squads but remove the 5-wing limit, then. Add as many wings as you want to fleet (or within reason... 10? 20?), then you can use them like the old squads or you can use them like current wings, either way.
FC -> 1 to X WCs -> various wing members... make a logi wing, ewar wing, ceptor wing, DPS wing, etc. etc. or a wing for every 8-10 bombers in a bomber fleet.
And I'm assuming a WC (or SC) with no members underneath will still get boosts under this new system. That's gonna be nice.
edit: also, to people speculating that the new command burst specialist skill is new and will have to be trained from scratch... could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're just going to rename Warfare Link Specialist to that.
Warfare Link Specialist is the skill for using command processors in your midslots to increase your warfare links fit in the highslots, and since that's going away, being replaced by rigs to add more of the new ammo/script-loaded burst highslot modules.... then pretty clearly that skill will be reused for the new purpose. |
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:10:27 -
[402] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote: It's not a question of being able to fly the ships but even if it were just because you had leadership V that doesn't mean you can fly a command ship. But more importantly someone who trained a skill that required no specific ship or module shouldn't be forced to fly a specific ship/module to get use out of a skill they trained without those restrictions. A person doesn't just train basic leadership skills so they can be a link pilot flying a t3 cruiser they train them so they can command small gangs and fleets and get bonuses no matter what ship they are flying. This change says "well, if you want to get anything out of the skills that you've already devoted time training then you will be a boost ship" or "you can pay us to extract your skills and you can put the sp towards something that you'll actually use."
If you can't figure out the analogy that's your intellectual deficiency and not my fault but I'll break it down for you anyway. Player plays monthly fee which allows them to train a skill. (Consumer buys a guy that drives just fine and runs on gas like any other)
After making your purchase CCP says sorry but that skill doesn't do that any more. (Consumer is told they can't buy gas anymore)
CCP says BUT if you fly fleet boost focused ships and used fleet boost modules you'll still get use of your skills (Car dealer says, you can drive your care on these special roads and it'll work just fine)
CCP says you can always buy extractors from us and redistribute your sp (Car dealer say, you can by this special upgrade and drive wherever you want)
Understand now? They sell you a product, then decide after the fact that the product you paid for is no longer going to perform the task that you intended it for when you paid for it. They then try to upsell you more products just so you can get the same benefit from your purchase that you already paid for. More commonly referred to as a scam.
Honestly it really doesn't effect me that much. I started training my link alt to be ongrid combat links back when the command dessi's were released because their creation was an obvious move in the direction of on grid links. It wasn't a matter of if boosts were going on grid it was just when. I extracted my leadership skills from my main and injected the sp into my combat links alt. So again, I planned ahead and don't really have anything to lose w these changes. That still doesn't make their approach to the skills and potential profit from extractors less shady.
Passive bonuses that apply all the time with no effort involved in applying them are exactly what CCP is trying to get rid of with these changes, its something thats been widely disliked for a long time by both players and devs. Yes that going to change how the skills apply in the game but guess what, you're not entitled to have your skills remain a certain way just because its what they were like when you trained them. Should I complain that theres no longer just one skill for flying Battlecruisers despite it being that way when I trained for them? Should I complain that a lot of my skills have had their prerequisites reduced since I trained them, making them easier to get for others than they were for me? And yes CCP are pushing skill extractors as a solution. Why? because thats what they were designed to do, to allow people to take skill points they either no longer want or no longer use and put them somewhere else. Yes they cost money but guess what again, CCP is a business not a charity and a business that doesnt try to make money is a business that doesnt last very long. I honestly struggle to see whats in any way shady about pushing a product that function as a direct address to an issue your customers have raised. Finally I understood your analogy perfectly well, i just thought it was shite and being jaw droppingly condescending about it doesn't make me think its any less shite.
Yea theyre in it to make money but only reason they added thing like skill extractors is to compensate for all of the lost income from accounts being unsubbed because of sh*t changes like which will no doubt cause a lot more accounts to go unsubbed between now and November which will cause them to try and find other ways to make up that lost income otherwise will have to start laying people off and/or pull the plug on the game when they start losing to much money thanks to people with your mindset that people who don't pvp don't belong in EvE |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
175
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:13:16 -
[403] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:I've 10 million SP in leadership and I really like these changes. You know why? because I always give my boosts on the field in a BC or Command Destroyer anyway rather than sit in a safe spot.
From my eveboard " -+ 14 Leadership skills trained, for a total of 15,872,000 skillpoints."
And I support this change for the exact same reason. cheers.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
716
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:14:25 -
[404] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. I am guessing this is to prevent Orca pilots getting suspect timers. Perhaps we could just exclude mining links from giving the suspect timer. It seems wrong for something that powerful to be protected by concord. You should never be allowed to get someone CONCORDOKKEN for a passive action. Otherwise CCP would have to record the pilot that applied every boost ("ownership"). Simpler to not do that, and not have consequences to code for. Are the boosts maintained on system change? That would also be "fun" with boost ownership. Who said anything about being CONCORDOKKEN'd for a passive action. All we are suggesting is that combat based boosts give the boosting ship a suspect timer so that people can shoot it.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Rikki Bigg
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:23:27 -
[405] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
I most strenuously disagree. (My opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EVE University)
We have, over the last several years, encouraged our members to train Leadership V, through program incentives at many of our different campuses. Leadership in this exmaple is mainly used to let boosts pass through to the squad members. This way in a larger fleet, that E-Uni might field from time to time, we have adequate members able to let the fleet boosters influence everyone.
While I am grateful that the days of forming fleets in alliance with : x L5/4/4/4/4 will no longer be needed, I have a big issue; you are removing the passive benefits of Leadership and the four combat and fifth mining warfare skills.
Currently, the skill is a sp sink, but one that has useful side effects so it is not completely pointless without a ship running links.
After the change, you are making it so that someone that has invested 256000 skill points for leadership V, and up to 512000 skill points for each of Mining Foreman, Armored Warfare, Information Warfare, Siege Warfare, and Skirmish Warfare; potentially up to 2.8 million skill points for a player that never planned on running an active link. That does not even consider players that might have trained a few levels in Wing Command, or even bit the bullet and trained Wing Command to V and then Fleet Command to II or III.
We have encouraged new players, in order to be more useful to the group (ie their friends) to invest 618040sp (using the L5/4/4/4/4 example from earlier) and now are explaining that it is a sunk cost, and useless unless they invest more.
Which leads to the essence of my disagreement; your changes, as written here, are bad game design.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts.
This might impact the same type of gameplay in your mind, but you are putting the cart before the horse.
You have a skill that lets you [verb] a thing, be it a ship, a module, a jump clone, or a corporation. Then you create a secondary skill that improves upon the initial skill, and you make the initial skill the prerequisite.
This is the way every skill in EVE Online currently works. Some of the prerequisites seem to be there to gate skills (like Cloaking needing CPU Management V) but even in those cases the prerequisite skills provide a benefit that stands on its own.
The entry leadership skills, that many people have already sunk skill points into , are being changed so that they offer zero tangible benefit (heck even training Science to V gives you 5% copy speed) unless you invest even more skill points into supplementary skills.
This I have a problem with. |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:34:22 -
[406] - Quote
Rikki Bigg wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
I most strenuously disagree. (My opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EVE University) We have, over the last several years, encouraged our members to train Leadership V, through program incentives at many of our different campuses. Leadership in this exmaple is mainly used to let boosts pass through to the squad members. This way in a larger fleet, that E-Uni might field from time to time, we have adequate members able to let the fleet boosters influence everyone. While I am grateful that the days of forming fleets in alliance with : x L5/4/4/4/4 will no longer be needed, I have a big issue; you are removing the passive benefits of Leadership and the four combat and fifth mining warfare skills. Currently, the skill is a sp sink, but one that has useful side effects so it is not completely pointless without a ship running links. After the change, you are making it so that someone that has invested 256000 skill points for leadership V, and up to 512000 skill points for each of Mining Foreman, Armored Warfare, Information Warfare, Siege Warfare, and Skirmish Warfare; potentially up to 2.8 million skill points for a player that never planned on running an active link. That does not even consider players that might have trained a few levels in Wing Command, or even bit the bullet and trained Wing Command to V and then Fleet Command to II or III. We have encouraged new players, in order to be more useful to the group (ie their friends) to invest 618040sp (using the L5/4/4/4/4 example from earlier) and now are explaining that it is a sunk cost, and useless unless they invest more. Which leads to the essence of my disagreement; your changes, as written here, are bad game design. CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts. This might impact the same type of gameplay in your mind, but you are putting the cart before the horse. You have a skill that lets you [verb] a thing, be it a ship, a module, a jump clone, or a corporation. Then you create a secondary skill that improves upon the initial skill, and you make the initial skill the prerequisite. This is the way every skill in EVE Online currently works. Some of the prerequisites seem to be there to gate skills (like Cloaking needing CPU Management V) but even in those cases the prerequisite skills provide a benefit that stands on its own. The entry leadership skills, that many people have already sunk skill points into , are being changed so that they offer zero tangible benefit (heck even training Science to V gives you 5% copy speed) unless you invest even more skill points into supplementary skills. This I have a problem with.
word+1 y rigth
|
eVRiAL
Annapolis Tactical
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:37:47 -
[407] - Quote
So now fleet boosts are boosted in CCP way: 15km range and 10 new stupid mods and scripts, revamped skills (FC5 for fools).
Huydo wrote:It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...n++ |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:40:29 -
[408] - Quote
Thanks Team Five 0 for finally getting rid of this outdated game mechanic.
And thanks to Fozzie and Phantom once more for taking (or tanking) the Nerdrage |
Daugan
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:46:05 -
[409] - Quote
Please take your hands off my faithful rorqual, she does not need to be another failed content generator for you to :shobon: about. |
UnholyGreed
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:55:28 -
[410] - Quote
60k active player - You guys need to adapt 50k active player - You guys need to adapt 40k active player - You guys need to adapt 20k active player - You guys need to adapt 1k active player - can we borrow some money we need to pay this light bill
Dear CCP, Please uninstall all your Devs and start again fresh. Keep "fixing" things that dont need to be fixed while ignoring huge problems that have been around forever, sounds like a good business model. |
|
Desiderya
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Wrecking Machine.
1122
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:57:55 -
[411] - Quote
Hm, beloved Fozzie,
The ranges on the modules seem very restrictive, especially for smaller, mobile gangs. Would it be possible to include a falloff range for these modules to provide some extra range at reduced efficiency? As it stands now, the smaller the gang is the more it will focus anchor hugging, especially for CDs. This will hit static logi/anchor fleets much less than already more challenging skirmishing fleets. Alternatively it may be beneficial for the smaller ships to provide the boosts in faster bursts - if you miss a beat oyu can more readily return to refresh the boost - to keep it in line with the less static nature of skirmishing vs typical fleet engagements.
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
176
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:00:03 -
[412] - Quote
On a nearly unrelated tangent:
Since we're going to remove skills that just let you have more numbers of people in a fleet, perhaps we could do a similar thing with other skills? Corp Management (number of members) for instance? Maybe even the Trade (buy/sell order limits) or contracting skills too?
They seem like such silly and arbitrary limits. They could be replaced with other relevant skills that add to the gameplay instead of becoming mandatory just to participate in the game. Much like the learning skills of old, there are many skills that need their own version of Tiericide.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Maxwell Hisscock
Bound And Determined Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:02:14 -
[413] - Quote
Short version is pvp is everything ...screw everyone else. fly multi-billion isk ships in tight fleets so a pvp addict can fly a hic and bubble everyone? no thanks. 8 days till account dump. nerf that |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:03:15 -
[414] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Its too easy to kill a rorqual on grid.. especially with the use of cloaky campers in the system (which will spot the anon/belts) which simply could tell a friend to (drop drag bubble aligned to the station/citadel). needless to say the hotdroppers will easily jump in and tackle the ship with what ever they have so its dead in the water, meanwhile the pilot in a panick could hit is "captain savior mod" which locks him and all his miner buddies (ones who could have reshipped but no they're stuck like chuck as well) into place to provide even more supper for the ganking beasties....
Maybe the PANIC BUTTON should only freeze and immunize the Rorqual itself... maybe all the industrial ships in fleet and in range should instead be flung outwards away from the Rorqual at insane speeds like siege dreadnaughts being POS bowled? Hey, once they come to rest off-grid (yes, send them 10s of 1000s of km away!), they can warp to safety/go reship to something useful to come back and defend the Rorqual once its panic button timer ends. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:12:40 -
[415] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.
Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.
I agree, scripts would be better than ammo. Highslot scripts, it should be a thing!
Marauders activating bastion mode aren't necessarily engaged in PVP, either, but they still get a weapons timer (whether they're PVPing, ratting, or hell... tractoring/salvaging). |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3474
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:15:49 -
[416] - Quote
UnholyGreed wrote:60k active player - You guys need to adapt 50k active player - You guys need to adapt 40k active player - You guys need to adapt 20k active player - You guys need to adapt 1k active player - can we borrow some money we need to pay this light bill
Dear CCP, Please uninstall all your Devs and start again fresh. Keep "fixing" things that dont need to be fixed while ignoring huge problems that have been around forever, sounds like a good business model.
This IS one of those huge problems that has been around forever.
Id prefer they were removed completely but this is a good ******* change, a long time coming. And yes i trained a whole char for these passive boosts.
Two things however;
1- ammo? I don't get this. You've made it such that the need for ammo isn't that taxing for the booster, but why do it at all? Why not just scripts?
2- using a booster on wartargets/criminals/outlaws/limited engagements/suspects most definitely needs to make the booster suspect at least.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
336
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:16:25 -
[417] - Quote
A Temp Close while I muck out the stable. Please enjoy this short video while you wait: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s6bv4yayOk
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
Mafone
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:09:01 -
[418] - Quote
OK First off off grid boosts needed nerfed - they were op.
However have a number of problems with this as suggested@
Firstly the command processors becoming rigs is a nerf to Command ships - instead of the present up to 7 links per ship they get 4 and have to be ongrid. (they can only fit 2 rigs) A T1 BC can now get the same number ie 4 (links - it has 3 rig slots to T2s 2) if not the same effect multipliers. Also notice from the figures given that you have not only nerfed range (needed - ongrid is good) but also amount of boost and duration (not good).
Your figures state for example: Max skirmish boosts will be Reduces signature radius -32.34% at present at a range of 50km for 1 min - I am presently sitting my booster in a Slepneir getting - 34.5% sig radius reduction with much longer duration/range. Similarely Armored Warfare passive defence is being nerfed from system wide enduring boost of 25.88% to short range short timed 21.56%
As I said there does need to be some work done to remove off grid boosts (and I say that from someone who flys boosts a lot) but Nerfing range, duration and effect for something that people have put a lot of skill points and time into needs much more thought. As well as making Fleet command Skill needed to get max boost range skills from something that lets face it was only needed by FC's for large alliances where fleets approach the max number of players to something more needed as a 12x skill is not cool.
My suggestion would be: 1) Make all boosts on grid - 50-70km range or so with skills might work. Needs to be large enough to allow logistics to be at range and still get boosts.
2) Command Ships need to at least be able to fit 3 links as a base possibly with 3 Rig slots to allow some variations on the present max multi link ships obviously fitting should be nerfed by the command processors as presently to nerf max tank etc.
3) Links should definately NOT be nerfed in all 3 of range, duration and amount. Yes make gameplay more active and ongrid but the boosts should be increased over the present amounts with max skills - oh and all this is gonna cost you in ammo costs that you don't have now -
4) Leadership skills need some love in this - after all why would someone train them now apart for boosting toons. Small gangs and kitchen sink fleets (which may presently may not have dedicated command ships of any sort) just got significantly nerfed as the passive bonuses do not apply - so this favours larger more organised fleets who lets face it already have max leadership skills/ppl - and makes small gangs much more vulnerable unless they bring command ships etc. I think some sort of balance is required in this perhaps making leadership 5 necessary for squad command, and providing some sort of low level boost as at present.
TBH i think it will be hard to not present this as a nerf to high skill players - yes they do get perhaps better gameplay but for much less reward - as someone who has nearly 2 years of skill training invested in leadership between my toons this needs much more work and as they say the devil is in the detail - much more of which is needed and needs to be tweaked.
I hope this is constructive |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
176
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:17:02 -
[419] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.
Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing. I agree, scripts would be better than ammo. Highslot scripts, it should be a thing! Marauders activating bastion mode aren't necessarily engaged in PVP, either, but they still get a weapons timer (whether they're PVPing, ratting, or hell... tractoring/salvaging).
I think it has less to do with being an offensive action, and more about you don't want people to be able to abuse the docking/refitting/tethering mechanics? When you have a weapons timer you can't do any/all of those (i think?).
You don't want people to engage Bastion mode, soak up a bunch of damage, and be able to dock whenever they want (even if they never fired a single shot). Along similar lines, you don't want someone to be able to throw out a bunch of bonuses and then be able to go dock, or refit off a carrier, or anything like that.
As for the ammo thing, I think people are making a bigger deal about this than will be warranted. I'm willing to bet that for 99% (made up statistics are fun) of the cases, there will be no functional difference between having ammo or scripts or anything they could make up. Ammo probably works better for some weird legacy code reason and I'm cool with just leaving it at that. Not that my way of thinking is right and yours is wrong, it's pure opinion, and i'm just throwing mine out there too.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Mackenzie Hawkwood
Event Horizon Expeditionaries Apocalypse Now.
54
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:23:07 -
[420] - Quote
Clifffitir Awik wrote:I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book.
Its not to late CCP. You can save yourselves from being the next SOE and eve being the next SWG. Listen to the people who actually use the system you are about to change.
Why a switch on/off?
Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying.
In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless.
Simple as that. - Kina Ayami
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
505
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:24:31 -
[421] - Quote
Wow, CCP has wanted to get rid of OGB since i started the game. And the countless threads and complaints about links since then. But now all of a sudden a everyone wants to keep them? seriously? I assume is all high sec afkers. Well it is hardly a burden to put them on grid in highsec.
I generally like where this is going. I think the range is a problem, perhaps bigger boosts for command ships or a bigger base range. But not too much. i think 150km is a little too much. It should at least be quite a bit less than minimum warp range. Otherwise we are back to probing down links again.
And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.
Scrips make more sense than ammo.
but i like the rig idea for command processes, i think. In fact we never run more than 3 links for grid links since you now need some tank and stuff. lotsa links and squishy ships don't work well on grid.
As for all the people wanting skills back? Well i don't like the changes to PI, give me my skill back. I don't like the changes to cap ships, give me my skill back .. i don't like. Really again. It never works. If the skill has a use, even if you don't use it, you DON'T get it back. At least now you can drain em into injectors.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Rath Valent
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:26:03 -
[422] - Quote
Will it be possible to light the boosts while in warp?
RV |
Aliventi
Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies.
947
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:27:20 -
[423] - Quote
How about instead of boosts working for a fixed time they worked based upon hull size? The reason is a frigate (like a t1 tackle or an Inty) will likely not be in range of fleet boosts for very long. It will just be annoying to have to retag up with a fleet booster every minute to get boosts. Something like frigates get it for 6 minutes, titans get it for 1 minute. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2652
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:36:23 -
[424] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.
Given that they combined two of the shield and armor links into one module, for the most part you are on an equal footing now. You really only need to make a tough choice if you are boosting skirmish links under the new system.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Raven Ship
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:38:48 -
[425] - Quote
As for plans, about forcing Rorqual pilots to get on belts, and then immobilize them self with industry core or any other tool.
This will be generate imbalance, thing could be only an possible if all capital ships would work that way, so let's but dps/ehp/any other stat of cariers, mother-ships and titans, by half compared to what it is now, and give them immobilize siege/bastion/core module, using what would immobilize them for 5min and bring performance back to current level.
Then for WH static, and rolling them by those looking for easy picks. WH's should be made one way passage, as addiction to above changed.
Also as were on topic, as a result of rant of risk vs reward slogan, mining barges/exhumes/industrial ships, should get much greater combat abilities than pvp ships in similar size, why? as those are worth much more, and there is no risk involved in fighting with them. What is already main reason for why those pew pew pilots, prefer to fight with industrial ships, as it involves no risk for them, but if they have so huge risk aversion, then why coming with risk vs reward slogan all the time. |
Mila Joevovich
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:40:18 -
[426] - Quote
To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?
I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?
So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:40:57 -
[427] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:
And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.
Given that they combined two of the shield and armor links into one module, for the most part you are on an equal footing now. You really only need to make a tough choice if you are boosting skirmish links under the new system. We really like to run two shied links (resits and cycle times/rep)+ the range link for scrams etc.
And just to all those ppl saying "just put links on grid" You do know that grids are now thousands of kms in size. This would amount to changing NOTHING.
Really where were all these people (the links are fine the way they are) when this was/has been hashed out and discussed for years?
And why is mining such a special snowflake?
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Gene Greyy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:48:30 -
[428] - Quote
Mila Joevovich wrote: To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?
I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?
So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.
Very much this!!!! The hard-core pvper's can jack-off to their killboards because they won't have anymore mining barges, freighters, or indy's mucking up their stats. |
Removal Tool
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:58:03 -
[429] - Quote
Not sure if it's been asked, haven't read every post.
Are you going to change the Vulture into a proper Fleet Command ship by giving it a shield HP bonus similar to the Armor HP bonus of the Damnation?
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
177
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:58:25 -
[430] - Quote
Raven Ship wrote:As for plans, about forcing Rorqual pilots to get on belts, and then immobilize them self with industry core or any other tool.
This will be generate imbalance, thing could be only an possible if all capital ships would work that way, so let's but dps/ehp/any other stat of cariers, mother-ships and titans, by half compared to what it is now, and give them immobilize siege/bastion/core module, using what would immobilize them for 5min and bring performance back to current level.
Then for WH static, and rolling them by those looking for easy picks. WH's should be made one way passage, as addiction to above changed.
Also as were on topic, as a result of rant of risk vs reward slogan, mining barges/exhumes/industrial ships, should get much greater combat abilities than pvp ships in similar size, why? as those are worth much more, and there is no risk involved in fighting with them. What is already main reason for why those pew pew pilots, prefer to fight with industrial ships, as it involves no risk for them, but if they have so huge risk aversion, then why coming with risk vs reward slogan all the time.
I'd like to introduce you to the bastion, siege, and triage modules, the cynosural field generator, and the doomsday device. All of which have severe penalties to movement when activated, thus forcing you to commit to your activity of choice for at least a few minutes. They all have amazing capabilities while the module is active, and are fairly meh otherwise.
Mila Joevovich wrote: To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?
I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?
So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.
I'll file this under the "If you change my gameplay in ANY way that I view as negative, you're KILLING my hopes and dreams and all desire to play the game. WAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!" section. Thanks for your constructive and valuable criticism. Especially since mining and mining links are the CORE gameplay for ALL non-pvp in the game. And the barbaric concept of wanting balance and parity for all gameplay mechanics is pure applesauce! Why shouldn't people who don't particularly want to engage in pvp while undocked be completely immune to all pvp activities? /sarcasm through the same absurdity you used
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:11:26 -
[431] - Quote
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.
Refund because there are people who trained them specifically for the passive boosts with no intention of ever using a command boat. These skills now serve absoultely (atomic motion stopped) zero purpose. And skill extractors being available is a poor excuse since they cost on low average of 250M isk a piece in game or actual money. Additionally, you don't get a one for one return on those extracted skill points. This is why refunding those skill points, if only the point for the warfare skills, would be a good move.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
412
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:14:03 -
[432] - Quote
Mila Joevovich wrote: To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?
I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?
So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.
this!
how come i get the feeling if he read this he's just sitting back smirking with that evil grin
"i dont care about those guys anyway!" " i just want to talk about pvp and tournaments"
i bet he'll add pvp to PI as well since its pretty obvious they're hunting for content drivers.
failed sov failed nerfs failed on actually increasing subs in this game
yep something seagull each signed off on approving
its beyond fozzie.. its all of them.. every last one of those devs and that executive producer which has ruined this game. im sure you see it, i see it, we all see it.. the ever increasing decline of active players.. he just like them are basically providing more reason to join other games.. and sure the pvp crowd will cheer "they won eve".. but then watch them as they drown in their own blood cause of lack of content.. haha...
the funniest oddball side of this is.. he's messing with the rorqual, miners, and boost..meanwhile cloaky camping still is not addressed..null sec game life is still begging for content.. so the only thing he could come up with is to provide more targets.. it makes my head hurt to see how this game will be once they even get to moon mining..so stick to the road lad.....beware the moon...the fozzie-moon. |
Gene Greyy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:18:32 -
[433] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:[quote=Damocles Orindus]When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE.
I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense.
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).
The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.
You mean like freighter ganking in high sec?? That is a whole lot of reward for how much risk?? You're right, that's a one off situation. What about minor ganking like code does... that's just a ton of risk right?? OK, admittedly that's pretty salty but, it was not aimed at you...rather at the assertion, the notion that Eve is somehow fair when it comes to risk versus reward. It might be balanced from the perspective of the Dev's, it might be balanced with respect to the folks who love pvp but, it's just not balance for anyone who does pve activities. Everything is tilted toward the hunter and if you don't like it or have anything at all to say against it, you need to HTFU carebear, this is the way it is. It's a pvp game and you need to get used to it. Well, if that's truly the case, why bother with calling it a sandbox? Why bother with an economy, why bother with any pve at all? I mean come on, if you want all pvp all the time stop letting me believe I can play this game the way I want and just remove pve. It would save a lot of time and effort...for everyone!!
Anyone? Anyone, Bueller...Ferris Bueller? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:25:55 -
[434] - Quote
Kenneth Fritz wrote:
Refund because there are people who trained them specifically for the passive boosts with no intention of ever using a command boat. These skills now serve absoultely (atomic motion stopped) zero purpose. And skill extractors being available is a poor excuse since they cost on low average of 250M isk a piece in game or actual money. Additionally, you don't get a one for one return on those extracted skill points. This is why refunding those skill points, if only the point for the warfare skills, would be a good move.
This happens EVERY single time a change is made. Guess what. Your not getting em back. Cap pilots didn't get there cheese back and neither will you.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Gene Greyy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:32:43 -
[435] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Raven Ship wrote:As for plans, about forcing Rorqual pilots to get on belts, and then immobilize them self with industry core or any other tool.
This will be generate imbalance, thing could be only an possible if all capital ships would work that way, so let's but dps/ehp/any other stat of cariers, mother-ships and titans, by half compared to what it is now, and give them immobilize siege/bastion/core module, using what would immobilize them for 5min and bring performance back to current level.
Then for WH static, and rolling them by those looking for easy picks. WH's should be made one way passage, as addiction to above changed.
Also as were on topic, as a result of rant of risk vs reward slogan, mining barges/exhumes/industrial ships, should get much greater combat abilities than pvp ships in similar size, why? as those are worth much more, and there is no risk involved in fighting with them. What is already main reason for why those pew pew pilots, prefer to fight with industrial ships, as it involves no risk for them, but if they have so huge risk aversion, then why coming with risk vs reward slogan all the time. I'd like to introduce you to the bastion, siege, and triage modules, the cynosural field generator, and the doomsday device. All of which have severe penalties to movement when activated, thus forcing you to commit to your activity of choice for at least a few minutes. They all have amazing capabilities while the module is active, and are fairly meh otherwise. Mila Joevovich wrote: To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?
I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?
So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.
I'll file this under the "If you change my gameplay in ANY way that I view as negative, you're KILLING my hopes and dreams and all desire to play the game. WAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!" section. Thanks for your constructive and valuable criticism. Especially since mining and mining links are the CORE gameplay for ALL non-pvp in the game. And the barbaric concept of wanting balance and parity for all gameplay mechanics is pure applesauce! Why shouldn't people who don't particularly want to engage in pvp while undocked be completely immune to all pvp activities? /sarcasm through the same absurdity you used
Well, with respect to that last part, it was not criticism unless you count the constant insults that the carebears have to endure from the HTFU crowd. It was a simple question, and one that I posed as well. If you really want pvp all the time then, why not just get rid of pve? It's a reasonable question and one that maybe you should consider...you might actually like it better. |
Demotress
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
23
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:37:02 -
[436] - Quote
i like the idea of scripts, not ammo. fights can get long and 30 seconds without links means you can loose 2-3 ships in that time frame in big fights. and the amount of 30 second windows that occur can be enough to lose too many logi and welp a fleet. i like the ongrid changes and area of effect changes, means people have to pay attention and fly their ship right. also makes people lose links when they get booshed off which means booshing enemy links can cause you to lose your fleet before they are back in range if they arent smart. |
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
53
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:47:50 -
[437] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:I think it has less to do with being an offensive action, and more about you don't want people to be able to abuse the docking/refitting/tethering mechanics? When you have a weapons timer you can't do any/all of those (i think?).
You don't want people to engage Bastion mode, soak up a bunch of damage, and be able to dock whenever they want (even if they never fired a single shot). Along similar lines, you don't want someone to be able to throw out a bunch of bonuses and then be able to go dock, or refit off a carrier, or anything like that.
As for the ammo thing, I think people are making a bigger deal about this than will be warranted. I'm willing to bet that for 99% (made up statistics are fun) of the cases, there will be no functional difference between having ammo or scripts or anything they could make up. Ammo probably works better for some weird legacy code reason and I'm cool with just leaving it at that. Not that my way of thinking is right and yours is wrong, it's pure opinion, and i'm just throwing mine out there too.
I'd agree with that first part for everything except mining boosts. Mining boosts don't do any harm, and they'll have to be used in-belt or in-site as it is, so why bother with a weapons timer? Granted, it will take an orca at least 60 seconds to warp back to a station or gate anyway, so it's probably a moot point.
For the ammo, I'd like CCP to actually say what the reason is. It's much easier to accept a quirk when the reason for that quirk is explained. Hence the reason I asked "Why". I like details
Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
|
Janet McJewstein
Free. Trade. Zone. Effort.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:53:30 -
[438] - Quote
How many people will unsub their booster accounts?
I have an account just to run boosts. Once this new patch hits, I'm pulling the SP from that toon and closing the account. How many other people are in the same boat?
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5886
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:59:12 -
[439] - Quote
Looking forward to post 2 where CCP reveal now they will encourage pilots to fly orcas and rorquals into the belts. Will they address the issues of these ships being slow, fat targets yielding easy killmails for lazy hunters?
The PANIC button sounds nice for folks living in nullsec. Buy time for attackers and defenders to rally their fleets while the rorq sits there waiting for a siege cycle to complete?
I wonder how the requirement for command ships to be on-grid will alter incursion completion times?
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise
287
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:59:54 -
[440] - Quote
A few things
1: The execution for the new command burst might be overly harsh. 2: Where the duck is my and thousands of other players request to have the survey scanner fleet linked. 3: I built my alt to passively and actively boost my main and fleet mates for combat and mining. A lot of times I have her in a ratting ship and just benefit from the passive links as I have another toon in fleet in space to to be there as I can't multi-box as well as I used to. Many of these changes are going to remove that feeling. Could we maybe see a passive as well as active system. The Agies/Fozzie Sov was a great idea on paper. We all know that, but the execution was ****. In the end, what we needed in Fozzie Sov was a hybrid Agies-Dominion Sov. To me it seems you ether go to far one way or the other and it really fucks things up. It sounds good on paper, but when it finally gets to TQ you just see it sort of fumble around and get raped like a duck.
Personally I am still waiting for the reallocate all SP button we so need as players. A one time action. As so much of EVE has changed in ways that have been beyond our ability to foresee as players.
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:08:57 -
[441] - Quote
Janet McJewstein wrote: How many people will unsub their booster accounts?
I have an account just to run boosts. Once this new patch hits, I'm pulling the SP from that toon and closing the account. How many other people are in the same boat?
I'm going to resub mine. really.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:17:27 -
[442] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:
I'd agree with that first part for everything except mining boosts.
Why is mining such a special snowflake?
Ratting doesn't hurt anyone either. Buffing your tank doesn't hurt anyone either. Indirectly it may. Just as mining faster than someone without links also indirectly deprives them of ore they cannot mine.
You want boosts. Then risk the booster. Or go without. And no your not joining anything real when you fleet with anonymously advertised high sec fleet and go afk all day. Hell your not anything afk all day. And this is the expectation i get from the miners. That you should be afk all day.
Also another point on duration. If your permanently cycling your booster/link whatever then is not the effects, effectively permanent.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1387
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:18:29 -
[443] - Quote
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.
My ASS DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111eleven
I won't lobotomize myself with that pile of pooh for training 6 months of warfare skills that get KNOBBH-graded to rank 1 skills.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
456
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:20:34 -
[444] - Quote
Johnny Galnetty wrote:If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.
This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW. Agreed, 15km base is too small(max skills is only 29.25km) Especially on a Command Destroyer in a Frigate Fleet where people fly in and out of that range in Seconds when nearly bouncing off you. |
Girdinus
Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:29:20 -
[445] - Quote
Janet McJewstein wrote: How many people will unsub their booster accounts?
I have an account just to run boosts. Once this new patch hits, I'm pulling the SP from that toon and closing the account. How many other people are in the same boat?
I dedicated an account with years of training so i can provide boost for my PVE and PVP activities because of the passive skill.
Some newbies unwilling to commit to such investment whines and CCP nerfs fleet boosting?
I do not know how such changes are going to affect others but i am definitely going to extract my SP and unsub my booster account when such changes are applied because I did not train my character for this kind of gameplay. (Also, refund my SP please)
Such changes are not only killing PVE and it's also killing solo and small gang PVP.
Finally, I would hope CCP to consider are such changes going to increase or decrease subscriptions?
Because we as players, would love to see more subscriptions in Eve Online so we can have a larger community and more content. Personally, i think AFK cloaking is a bigger issue and should be resolved as soon as possible.
Thank you CCP.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
3552
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:40:33 -
[446] - Quote
I trained all the leadership skills a few years back.
Do I expect as refund or feel I am owed one? Nope.
I do plan on talking to some incursion folks in the next while to get their reactions not because I am in any position to do anything about it but because I like talking to them and getting their collective take on it.
Miners? Yeah, you may take a hit. Lower productivity may in the short run cause a squeeze but won't lower availability drive up the price a bit or did my Economics For Dummies text get that wrong as well?
Big fleets in null? Yeah, it is going to be a new skill set and not an alt of the fc. Someone is go9ing to have to fly and fly well. Baybe even doctrines that specify how many command ships will be needed. Rolling buffs throughout the fleet with the occasional Boosh for good effect.
I love command dessies
I will not complain about ammo until I see size and cost. There is just not enough information to get panties in a bunch . . . yet.
I am trying to read this whole damn thread and collect a few salient points and pretty much ignore drama llamas. When I have a collection I may post back here in a day or so.
m (you can take me out of the CSM but dammit I still care)
Mike Azariah GöźGöÇGöÇGöźn++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Ryzhik Belka
Free of Taxes
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:42:34 -
[447] - Quote
So, just to clarify : as a small time miner, chilling in the belt with my alt, all I can expect from this change is less yield, less shield, and a bunch of useless SP in Leadership, right ? Not the "I quit" change, of course, but I'm not really wild about it either. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:44:39 -
[448] - Quote
Girdinus wrote: Some newbies unwilling to commit to such investment whines and CCP nerfs fleet boosting?
What are you talking about? A quick google shows that there are articles about this further back than 2012. Off grid boosts are not something newbies complain about. In fact they don't cus they don't really know or care about them.
they only group *not* complaining was miners because they are busy boosting from a in forcefield Roq.. Yea a bunch of afkers didn't complain about a OP afk mechanic. I am shocked i tell you, shocked.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
141
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:53:32 -
[449] - Quote
Looks good. Glad that the modules for one type are being condensed to one, and that there's a limit of 2 per ship...that should improve command ship's abilities in combat by freeing up an extra high slot.
Feedbacks:
Very disappointed that Supers are not also getting the wormhole effect generators as was initially discussed. Perhaps they should still get them, but have a smaller effect than titans.
Supers need to get a higher bonus than normal carriers (and perhaps more command mods too)
I'd like to see a group of command modules that improve the fleet's agility/align time and warp speed. This is critical for mass fleet movements, especially for battleships. |
Circumstantial Evidence
354
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 03:57:58 -
[450] - Quote
Removal Tool wrote:Not sure if it's been asked, haven't read every post.
Are you going to change the Vulture into a proper Fleet Command ship by giving it a shield HP bonus similar to the Armor HP bonus of the Damnation? Dev Blog wrote:Blog three will focus on the balance tweaks being made to combat-focused boosting ships to release alongside the new system.
|
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
141
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:08:18 -
[451] - Quote
And a side note since this is relevant to command ships.....Gallente and Minmatar command ships are only active tanked....making them really bad for big fleets. They both need a buffer tank option so pilots aren't forced into flying Amarr/Caldari command ships. That allows players to choose their ships based on the command bonuses and racial preference. |
Alea
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
231
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:10:37 -
[452] - Quote
Janet McJewstein wrote: How many people will unsub their booster accounts?
I have an account just to run boosts. Once this new patch hits, I'm pulling the SP from that toon and closing the account. How many other people are in the same boat?
I have two max skilled fleet booster accounts and if this goes live as described I may just do that plus sell off my small collection of Rorqs, I mainly run mining boosts and I'm not throwing away a Rorq every few days.
CCP must really, REALLY hate me as they have nerfed about every aspect of my gameplay over the past two years, for the life of me I have no idea why I still play this game.. Well.. If I didn't have a buttload of PLEX laying around I may have quite a couple years ago so I guess I just answered my own question.
Whomever is making the last couple years decisions on what changes are to be implemented in this game, must hate Eve with all their being.
|
Skyy Dracon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:12:35 -
[453] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Two questions:
Firstly, since they give a combat timer, will a neutral using these bursts to "interfere" with a war or other combat event acquire a Suspect timer?
Secondly, will the new bursts appear on a killmail to see who is giving and receiving boosts? Good questions. I'm hoping they prevent "accidental" flagging through the 'safety' switch at very least.
|
Skyy Dracon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:14:32 -
[454] - Quote
It makes me laugh, how many people are decrying any change that actually requires ACTIVE gameplay instead of AFK client running. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:30:29 -
[455] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:This happens EVERY single time a change is made. Guess what. Your not getting em back. Not sure if you are old enough to remember learning skills, but we did get a complete refund when that system was overhauled. So much for not getting anything back. On top of that, I'm fairly positive this was not the only occasion when we received SP back. Sure, these skills were removed instead of just changed, but we're talking about reduced requirements here which definitely puts a hole in those skills which needs to be addressed. Yes my first account was that old. But i didn't stay long.
There is a clear difference between a skill that is *removed* from the game. While CCP has "shifted" skills before. If they still do something useful they have not refunded skills. Cap pilots with JF being perhaps the most obvious example (cry me a river, it takes 6-10 hours to move across new eden now). Removing skill requirements to fit Rigs being a more subtle one, but then if people don't understand that reducing some of those drawbacks are totally worth the train time..Meh.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Llurren
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:32:00 -
[456] - Quote
Thanks for the post covering the upcoming changes. I appreciate the advance planning and testing at work here.
Speaking as someone who spends most of his time in combat fleets through Low and Null, I think these changes are on the right track. Running off-grid boosts has always been a low-risk/high-yield activity that didn't make a lot of sense. A few thoughts here:
Command Ships: Feels like they're getting the sort end of the stick here. The former vision was that they were highly specialized ships designed to provide boosts to an entire fleet. The limitation of only two base links means they're not going to be able to provide "core" support for a specific set of links without making tank sacrifices. As they've always been primary targets, this will certainly weaken them on the field. I can lose a rig slot (tank, most likely) to get that third boost back and provide all the core links, or I can only use two and keep my tank.
Charge Types: I see the rationale behind "ammo" but sigh slightly at the thought of more things I need to remember to bring with me on every fleet.
It will be interesting to see what a max-skill pilot's range, strength, and duration end up being.
Keep up the good work!
"I grok people. I am peopleGÇŞ so now I can say it in people talk. I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so muchGÇŞ because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting."
|
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
83
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:32:49 -
[457] - Quote
These are certainly big changes, but on the whole I think they could be positive for the game. One question that immediately jumps out - the devblog mentions that there will be "balance tweaks being to combat-focused boosting ships alongside the new system." Does this mean that the T3 warfare processor subsystems will be reworked so they're not hot garbage? With resist bonuses, they could be quite attractive.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:37:15 -
[458] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:These are certainly big changes, but on the whole I think they could be positive for the game. One question that immediately jumps out - the devblog mentions that there will be "balance tweaks being to combat-focused boosting ships alongside the new system." Does this mean that the T3 warfare processor subsystems will be reworked so they're not hot garbage? With resist bonuses, they could be quite attractive.
t3 links are not garbage. In terms of fairly slippery and hard to probe down + pretty good bonus made them the most common choice for roams. You can move them around a lot easier than a command ship.
One thing about this change is that is adds some more utility to battlecrusiers. I can quite a few of em having a link in the high now.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME VYDRA RELOLDED
276
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 04:56:48 -
[459] - Quote
>it requires support that is not always available to small fleets or solo players
Yes, yes, so the solution is to take links from a solo player and make him kill that enemy command ship that's boosting things around.
And we take the 3rd free link from the CS so you need more command ships. Removing a gun in favor of a link is a common and sensible choice which is already a tradeoff in itself. Why remove the choice?
And we are killing utility ship roles like inties and range-tanked stuff (like frigate electronics and solo logi), because their job requires to be outside the fleet core area.
This whole thing further enforces anchor-F1 meta by requiring more link ships and punishing spread-out positioning. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5887
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:00:46 -
[460] - Quote
Ryzhik Belka wrote:So, just to clarify : as a small time miner, chilling in the belt with my alt, all I can expect from this change is less yield, less shield, and a bunch of useless SP in Leadership, right ? Not the "I quit" change, of course, but I'm not really wild about it either.
For me, there is minimal change. I was boosting with my Orca in the belt anyway, since it provides a convenient buffer between the mining ships and the hauler.
I wouldn't mind the ability for exhumers to fit mining command bursts though. Let's see what the Porpoise turns out to be.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
179
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:04:39 -
[461] - Quote
Gene Greyy wrote:Moraguth wrote:I'd like to introduce you to the bastion, siege, and triage modules, the cynosural field generator, and the doomsday device. All of which have severe penalties to movement when activated, thus forcing you to commit to your activity of choice for at least a few minutes. They all have amazing capabilities while the module is active, and are fairly meh otherwise. Mila Joevovich wrote: To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?
I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?
So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.
I'll file this under the "If you change my gameplay in ANY way that I view as negative, you're KILLING my hopes and dreams and all desire to play the game. WAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!" section. Thanks for your constructive and valuable criticism. Especially since mining and mining links are the CORE gameplay for ALL non-pvp in the game. And the barbaric concept of wanting balance and parity for all gameplay mechanics is pure applesauce! Why shouldn't people who don't particularly want to engage in pvp while undocked be completely immune to all pvp activities? /sarcasm through the same absurdity you used Well, with respect to that last part, it was not criticism unless you count the constant insults that the carebears have to endure from the HTFU crowd. It was a simple question, and one that I posed as well. If you really want pvp all the time then, why not just get rid of pve? It's a reasonable question and one that maybe you should consider...you might actually like it better.
Just to be clear, I avoid ship pvp like the plague. I'm horrible at it. I'm pretty useful in a support role, but nearly worthless anywhere else. In eve, just about everything is pvp in one form or another. And as the devs have said since beta, the only time your ship is safe is when you're docked (and even that's not 100% true anymore!) and the only time your isk is safe is when it's in your wallet.
That being said, I agree that every ship that is actively affecting other players must be vulnerable. Even if all you're doing is helping other people who just want to be left alone, I think you have to be subject to surprise attacks if for no other reason than to ensure you're not AFK.
Do I hate suicide gankers and wish they would all die in a fire? Yes. Do I like to pretend they're all whiny, sociopathic, sexually-frustrated teenagers left alone with their emo music in their parents' basements? Absolutely (even though I know it isn't true, it still makes me feel a tiny bit better when they catch me). But I believe it is still a vital part of the game. We can debate the balance issues on how easy/hard it is, but I don't think I can advocate for its removal (or any of the other game mechanics that I personally wish would die in a fire), and I kind of have to fight to keep it in the game.
I realize I went off on a tangent about suicide ganking there for a minute, but my feelings for that apply to other mechanics as well. Including off-grid boosting of any kind, including the initially pve kind like mining.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Night Raven Task Force United Interests
41
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:10:10 -
[462] - Quote
I dont rely like any off it,not iven the extra low slots on som mining ships if the price off that is getting the rest of this update as well, |
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
200
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:18:20 -
[463] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Johnny Galnetty wrote:If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.
This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW. Agreed, 15km base is too small(max skills is only 29.25km) Especially on a Command Destroyer in a Frigate Fleet where people fly in and out of that range in Seconds when nearly bouncing off you.
Not really. If anything, flying with (and expecting) skirmish links has had a negative impact on your ability to fly your ship. Can't live without them? I suggest you start practicing. I've done nothing but fly tackle in fleets for years, and I really don't expect these changes to impact me much, if at all.
By limiting range and number of bursts available, you're forcing people to decide which they value most while providing the option to cover all the bases by sacrificing slots in your fleet, or pilots in DPS/Logi/EW. Want all the links for all the things? Then bring enough Command Ships/Destroyers to do that. Want specific links for specific wings? Then fit accordingly and get used to anchoring on Command Ships and Destroyers.
As for your concerns about frigate fleets, if they can fly out of range in seconds, they can fly back into range in a similar amount of time. This is of course ignoring the fact that most useful frigate doctrines revolve around anchors, so see my previous point. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1126
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:20:23 -
[464] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:As a quick reminder: we welcome all feedback, but please stay constructive and within the forum rules. If you dislike something, please point out specifically why you don't like it. Thank you! Don't like this!! Why? Removal of passive boosts gained from implants and skills.
Present - Small gang of say 8 (2 tackle, 2 logi, 4 dps), squad commander has max leadership skills so passive boosts although not "boosted" are very useful (more so with faction implant) .
Future - Same small gang, Either needs 2 extra in fleet with very limited choice, expensive ships that will be primary at every engagement. Or, they just don't go out.
-- - -- - -- - -- Forcing players into using the current limited variety of command capable ships, is not good design. For such drastic changes, new classes of ships should be available.
Suggestion - Introduce command capable ships for each class of ship to allow any fleet comp to be viable. Also helpful for those new to boosting, they can cut their teeth in smaller ships as they train up to command ships. Adding this new layer of micro management should be accounted for by allowing players to learn the ropes as they train up (frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc). Not just get skills and learn as you go in a dedicated command ship. EG; Command Frigate T1, T2, Command Cruiser T1, T2 (expensive T3's aren't always the best or most suitable option) Command Ships are ok for larger fleets and small gang battlecruiser, battleship roams (if there is such a thing) but you wouldn't take one out in a T1 cruiser roam. Command Destroyers, while capable of fitting links aren't really suitable for much other than their primary role of jumping ships 100K off, they'd need a major rework to be suitable for what is suggested in the blog.
Removing off grid boosts is a great idea and well overdue, just don't break boosting by turning into a micro management mini game.
Please keep in mind - Eve is a game of alts. Many times fleet boosters are multi boxing.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:24:38 -
[465] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:
And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.
Given that they combined two of the shield and armor links into one module, for the most part you are on an equal footing now. You really only need to make a tough choice if you are boosting skirmish links under the new system. We really like to run two shied links (resits and cycle times/rep)+ the range link for scrams etc. And just to all those ppl saying "just put links on grid" You do know that grids are now thousands of kms in size. This would amount to changing NOTHING. Really where were all these people (the links are fine the way they are) when this was/has been hashed out and discussed for years? And why is mining such a special snowflake?
Mining is a "special snowflake" because without it you wouldn't have well, anything. Everything you use to do whatever it is you do starts with some poor a$$ in a belt or anom mining the ore that is used to make it.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:31:33 -
[466] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here.
I read your post on twitter regarding the max range and still I have to scratch my head with mining boosts.
The belts are many times bigger than the max boost range. Many of the belts being mined require you to warp from one side of the belt to the other.
How can you possibly boost with such a short range even if you are on grid?
Are the belts going to be shrunk to match up with the nerfed boosts?
If so, isn't this going to make it even harder to avoid people from being able to warp right in on your booster?
Seems like this is going to be a nice cluster of ships for stealth bombers to take out. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
507
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:34:07 -
[467] - Quote
Kenneth Fritz wrote: Mining is a "special snowflake" because without it you wouldn't have well, anything. Everything you use to do whatever it is you do starts with some poor a$$ in a belt or anom mining the ore that is used to make it.
You know we mined almost everything we needed to make a lot of stuff. We don't in fact have a roq just for the clone bay ya know.
So if you mine a little slower, there will be plenty of others around to take up the slack. Don't worry about. And if you leave well again plenty of us around to mine what we need.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Tess Storm
The Graduates The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:34:22 -
[468] - Quote
Kind of stupid, first you lose 10 thousand pilots because of the fatigue issues, now you are targeting miners. Do you really want to lose more subscribers? Most miners have 6-9 accounts. Its awfully nice to have boosts, but if I want to mine ice and player X wants to mine ore, we now need to have separate boosts?? CCP is stabbing itself in the heart of subscribers.
Personally, I think this is an awful idea.
Why not make the game fun again, stop making everything difficult. |
IbbnSaifun
TerraNovae Workers Trade Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:43:18 -
[469] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:I can repeat that 150km should be the minimum range, IMHO... But can you justify why you should be able to have a ship in a central position able to apply boosts to two ships 300km apart? Not why it's convenient to only need that one ship doing it, mind you, but why it's preferable for people to be able to do that, rather than having boosters in among the ships they're boosting?
Easily - if you can scan an entire system to locate people real time that means you have FTL capabilities for 2 way systems - if they are gonna make this system actual - they need to appropriately NERF the real time scan for entire systems beyond BOOST ranges as proposed as that's only one way for effects. Logic duh.
While I've been playing for not so long compared to some I've always more enjoyed the mining / industrial side of the game and the solo or small corp life, but it seems every time a big change comes along the miners get kicked to curb, again.
For all of you who enjoy the Adrenalin rush of combat - well hurray! But, it's not required to pounded into the same box as everyone either. Damn CCP you take a wonderful game and just feel like you need to change things to justify your chairs which doesn't actually always make it BETTER. Additional complexity does not equal improvement.
Retirements coming up this October, I guess I'm cutting from 3 paying accounts to 1 or none, and I'll find something else to play with like real projectile weapons... |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:43:57 -
[470] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here. ... If so, isn't this going to make it even harder to avoid people from being able to warp right in on your booster? Seems like this is going to be a nice cluster of ships for stealth bombers to take out.
Yhea it's not ment to be fair - the baby lamp has to be butchered |
|
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:45:12 -
[471] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Tess Storm wrote: Why not make the game fun again, stop making everything difficult.
Wait you said fun again... as in afk mining? Fun really, is that what kids are calling it these days.
I don't afk mine never have I used 6 accounts to mine with but with these changes I'm letting 3 unsub as I wont be mining anymore not putting a rorq in a belt |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:47:10 -
[472] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: If so, isn't this going to make it even harder to avoid people from being able to warp right in on your booster?
That is kinda of the point. To make boosting harder and more risky. As for size of belts and everything. Travel in a group perhaps. You know kinda of like a fleet of mining ships with support ships, even some anti gank support, stripping all ore from one end to the other, in that order. Rather than say having one ship 150km "over there". In actual fleets we call that "Dafuq dat guy doin'?".
Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
508
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:50:09 -
[473] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space).
You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:53:13 -
[474] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Night Raven Task Force United Interests
41
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:54:03 -
[475] - Quote
the bad things with all this updats they plan, is that it have only 1 focus to blowe up more valubal ships.but in the end it will just be a lott less of those ships used in the game,they shift the risk vs reward aspect so fare from good.,it's not exactly good as it is now. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
508
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:55:30 -
[476] - Quote
Lord Mudeki wrote: I don't afk mine never have I used 6 accounts to mine with but with these changes I'm letting 3 unsub as I wont be mining anymore not putting a rorq in a belt
but that is the problem that most want fixed. This 100% safe rorq thing that you think you should have. It was never meant to be that way and CCP have been saying for years that this is *going* to change. And *lots* of people have been howling for this change for years. Calling off grid boosting cancer etc....
The mistake made was letting you have a 100% safe rorq in the first place so that you have unrealistic expectations.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:59:09 -
[477] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Lord Mudeki wrote: I don't afk mine never have I used 6 accounts to mine with but with these changes I'm letting 3 unsub as I wont be mining anymore not putting a rorq in a belt
but that is the problem that most want fixed. This 100% safe rorq thing that you think you should have. It was never meant to be that way and CCP have been saying for years that this is *going* to change. And *lots* of people have been howling for this change for years. Calling off grid boosting cancer etc.... The mistake made was letting you have a 100% safe rorq in the first place so that you have unrealistic expectations.
Whatever Ill be laughing all the way to jita market when prices skyrocket and I'm selling my stockpiles for even more profit |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
508
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:00:22 -
[478] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers. A single stealth bomber can't do much (10k in one bomb if your sig is bigger than 300m). If there are 20 extra in local i am pretty sure your going to be long gone. With the exception of blops. but then you guys dock up if there is *anyone else* in local. So not really buying it.
And there is a difference between clustering and all being warping distance away from each other.
Bear in mind that we have all said that 15km is too small. But over 100km is a bit over the top outside caps as well.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:04:33 -
[479] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers. A single stealth bomber can't do much (10k in one bomb if your sig is bigger than 300m). If there are 20 extra in local i am pretty sure your going to be long gone. With the exception of blops. but then you guys dock up if there is *anyone else* in local. So not really buying it. And there is a difference between clustering and all being warping distance away from each other. Bear in mind that we have all said that 15km is too small. But over 100km is a bit over the top outside caps as well. One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2696
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:08:44 -
[480] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Big fleets in null? Yeah, it is going to be a new skill set and not an alt of the fc. Someone is go9ing to have to fly and fly well. Baybe even doctrines that specify how many command ships will be needed. Rolling buffs throughout the fleet with the occasional Boosh for good effect. I have a couple of problems with this:
- Tidi: In bigger null sec fights, I play in potato mode with 1 FPS, which means I can not do anything at all. My machine is not the fastest gaming beast, that is for sure, but it should be around the performance average that many people use. This rules out a lot of players for this role because they could not do the "boosh" and warp out or in or broadcast for reps or do anything but die.
- Killmails: That goes for all kinds of fleets. These people will likely not get on a lot of killmails, if any at all. It is already hard to get people into logistics, which are undeniably equally or more important than boosts. It won't get better when even more people need to sacrifice their KB for something that is potentially worthless because of how the fight goes (see above).
- Skills in general: I was in a fleet in the recent past that could not leave because it was lacking certain booster pilots and their ships. Since these new "boosh" boosts require skills to increase their range, high skill levels in these are even more important than in the past. That rules out more people.
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.
|
|
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Night Raven Task Force United Interests
41
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:10:07 -
[481] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers. A single stealth bomber can't do much (10k in one bomb if your sig is bigger than 300m). If there are 20 extra in local i am pretty sure your going to be long gone. With the exception of blops. but then you guys dock up if there is *anyone else* in local. So not really buying it. And there is a difference between clustering and all being warping distance away from each other. Bear in mind that we have all said that 15km is too small. But over 100km is a bit over the top outside caps as well. The problem is the price on mining ships/orca roq,compared to the cost for gankers to take them down.and the actual time you have to mine to replace them if lost,this is somthing most gankers dont seem to grasp. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
508
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:17:05 -
[482] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote: The problem is the price on mining ships/orca roq,compared to the cost for gankers to take them down.and the actual time you have to mine to replace them if lost,this is somthing most gankers dont seem to grasp.
Well we mined, and even in the wormhole. But the problem there is too much supply makes ore very cheap. So per hour its not great income. Making mining easier or less risky will simply reduce the price via increased supply of ore and your not improving your lot.
mining per hour is crap because there are soo many risk adverse afk miners selling so much ore (and a thing that goes ping with an extra in local so you can mash the dock button is still afk.)
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium
1108
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:19:19 -
[483] - Quote
Why are you going with ammo for command boosts instead of scripts? Is that supposed to be some sort of balancing mechanism?
On a side note; it's neat to see the nearly useless mining cap use boost rolled into a different boost and replaced with something actually useful. |
Grookshank
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
116
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:19:41 -
[484] - Quote
Please reconsider the range limitation. A command destroyer has less than 30km range with max skills and a command ship less than 60km. This only works for fleets that anchor. That can't really be what you want I hope. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
73
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:22:30 -
[485] - Quote
So your going to need to target every ship in your fleet, and "shoot" each one of them with one of these boost. This change is a bit like what you have done in other areas of the game, made it into a huge clickfest.
And I am not sure how this helps "solo" or "small" groups. Now they will find it easier to kill 10 perhaps random players "shooting" bonuses to others instead of scanning down a weaker ship sitting on its own in space or a POS... Okay, yea that sounds easier to me.
I do honestly hope that the SP is going to get refunded on this, as it is a major change.
Wouldn't the simpler move have been to just force the command ships to be on grid, AND beef them up in some way that lowers their risk of death. Cause lets be honest, command ships, rorquals, command t3's and such all have generally gimped setups. Now your just hoping that we will see 20 non-gimped versions in the fleet all "shooting" their own fleet members.
Def time for a SP refund.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
508
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:24:30 -
[486] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles Spectre Fleet Alliance
508
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:25:49 -
[487] - Quote
DeODokktor wrote:So your going to need to target every ship in your fleet, and "shoot" each one of them with one of these boost.
You may want to try reading the dev blog first....
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2719
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:26:10 -
[488] - Quote
Lord Mudeki wrote:I don't afk mine never have I used 6 accounts to mine with but with these changes I'm letting 3 unsub as I wont be mining anymore not putting a rorq in a belt I am not sure why you need perfect mining boosts to mine. You will even get a new ship which will probably a very agile mining boost ship specially designed for dangerous space.
The highest boosts should be reserved for the people who are willing to take the higher risk of putting their valuable assets on the table. I am sure there will be players who will take this risk and organize the defense should the rorq get in trouble. Those people seriously deserve a better buff than those who can't be arsed to defend themselves.
All the whiners quitting over this just means more value for the people who are willing to adapt and don't just demand perfect boost for zero risk.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:27:59 -
[489] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits. If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt?
Illogical |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:34:52 -
[490] - Quote
Okay, so I've already made a few comments as I was reading and I appreciate the counter arguments as a single person can't see all sides of an issue. And as I continued to read most people are upset with the whole a Rorqual in the belt/anomaly is just a quick way to lose it.
My corporation and I are industrialists and we enjoy just about every aspect of it. We have things we're good at and those which we are not. We are looking at these changes with more than a little unease. If caught at the start of a new siege timer your Rorqual it now the biggest side of a barn out there for people to throw rocks at. While unfortunate, that is life. Things don't always work out the way we want them to and lady luck likes to flip you the bird every now and again. I think someone called it a loot pi+Śata. In spite of that, I like the idea of putting it the boosters on grid. However I think the range issue for the AOE could use a different approach. For the smaller command ships maybe a slight boost to the AOE range based on faction or perhaps in the form of a rig that can increase it. Make it comparable to the command rig that adds the number you can fit so it would be a choice of number of ships hit at once or types of boosts given. I can see a lot of people just saying, "Well more types of boosts is better so I don't see why anyone would use that rig." So I'll point it out. It means not putting all your eggs in one basket. But I digress.
For the true capital command ships like the orca, rorqual and regular carriers take a page from the Supercarrier's Remote E-War Modules. Take the current set up for strength and AOE range and make it so that boost effect can be centered on a target of the pilot's choice. This would allow the battle field to spread out stay while keeping boosts on grid. This would make placing the epicenter as well as the timing of that effect almost a adaptive and challenging gameplay aspect. For miners this means yes the booster is going to be in danger but now at least there are option and who ever is wanting to go after said miners is going to have to choose the barges/exhumers or the booster. The distance the effect can be cast out would be based on the ships and type of link fit to it. i.e. A carrier fitting a mining link wouldn't be able to cast the effect more than 10-15k while it's shield link would be able to cast out to say 80-110k. Or even just make the casting effect an attribute of the T2 version of the module. Have it consume more of this ammo the modules are supposedly going to use as a balance.
I got a bit distracted in the middle there but tell me what you all think about this idea. Heck improve if you can/want.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:41:24 -
[491] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers. A single stealth bomber can't do much (10k in one bomb if your sig is bigger than 300m). If there are 20 extra in local i am pretty sure your going to be long gone. With the exception of blops. but then you guys dock up if there is *anyone else* in local. So not really buying it. And there is a difference between clustering and all being warping distance away from each other. Bear in mind that we have all said that 15km is too small. But over 100km is a bit over the top outside caps as well. One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
The barges and especially the exhumers are getting a significant over haul. Can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but jump on the test server as they're already there and check it out.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
456
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:43:47 -
[492] - Quote
May Arethusa wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:Johnny Galnetty wrote:If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.
This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW. Agreed, 15km base is too small(max skills is only 29.25km) Especially on a Command Destroyer in a Frigate Fleet where people fly in and out of that range in Seconds when nearly bouncing off you. Not really. If anything, flying with (and expecting) skirmish links has had a negative impact on your ability to fly your ship. Can't live without them? I suggest you start practicing. I've done nothing but fly tackle in fleets for years, and I really don't expect these changes to impact me much, if at all. By limiting range and number of bursts available, you're forcing people to decide which they value most while providing the option to cover all the bases by sacrificing slots in your fleet, or pilots in DPS/Logi/EW. Want all the links for all the things? Then bring enough Command Ships/Destroyers to do that. Want specific links for specific wings? Then fit accordingly and get used to anchoring on Command Ships and Destroyers. As for your concerns about frigate fleets, if they can fly out of range in seconds, they can fly back into range in a similar amount of time. This is of course ignoring the fact that most useful frigate doctrines revolve around anchors, so see my previous point. Actually I normally Fly a Griffin/Kitsune, and I'm normally 50km+ from the Furball in the middle, the Siege Skills/Links are normally all that stops me from being 1 Lucky Volleyed off the field, allowing me to warp recharge shields and warp back in from a different area/angle and continue.
Perhaps you need to learn how to fly instead of staying stuck to an anchor :P |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:54:19 -
[493] - Quote
Kenneth Fritz wrote: Okay, so I've already made a few comments as I was reading and I appreciate the counter arguments as a single person can't see all sides of an issue. And as I continued to read most people are upset with the whole a Rorqual in the belt/anomaly is just a quick way to lose it.
My corporation and I are industrialists and we enjoy just about every aspect of it. We have things we're good at and those which we are not. We are looking at these changes with more than a little unease. If caught at the start of a new siege timer your Rorqual it now the biggest side of a barn out there for people to throw rocks at. While unfortunate, that is life. Things don't always work out the way we want them to and lady luck likes to flip you the bird every now and again. I think someone called it a loot pi+Śata. In spite of that, I like the idea of putting it the boosters on grid. However I think the range issue for the AOE could use a different approach. For the smaller command ships maybe a slight boost to the AOE range based on faction or perhaps in the form of a rig that can increase it. Make it comparable to the command rig that adds the number you can fit so it would be a choice of number of ships hit at once or types of boosts given. I can see a lot of people just saying, "Well more types of boosts is better so I don't see why anyone would use that rig." So I'll point it out. It means not putting all your eggs in one basket. But I digress.
For the true capital command ships like the orca, rorqual and regular carriers take a page from the Supercarrier's Remote E-War Modules. Take the current set up for strength and AOE range and make it so that boost effect can be centered on a target of the pilot's choice. This would allow the battle field to spread out stay while keeping boosts on grid. This would make placing the epicenter as well as the timing of that effect almost a adaptive and challenging gameplay aspect. For miners this means yes the booster is going to be in danger but now at least there are option and who ever is wanting to go after said miners is going to have to choose the barges/exhumers or the booster. The distance the effect can be cast out would be based on the ships and type of link fit to it. i.e. A carrier fitting a mining link wouldn't be able to cast the effect more than 10-15k while it's shield link would be able to cast out to say 80-110k. Or even just make the casting effect an attribute of the T2 version of the module. Have it consume more of this ammo the modules are supposedly going to use as a balance.
I got a bit distracted in the middle there but tell me what you all think about this idea. Heck improve if you can/want. That's better than the current proposal. I think this still doesn't address the clustering impact to the boosts for miners which is the biggest downside to the mining boosts in a belt.
If this change incorporated with a 150km optimal range on the capital indy command ship with a 300km range around the target we would have a workable solution. The mining ships have to be able to spread out to work the belt, if you are mining something rare, the roids are spread all over the belt.
I think some of the people claiming to have indy miners only have experience in high sec and don't know how big belts get and how they react to the market to mine what the market demands to keep prices lower for pvp ships and equipment.
There is a elastic pricing model that eve economy modelers aren't factoring in with these changes. |
Porcelina
ELUSH Rehab
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:54:28 -
[494] - Quote
CCP... You didn't listen. We've been telling you nobody will siege the rorqual in ore sites. You are ignoring the players and trying to force a type of PVP game play on to non-PVP players.
RIP nullsec industry. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:57:58 -
[495] - Quote
[quote=Kenneth Fritz The barges and especially the exhumers are getting a significant over haul. Can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but jump on the test server as they're already there and check it out. [/quote] Anything big enough to off-set this will negatively affect high sec ganking.
In other words, can't be fixed without breaking something else. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1868
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:59:05 -
[496] - Quote
IbbnSaifun wrote:Arrendis wrote:Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:I can repeat that 150km should be the minimum range, IMHO... But can you justify why you should be able to have a ship in a central position able to apply boosts to two ships 300km apart? Not why it's convenient to only need that one ship doing it, mind you, but why it's preferable for people to be able to do that, rather than having boosters in among the ships they're boosting? Easily - if you can scan an entire system to locate people real time that means you have FTL capabilities for 2 way systems - if they are gonna make this system actual - they need to appropriately NERF the real time scan for entire systems beyond BOOST ranges as proposed as that's only one way for effects. Logic duh.
I don't see what FTL scanning (and we know the lore has FTL communications capabilities - that's how your clone works) has to do with the radius of boosts.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1868
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:02:27 -
[497] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers.
Because 90km radius from the Rorq is so cluttered, right? |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:04:00 -
[498] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:[quote=Lord Mudeki]...
All the whiners quitting over this just means more value for the people who are willing to adapt and don't just demand perfect boost for zero risk.
typical ignorant point of view, not taking into consideration the majority of players, its not asking for perfect boosts its asking for respect developed playstyle, time of skills and equipment involved you aint solve the problem with orcas in adding a highly skill demanding new mining command ship - anybody that can fly such a command ship did so anyhow already to boost |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1868
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:05:29 -
[499] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
Uhhhhh, no? Macks and Retrievers fit out to tank quite well - not as well as Skiffs and Procurers, but more than enough to handle some bombs. And they'll be rebalancing around the same time, as well, so don't go assuming anything on that score. |
Grookshank
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
116
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:05:34 -
[500] - Quote
Quote:Command Bursts will not apply their bonuses to any fleetmates that are tethered or within a starbase force field, and ships cannot activate their Command Burst modules if they themselves are within a force field.
Can we assume ships also can't use command burst modules if they are tethered themselves? |
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:08:29 -
[501] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:I think this still doesn't address the clustering impact to the boosts for miners which is the biggest downside to the mining boosts in a belt. If this change incorporated with a 150km optimal range on the capital indy command ship with a 300km range around the target we would have a workable solution. The mining ships have to be able to spread out to work the belt, if you are mining something rare, the roids are spread all over the belt. I think some of the people claiming to have indy miners only have experience in high sec and don't know how big belts get and how they react to the market to mine what the market demands to keep prices lower for pvp ships and equipment. There is a elastic pricing model that eve economy modelers aren't factoring in with these changes.
That is a good point. Perhaps a radius of 150k off the target for a total of 300k field of effect as the end game with perfet skills before rigs and implants while sieged. That way those who can afford those undoubtedly expensive items will have a slight edge but not an overwhelmingly one. Then it would be a choice of either staying a bit closer to boost all aspects using different links or ammo. Or, fitting two of the same module loaded with the same ammo in order boost one thing to everyone as they spread out.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1870
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:08:40 -
[502] - Quote
Grookshank wrote:Quote:Command Bursts will not apply their bonuses to any fleetmates that are tethered or within a starbase force field, and ships cannot activate their Command Burst modules if they themselves are within a force field. Can we assume ships also can't use command burst modules if they are tethered themselves?
I'd imagine that just like activating a cyno, NSA, or smartbomb, the moment you turn one of these on, you break tether. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:14:31 -
[503] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers. Because 90km radius from the Rorq is so cluttered, right? "Between 29.25km and 87.75km depending on the ship"
#1. You are assuming that someone has the max range of 87.75km on their boosting ship (per CCP Fozzie Tweets, and this is likely a Titan with the best implants isk can buy, He said MAX!) #2. You are assuming that it is worth someone to train for this max range (12x skills) #3. If you are at a range of 87.75km, you are assuming with the risk of a booster that close that costs in excess of a billion isk it would make sense to maintain distance rather than deposit ore into the boosting ship. ~~ I could go on, but do I really need to?
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:16:09 -
[504] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it. Uhhhhh, no? Macks and Retrievers fit out to tank quite well - not as well as Skiffs and Procurers, but more than enough to handle some bombs. And they'll be rebalancing around the same time, as well, so don't go assuming anything on that score. "Macks and Retrievers fit out to tank quite well"
Someone who didn't read the other posts.
That is the point. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:18:36 -
[505] - Quote
So we are forced on gird - good
get our boosts nerfed - what?
and then in order to get the most out of those nerfed boosts we have to give up a rig that is 25% of the power and that is assuming it is limited to one per ship.
can someone explain the reasoning to this nerf?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:20:10 -
[506] - Quote
Kenneth Fritz wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:I think this still doesn't address the clustering impact to the boosts for miners which is the biggest downside to the mining boosts in a belt. If this change incorporated with a 150km optimal range on the capital indy command ship with a 300km range around the target we would have a workable solution. The mining ships have to be able to spread out to work the belt, if you are mining something rare, the roids are spread all over the belt. I think some of the people claiming to have indy miners only have experience in high sec and don't know how big belts get and how they react to the market to mine what the market demands to keep prices lower for pvp ships and equipment. There is a elastic pricing model that eve economy modelers aren't factoring in with these changes. That is a good point. Perhaps a radius of 150k off the target for a total of 300k field of effect as the end game with perfet skills before rigs and implants while sieged. That way those who can afford those undoubtedly expensive items will have a slight edge but not an overwhelmingly one. Then it would be a choice of either staying a bit closer to boost all aspects using different links or ammo. Or, fitting two of the same module loaded with the same ammo in order boost one thing to everyone as they spread out. If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.
If they want these ships available for targets on grid, this is the only hope of theirs t have that happen.
Otherwise, reprocess, wash and repeat.
Rorqs will be a mineral source only. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:23:47 -
[507] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote: If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.
give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ashterothi
Aideron Robotics
405
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:31:48 -
[508] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.
give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all
Incursion communities
Industry corps
Signal Cartel
Drifter Hive "tours"
Listen to Hydrostatic Podcast for all your Empyrean needs!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:33:37 -
[509] - Quote
Ashterothi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.
give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all Incursion communities Industry corps Signal Cartel Drifter Hive "tours"
not sure what signal cartel is but all the rest of those are pvp
edit: looked it up yes signal cartel still does pvp
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:35:31 -
[510] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ashterothi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.
give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all Incursion communities Industry corps Signal Cartel Drifter Hive "tours" not sure what signal cartel is but all the rest of those are pvp edit: looked it up yes signal cartel still does pvp Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:37:03 -
[511] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ashterothi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.
give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all Incursion communities Industry corps Signal Cartel Drifter Hive "tours" not sure what signal cartel is but all the rest of those are pvp edit: looked it up yes signal cartel still does pvp Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming
even that is pvp
you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:39:38 -
[512] - Quote
But anyway why are command ships getting nerfed so hard with the 25% rig? and boosts in general getting a nerf
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:41:32 -
[513] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming
even that is pvp
you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production[/quote] you are really stretching things.
PVP as everyone defines it involves destruction of something, yes in every game there is pvp whenever there is more than a single player. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:47:16 -
[514] - Quote
O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that
also games can have multiple players with no PvP
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2719
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:49:55 -
[515] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:PVP as everyone defines it involves destruction of something, yes in every game there is pvp whenever there is more than a single player. No, that would be combat, which is not the same thing. PvP means player vs player and this takes on many forms of which just one of them is spaceship combat.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:51:05 -
[516] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP.
You are a very small minority with this definition. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:55:51 -
[517] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP. You are a very small minority with this definition.
what? even CCP defines eve as a PvP game yet it is not all pew pew you are the one mistaken here
any time two ppl attempt to achieve conflicting goals there is pvp
EDIT
but fine pvp can be the act of doves screwing sharks it has little to do with what the dev blog was on
why are the command ships getting nurfed?
are they going to get an HP adjustment when these come out at least?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:58:43 -
[518] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP. You are a very small minority with this definition. what? even CCP defines eve as a PvP game yet it is not all pew pew you are the one mistaken here any time two ppl attempt to achieve conflicting goals there is pvp Ok, you convinced me.
Will warp my Rorq to a belt and die happy/sarc
Hopefully everyone else is equally impressed by your argument and logic |
BuntCakez
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:07:47 -
[519] - Quote
Sir Constantin wrote:For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted".
I support this notion. Or make it so they get a specific weapons timer that does not allow you to jump through accel gates |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2720
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:08:45 -
[520] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Will warp my Rorq to a belt and die happy/sarc
Hopefully everyone else is equally impressed by your argument and logic As mentioned before, there are people who will organize a defense and are willing to take the risk. This are the players who should get the better boost. For too long you just got perfect mining boost for no risk at all, same problem the combat boosts had. CCP is fixing this now.
You will still get mining boosts, there is even a new ship in the works and it is probably the kind of thing a smaller fleet without backup will have to go for. But don't expect the best rewards with zero effort.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:13:27 -
[521] - Quote
BuntCakez wrote:Sir Constantin wrote:For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted". I support this notion. Or make it so they get a specific weapons timer that does not allow you to jump through accel gates
i don't see to much of an issue with this as you can be sitting in the plex see some one coming boost yourself and warp off your boosting alt. only place this would not work is novice
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
661
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:21:25 -
[522] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:#1. You are assuming that someone has the max range of 87.75km on their boosting ship (per CCP Fozzie Tweets, and this is likely a Titan with the best implants isk can buy, He said MAX!) You know what else he said?
CCP Fozzie wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
- Have you considered making implants for range? I noted the lack thereof and wondered why
Not currently planned but those would be an option in the future.
I think someone in the thread ran the numbers and came up with roughly 61km for a max skilled command ship, and other ranges for other ships. Caps get better range, destroyers get less range.
Yes, not everything can benefit kiting. Also worth noting that titan boosts will be less effective than command ship boosts. You trade range for potency. Awesome, right? So skill up for range.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:22:17 -
[523] - Quote
Anyone thinking of cashing out leadership skills they don't want into skill extractors should do so quickly before the market crashes. Prices are down already.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Marox Calendale
Human League Eleven Signs Network
82
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:26:04 -
[524] - Quote
Does the boosting ship still have to be part of a fleet to get its own boosts or will it be possible to fight 1 vs 1 in a selfboosted ship? |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
661
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:28:15 -
[525] - Quote
These changes look fantastic.
As someone who has read innumerable threads about people either complaining about or politely asking for changes to this system for years, I feel this is an amazing moment for EvE. The new system looks like it'll do an incredible job of balancing the needs of fleets and the complaints of the old system. Right now, it looks like these systems have been very well thought-out and carefully balanced. Dedicated command ships seem to have the most command burst potential and great range. The other options are smaller ship size for smaller number and smaller range of buffs but you get better mobility on-grid and between fights, while larger ships get equal number of buffs but less strength compared to dedicated command ships but get more range. This is exactly, exactly how I would have wanted such a system. It's elegant, balanced, and provides great options with tradeoffs.
The reduced time sink to get into tech II bursts finally puts them on par with tech II weapons, a change that was sorely needed. The switch to command rigs is a great balancing move.
I like the command burst ammo idea. The removal of hierarchy is great and opens up a lot of fleet options for redundancy and perhaps taking the heat off of individual booster pilots.
All of these complex changes of such an important system are brilliant. Are you guys opening up a McDonald's bychance? Because I'm lovin' it.
But, there seem to be some flaws, oversights, and a bit of info that was already provided that I still have to air my disagreement with.
1: Your blog states there's a command rig. Fantastic. But...it does not currently list stats. I'm sure they're still being worked on, and that's not really the point I wanted to get to. But, your blog only states that there's going to be "a" command rig. So, there's only a tech-1 variant like the anchor rig? I feel this is a missed opportunity. -I would like to see two rigs, tech I gives you one more command processor, tech II gives you two...with a 150/200 calibration respectively. So if someone dedicates all of their rigging to extra processors, they can get up to six on their vessel. Or, they can fit one rig for two extra processors, and one more rig available. Something like that. There is a great opportunity for risk, balance, and reward here that I hope you embrace. -Or, maybe 150/300 respectively. So, you can only ever have a max of four processors on your ship, but if you do go with the tech-II rig, you don't have a lot of calibration points left over for your remaining rig slot.
2: A few people mentioned HP boost mechanics and I think it's be great if we could get clarity on that, and possibly a revision if necessary. I've seen forum threads where people claimed that their ships blew up because a booster turned off his armor boosts, and their health went into the negative. Since you're rebalancing command buffs, let's discuss this. -First, is this accurate? -If so, why? It doesn't make sense to me that a buff would actively hurt you when removed, rather than just reducing the upper limit of your potential HP. If this is the case, and the code is already being revisited, there should be a goal of changing this system over so such things do not happen anymore. Removing max HP should not reduce your current HP, just bring you down to the new maximum that is unboosted. Since this blog and thread have already addressed redundant boosts and there's contingencies in place for weaker and stronger boosts taking effect and dropping off, it would seem to me that fixing this is an urgent issue indeed.
3: You already and clearly stated that neutral boosting will not warrant a suspect timer. As someone who is two days away from command ships V and is theoretically benefited by this, I still feel it is a loophole that should not exist. Can we have, in this forum thread or even a different thread if need be, a discussion about this specific point? Any other assistance you give as a neutral entity still places you at risk. You can't accidentally boost someone you ought not to, since they had to fleet up with you. If you're accepting non-corp members into your fleet to boost them, you should accept the risk that comes with boosting others (and another good reason to encourage people to be in corps, not NPC). Again, other remote boosters like logi already face this, why should command buffs be exempt from this? -I feel it is folly to suggest that boosts should be brought on-grid to be interacted with, but also say that they can be protected by Concord in ways other boosters are not. These are tanky ships, ganking them is not a feasible solution. This is still a completely lopsided advantage for command pilots and they/we should not have this special snowflake treatment.
4: I feel a bit of unease when your blog mentions tweaking the combat command ships. If the command ships get tweaked, I'm hoping they're slated for something close to the heavy interdiction cruiser treatment. Appropriate racial bonuses, role bonus to tank. Right now you are planning on having these command ships really get into the thick of battle, and ability to tank some waves of damage is going to be a very high priority. If all command ships can't tank roughly (ROUGHLY) similar numbers, the weak ones are going to be immediately obsolete. These are going to be fleet ships, in heavy battle, may or may not be primary, and need similar staying power. If one ship has half the tank of the other, which one do you think is really going to be brought into battle?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:33:01 -
[526] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:
1: Your blog states there's a command rig. Fantastic. But...it does not currently list stats. I'm sure they're still being worked on, and that's not really the point I wanted to get to. But, your blog only states that there's going to be "a" command rig. So, there's only a tech-1 variant like the anchor rig? I feel this is a missed opportunity. -I would like to see two rigs, tech I gives you one more command processor, tech II gives you two...with a 150/200 calibration respectively. So if someone dedicates all of their rigging to extra processors, they can get up to six on their vessel. Or, they can fit one rig for two extra processors, and one more rig available. Something like that. There is a great opportunity for risk, balance, and reward here that I hope you embrace. -Or, maybe 150/300 respectively. So, you can only ever have a max of four processors on your ship, but if you do go with the tech-II rig, you don't have a lot of calibration points left over for your remaining rig slot.
it says in the blog 25% and there is no t1(listed at least) only t2
this would be a good idea if with this rig you could get at least some what better than current but you will get less now than b4 and have to give up a rig
this rigs boost is way to high(even if only one can be fit per ship) and will make it hard to justify using a command ship over a t3
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Jason Ozran
Screaming Hayabusa Neo-Bushido Movement
33
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:33:51 -
[527] - Quote
On the booster side, it was expected for a long time, and there was some changes to be made and done. Gonna be a mess since half of the universe has alts for boosting/logi, and that might actually make even more people unsub, but we'll see when it comes out. At least you are trying to tackle the issue.
However, CCP continues on another dangerous path: you guys have been making this game easier and easier. Let me explain, cause it looks likes a great idea in the first place, but has many realized recently, it didn't help attracting new players at all and instead made a lot of old players left the game or go AFK. Why? Because what made Eve the game it was is slowly going away : - we used to be able to lose SP (yes, it sucks, but at least you were learning from that mistakes and no other games had this...making it a bit special somehow) - you made the unlimited skill queue, making people connect once every 6 months instead of every other week (might sucks too, but that was making the universe active, not dead like it is now) - you made so that some ship are invisible to D-Scan, which is just against every possible rule when it comes to balancing PVP, especially solo (making FW even more useless and annoying in low sec) - you want to make some ships invincible (Rorqual). I mean, seriously? Everytime you undock, you might lose your ship. And that's the main reason why people undock and take the risk, because it is exciting! If you want to be safe, go play Pokemon, not Eve Online
And the list goes on and on. Stop making the game so boring and safe all the time, we need the risks back, the lost of skills or money and all this that used to make Eve a game so special. You have much better stuff to focus on, starting with the Stargates you have been talking about for 3 years now... |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:34:25 -
[528] - Quote
The combat command links look excellent, they should really help integrate OGB alts back into mainstream society.
The issue of mining boost ships needing to be on-grid wouldn't be quite so controversial if mining sites were switched from anomalies back to signatures. Perhaps we should wait and see what the "drilling array" expansion has to offer in the near future before reprocessing all those rorqs. |
Spacetramp Sotken
Alliance of Free Stars
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:40:58 -
[529] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Will warp my Rorq to a belt and die happy/sarc
Hopefully everyone else is equally impressed by your argument and logic As mentioned before, there are people who will organize a defense and are willing to take the risk. This are the players who should get the better boost. For too long you just got perfect mining boost for no risk at all, same problem the combat boosts had. CCP is fixing this now. You will still get mining boosts, there is even a new ship in the works and it is probably the kind of thing a smaller fleet without backup will have to go for. But don't expect the best rewards with zero effort.
Oh really, and while this fleet is defending Rorqs/Orcas in 2 or 3 systems red fleets are wreaking havoc in every other system. Not every system has every ore or ice in it even in Null. Over the weekend there were constant 20+ red fleets going around, would you put out a capital ship in a belt to boost the fleet?
What do they do then?
Abandon the boosters, then chase the reds leaving the mining fleet defenceless, or constantly dock the Rorq/Orca up every 5 mins? Or do they use a Command Destroyer which is tight to fit now, fine the Processors are changing to rigs, which means no Armour rigs etc. How that's going to fit enough tank to sit in a belt I have no idea.
All in all another nerf to mining/indy and completely ignores the issue of neutral boosting, which is probably one of the most broken mechanics in the game..not surprising really considering the direction the game has been driven in the last few years.
HS will probably turn out to be the least affected by these changes.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
662
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:47:03 -
[530] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:it says in the blog 25% and there is no t1(listed at least) only t2
this would be a good idea if with this rig you could get at least some what better than current but you will get less now than b4 and have to give up a rig
this rigs boost is way to high(even if only one can be fit per ship) and will make it hard to justify using a command ship over a t3 ...what blog are you seeing? Maybe it's a different one? I'm looking at the blog linked from the login window, and it has a tabled stat for "Command rig - if ship is allowed to fit command modules, +1 command module." I don't see any mention of percentages. And it lists neither t1 or t2, I assumed t1 because the anchor rig went that direction.
Edit: quotations matter!
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:50:53 -
[531] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:it says in the blog 25% and there is no t1(listed at least) only t2
this would be a good idea if with this rig you could get at least some what better than current but you will get less now than b4 and have to give up a rig
this rigs boost is way to high(even if only one can be fit per ship) and will make it hard to justify using a command ship over a t3 ...what blog are you seeing? Maybe it's a different one? I'm looking at the blog linked from the login window, and it has a tabled stat for "Command rig - if ship is allowed to fit command modules, +1 command module." I don't see any mention of percentages. And it lists neither t1 or t2, I assumed t1 because the anchor rig went that direction. Edit: quotations matter!
my bad its late i was reading the rig above it
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17929
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:51:00 -
[532] - Quote
Jason Ozran wrote:On the booster side, it was expected for a long time, and there was some changes to be made and done. Gonna be a mess since half of the universe has alts for boosting/logi, and that might actually make even more people unsub, but we'll see when it comes out. At least you are trying to tackle the issue.
However, CCP continues on another dangerous path: you guys have been making this game easier and easier. Let me explain, cause it looks likes a great idea in the first place, but as many realized recently, it didn't help attracting new players at all and instead made a lot of old players left the game or go AFK. Why? Because what made Eve the game it was is slowly going away : - we used to be able to lose SP (yes, it sucks, but at least you were learning from that mistakes and no other games had this...making it a bit special somehow) - you made the unlimited skill queue, making people connect once every 6 months instead of every other week (might sucks too, but that was making the universe active, not dead like it is now) - you made so that some ship are invisible to D-Scan, which is just against every possible rule when it comes to balancing PVP, especially solo (making FW even more useless and annoying in low sec) - you want to make some ships invincible (Rorqual). I mean, seriously? Everytime you undock, you might lose your ship. And that's the main reason why people undock and take the risk, because it is exciting! If you want to be safe, go play Pokemon, not Eve Online
And the list goes on and on. Stop making the game so boring and safe all the time, we need the risks back, the lost of skills or money and all this that used to make Eve a game so special. You have much better stuff to focus on, starting with the Stargates you have been talking about for 3 years now...
How is removing off grid boosting continuing along this path?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:55:50 -
[533] - Quote
I think the weakest point of whole rebalance is:
Quote:This means that passive bonuses provided to entire fleets from skills, implants and ship hulls will be removed and replaced with this new active module system. Because of SCALING in:
Quote:Many other dedicated fleet support roles such as logistics, command destroyer, interdictor, and interceptor piloting all involve tactical decision making and allow the best pilots to stand above their peers.
All logistics, interdiction, intercepting gameplay SCALES pretty well. Any ship can be used as logistics, some just are better. Any ship can tackle/intercept, some are just better. In all these roles, you can scale from using not specialized tech 1 ships to very focused tech 2/ tech 3 ships and corresponding skills.
In current fleet boosting this scaling is done from low access skills giving passive passive boost to specialized modules (links), ships and skills. So at least some scaling level not forcing players to use specific ships. You plan to remove this passive scaling level. Even if you lower requirements for some command module capable ships, it will still lack scaling potential of current system.
Passive bonuses were not that decisive in vast majority of situations and removing that pesky scan resolution bonus from Svipul sitting on gate is good. But many players invest SP (time ~ money) to this low fleet boost scaling level. These invested SPs are now unusable unless those players invest even more SP (time ~ money) and on top of it change their (favorite to not so favorite) playstyle because of ship type enforcement. So saying Leadership, Armored Warfare etc. converted skills will have same impact on game is kind a bad joke.
Putting some low scaling level in place is important IMO. I think the simplest adjustment would be to give any ship ability to fit one command module. But I can see how this could increase potential boost sources amount for server to process/track to insane number so probably won't happen. |
Sentenced 1989
196
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:07:21 -
[534] - Quote
Vidork Drako wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. OK, this is just bad. You're creating a viable form of counter-play by putting links on-grid. Good. But you're not making neutral bursts gain a suspect timer? That's bad. In Highsec, in a wardec situation, the hostiles can use a neutral link alt to boost them, leaving the only counter-play against this a suicide gank against that link alt while under fire from the hostiles. In Lowsec, if you have a neutral giving you boosts and you attack them, you're now under fire from gate and station guns even though the booster is essentially committing an act of aggression against you by boosting those attacking you. Neutral boosters need to receive a suspect timer. That was my main concern about links .. and this is why I asked the question. Booster on Grid should get a suspect timer by boosting out of corp members who are fighting in wardec as logi does. Period. Not giving a booster that timer is a non sense. Or .. explain us why you didnt see it that way CCP :)
This is grey area, while I agree that neutral alts should not be able to interfere, it is also tricky and could be abused. Image situation where people outside of corp join fleets, as a booster you would have to screen any for wardecs, otherwise they could be in wardec with their alt, shot themselves once so you get suspect flag and then blow you up easily (speaking about HS boosters).
One thing would be same as reps, you can rep / boost up till point ship goes in engagement with valid target, if the target is not valid target for you as well it would stop applying your boost for next cycles. But in that case you ****** up lowsec groups when they decide to kill neutrals, etc...
So overall, complicated position.
The Incursion Guild
Epic Arc Guide
|
Jason Ozran
Screaming Hayabusa Neo-Bushido Movement
33
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:09:16 -
[535] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Jason Ozran wrote:On the booster side, it was expected for a long time, and there was some changes to be made and done. Gonna be a mess since half of the universe has alts for boosting/logi, and that might actually make even more people unsub, but we'll see when it comes out. At least you are trying to tackle the issue.
However, CCP continues on another dangerous path: you guys have been making this game easier and easier. Let me explain, cause it looks likes a great idea in the first place, but as many realized recently, it didn't help attracting new players at all and instead made a lot of old players left the game or go AFK. Why? Because what made Eve the game it was is slowly going away : - we used to be able to lose SP (yes, it sucks, but at least you were learning from that mistakes and no other games had this...making it a bit special somehow) - you made the unlimited skill queue, making people connect once every 6 months instead of every other week (might sucks too, but that was making the universe active, not dead like it is now) - you made so that some ship are invisible to D-Scan, which is just against every possible rule when it comes to balancing PVP, especially solo (making FW even more useless and annoying in low sec) - you want to make some ships invincible (Rorqual). I mean, seriously? Everytime you undock, you might lose your ship. And that's the main reason why people undock and take the risk, because it is exciting! If you want to be safe, go play Pokemon, not Eve Online
And the list goes on and on. Stop making the game so boring and safe all the time, we need the risks back, the lost of skills or money and all this that used to make Eve a game so special. You have much better stuff to focus on, starting with the Stargates you have been talking about for 3 years now... How is removing off grid boosting continuing along this path?
I was referring to the Rorqual invincibility that is also part of the devblog. You would realize that if you read my bullet points, where i explicitely mention this feature.
|
Jason Ozran
Screaming Hayabusa Neo-Bushido Movement
33
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:31:26 -
[536] - Quote
Yogsoloth wrote:Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.
The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.
The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers.
These changes will have little to no effect on large scale warfare, these engagements have more than enough people to have designated on-grid links.
This change will have a negative effect on small gang and solo (single person) pvp. Small gangs dont have enough dedicated people to designate some1 for on-grid boosts, and solo players won't be able to compete or skirmish with a small group without a way to help level the field. These fights will be dumbed down to whoever has more people will win.
I understand CCP only cares about large fights that grab headlines, but I expect solo pvp to continue it's downward spiral, as these changes force everyone into fleets to compete.
I expect a number of these solo or small gang enthusiasts to also cancel accounts. All in all, this change will net a significant loss and cancelation of subscriptions and hurt EVE's overall bottom line. But hooray that all the carebears will have to find new reasons to cry over their losses.
That's something at least...
Amen. |
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1509
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:37:45 -
[537] - Quote
Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.
1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions).
2. How will the wearing off of a shield or armor HP effect be handled, when said ship is in low shield or armor? 2a. How will the application of a new shield or armor HP effect by handled when said ship has no shield or armor?
3. If the same boost is applied before the first wears off, will the timer be extended? Assuming yes, how will it handle things if the second boost has a lower strength? ie: Will the lower strength be applied (1). Immediately; (2). At the end of the first boost timer; (3) The higher boost will remain throughout. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
76
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:44:16 -
[538] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:>> Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful... Sorry for getting offtopic right off the bat, but this only works on the principle thinking that the booster is an alt account where the player only runs one monitor in case the ship always remains stationary. There are too many possibilities for people who run software and hardware solutions which makes early notification of combat probes possible without going into the botting and scripting category. In short; the moment you see probes on d-scan, you warp away. There is no way for an attentive player to get caught by combat probes if s/he isn't already engaged otherwise and is not in a huge and clunky ship that isn't already pre-aligned. This is an inherent problem with combat probes which I hope to see addressed in the future. I once caught an offgrid linkship using only dscan and midwarp bookmarks.
Drazz Caylen wrote:>> ...Armor, Shield (formerly known as Siege), Information, Skirmish, and Mining. Mind if you change "skirmish" to "navigation" at that point then and replace the ewar bonus with something else? What would this something else be? The ewar bonus is pretty important for small fast gangs, exactly what the skirmish boosts are meant for.
Drazz Caylen wrote:>> These modules must be loaded with ammo in order to activate, and the ammo choices determine which bonus the module will provide to nearby fleetmates. Suggestion; change the ammo to something new, being a high-slot script. That doesn't affect reload time but certainly makes more sense than using... well... "ammo." I don't even want to think about what kind of explanation will be tried to reason using "ammo" for a "physical stat boost". Sure, maybe it's more like a battery to help out with the capacitor... at which point we are at auxiliary modules, which require much more cap if running out of charges. See? I bet you that existing code for scripts doesn't allow for reload times and they just can't be arsed to change it. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
457
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:50:06 -
[539] - Quote
Croc Evil wrote:I think the weakest point of whole rebalance is: Quote:This means that passive bonuses provided to entire fleets from skills, implants and ship hulls will be removed and replaced with this new active module system. Because of SCALING in: Quote:Many other dedicated fleet support roles such as logistics, command destroyer, interdictor, and interceptor piloting all involve tactical decision making and allow the best pilots to stand above their peers. All logistics, interdiction, intercepting gameplay SCALES pretty well. Any ship can be used as logistics, some just are better. Any ship can tackle/intercept, some are just better. In all these roles, you can scale from using not specialized tech 1 ships to very focused tech 2/ tech 3 ships and corresponding skills. In current fleet boosting this scaling is done from low access skills giving passive passive boost to specialized modules (links), ships and skills. So at least some scaling level not forcing players to use specific ships. You plan to remove this passive scaling level. Even if you lower requirements for some command module capable ships, it will still lack scaling potential of current system. Passive bonuses were not that decisive in vast majority of situations and removing that pesky scan resolution bonus from Svipul sitting on gate is good. But many players invest SP (time ~ money) to this low fleet boost scaling level. These invested SPs are now unusable unless those players invest even more SP (time ~ money) and on top of it change their (favorite to not so favorite) playstyle because of ship type enforcement. So saying Leadership, Armored Warfare etc. converted skills will have same impact on game is kind a bad joke. Putting some low scaling level in place is important IMO. I think the simplest adjustment would be to give any ship ability to fit one command module. But I can see how this could increase potential boost sources amount for server to process/track to insane number so probably won't happen. Having every ship in the game being able to fit 1 module and then all of the bonused ships having additional Modules actually sounds pretty good.
I still think that the Command Destroyer needs some form of Range Bonus on it. |
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:51:10 -
[540] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.
1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions).
2. How will the wearing off of a shield or armor HP effect be handled, when said ship is in low shield or armor? 2a. How will the application of a new shield or armor HP effect by handled when said ship has no shield or armor?
3. If the same boost is applied before the first wears off, will the timer be extended? Assuming yes, how will it handle things if the second boost has a lower strength? ie: Will the lower strength be applied (1). Immediately; (2). At the end of the first boost timer; (3) The higher boost will remain throughout.
As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?
No idea about 2
If i'm reading it right, using one boost, then another of the exact same type will result in the first counting down, then the second would take over with what time it has left, ie while the one you are getting is running down, so is the other, they don't stack, but will still run down, if that makes sense?
|
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
457
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:51:54 -
[541] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:3. If the same boost is applied before the first wears off, will the timer be extended? Assuming yes, how will it handle things if the second boost has a lower strength? ie: Will the lower strength be applied (1). Immediately; (2). At the end of the first boost timer; (3) The higher boost will remain throughout.
This was answered in one of the previous Blue Posts |
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1509
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 09:56:19 -
[542] - Quote
After these changes there won't be any need for a fleet hierarchy, therefore is the fleet window being simplified accordingly and will the maximum number of allowed fleet mates be upped? |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
474
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:02:47 -
[543] - Quote
No effect In FW plexes !! please and thank you
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
you shall all bow and pray BoB
|
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1509
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:07:45 -
[544] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:Major Trant wrote:Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.
1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions)... As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?...
CCP Devblog wrote:Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. Sounds to me like a boosting ship can sit on an acceleration gate and boost a fleet before they go in. Effectively maintaining offgrid boosting. That is fine for Incursions and missions runners, but for fighting in FW plexes that is a PITA for the defending fleet, they won't be able to get a T3 or Command ship inside a medium or small plex, so won't have boosts. The attackers can sit outside with a command ship, boost up and enter without risk to the command ship. |
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1509
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:11:20 -
[545] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:No effect In FW plexes !! please and thank you Agreed.
At the same time remove the sec hit for shooting neutrals inside a FW plex. |
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:13:02 -
[546] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Major Trant wrote:Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.
1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions)... As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?... CCP Devblog wrote:Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. Sounds to me like a boosting ship can sit on an acceleration gate and boost a fleet before they go in. Effectively maintaining offgrid boosting. That is fine for Incursions and missions runners, but for fighting in FW plexes that is a PITA for the defending fleet, they won't be able to get a T3 or Command ship inside a medium or small plex, so won't have boosts. The attackers can sit outside with a command ship, boost up and enter without risk to the command ship.
How do you maintain them though? They seem to only have a short duration and you have a very limited range to apply them. |
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1509
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:19:10 -
[547] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:Major Trant wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Major Trant wrote:Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.
1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions)... As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?... CCP Devblog wrote:Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. Sounds to me like a boosting ship can sit on an acceleration gate and boost a fleet before they go in. Effectively maintaining offgrid boosting. That is fine for Incursions and missions runners, but for fighting in FW plexes that is a PITA for the defending fleet, they won't be able to get a T3 or Command ship inside a medium or small plex, so won't have boosts. The attackers can sit outside with a command ship, boost up and enter without risk to the command ship. How do you maintain them though? They seem to only have a short duration and you have a very limited range to apply them. The first minute of the fight is the most important and often determines it's outcome. As for range, the fleet stacks up on the acceleration gate, perfect place to apply the boosts. |
Desiderya
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Wrecking Machine.
1122
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:36:18 -
[548] - Quote
The initial boost on the warp in is indeed an advantage. But on the other hand, plex advantage is also a big deal.
Regarding the boosting effects I feel that the ranges are too small for mobile gangs. Having some falloff range on top of that would be really nice, possibly even as an ammo choice so it'd work akin to to the idea behind armor/shield logi. Also: make links (but not command processors) fittable on all ships so that the system scales for all levels of fleet size, ship size and player experience while having room for the optimized ships.
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
|
Tiddle Jr
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
882
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 10:53:12 -
[549] - Quote
Can we have Orca attributes changes plz?
"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
|
Ebonix Mileghere
EyEs.FR La Division Bleue
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:21:31 -
[550] - Quote
0/ I'm a bit sad about the removal of the third warfare link on Command Ships (CS). Right know, CS pilots can make a choice betwwen having three links or having DPS, and when it comes to on-grid boosting, beeing able to fit 3 links is greatly appreciable. Unfortunately, after the patch, CS will have to sacrifice a rig slot into using 3 links. On a large fleet scale, it won't be an issue since multiple command ships (with 2 links) will be on grid, but on a small fleet, where only one CS will be on grid, the rig will be mandatory, thus rendering the CS less tanky. Exception beeing made of the damnataion, on grid boosting CS reach the 100-150k with two trimark/extander. If we remove one of these rigs in order to get the third link, boosting CS may be too vulnerable. I am thinking of my active tanked Eos, with 3 warfare links. Dropping either on link or one rig will make the ship less tanky, maybe to a point where its active tanking will no longer justify the 1.2b pricetag.
My other question is about the AoE. What will happen if the CS is the only one in the AoE? I am a CS pilot, and when I for for some solo PvP in a CS, I have warfare links fitted on my solo CS (Thus links are on grid). With an alt in the system, I manage to boost myself. After the update: - Will the link apply to myself even though my alt is not in the AoE? - Will I be able to boost myself without needing the alt in the system?
This is my feedback, bui I wanna stress that I enjoy the removal of off-grid links. Ebo' |
|
Brown Pathfinder
Its a good day to die
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:25:07 -
[551] - Quote
Is possible to increase the time links are applied to 10 minutes? And beef up CS slots and attributes some |
Cliverunner
EVE University Ivy League
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:25:15 -
[552] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:When loaded with the proper ammo and activated, Command Bursts modules will provide time limited, area-of-effect based bonuses to fleet members in range of the ship activating the burst.
I would like to suggest that you add a second mode to the modules...kind of like the HICs bubble generator. Mode 1 - like you describe in your blog post Mode 2 - You can apply your boost to any single fleet mate you have locked...regardless of range.
I am thinking about the times you want to boost an inty to go get some sniper....The inty might or might not be able to get to the sniper in the 60s he has boosts, but I am 100% sure he will get outside the boosters range in that time. In certain cases, especially with Rapid Deployment, you will just have to have a lot longer range than you are planning. But you want to limit the AOE to something reasonable...the answer to limit the effect to a single targeted ship with no range limit. |
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
1050
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:39:02 -
[553] - Quote
I have a PvE Eos ... assuming no fitting changes it just got a nice little buff. Thanks CCP :)
No Worries
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
600
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:45:42 -
[554] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. Could you (or another dev) elaborate on why you aren't going to make neutral boosters suspect? It feels to me as if neutral boosting should have the same penalties as neutral logi as they both have significant direct impacts on a fight.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1075
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:49:38 -
[555] - Quote
Brown Pathfinder wrote:Is possible to increase the time links are applied to 10 minutes? And beef up CS slots and attributes some
So change everything but leave the actual applied effect the same?
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1075
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:51:01 -
[556] - Quote
Tiddle Jr wrote:Can we have Orca attributes changes plz?
Yes, in the next dev blog. Which they already said.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
ArmyOfMe
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
602
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:51:20 -
[557] - Quote
Quick question, will we finally be able to give boosts to just ourselfs without having to be in a fleet? (for those few of us that wants to fly commandships solo)
ArmyOfMe wrote:
1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything.
baltec1 wrote:
We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly.
|
Thomas Lot
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
39
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:56:03 -
[558] - Quote
Has anyone run the numbers yet comparing max boost from current system to max boost on the upcoming system? Comparing cycle times and yields of the various ships/strip miners/crystals?
This would give everyone a much clearer comparison to work from.
Please and thank you. |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1075
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:56:23 -
[559] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP. You are a very small minority with this definition.
Um...no, most people playing the game understand that there are multiple ways to compete with another player.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
663
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:59:18 -
[560] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Um...no, most people playing the game understand that there are multiple ways to compete with another player. This is correct. Heck, ask some of the incursion communities about the time when they were all heavily competing for sites and deliberately killing off motherships to spite one-another.
Sometimes the most vicious and entrenched PvP has nothing to do with shooting each other.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:00:35 -
[561] - Quote
big miker wrote:Awesome changes, I love it!
There's just one small concern I have about tech 3 Cruisers. I have a feeling they can still be somewhat used safely.
Let's consider the Tengu for this example.
[Tengu, New Setup 1] Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator Co-Processor II Inertial Stabilizers II
Command Processor I Command Processor I 'Thurifer' Large Cap Battery 'Thurifer' Large Cap Battery Cap Recharger II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II [empty high slot] Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot]
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II COMMAND RIG COMMAND RIG
Tengu Defensive - Warfare Processor Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
If you add mid-grade ascendacy implants to this fit it'll do 6.2 au/s. Yeah that's all great and all but what's the issue with that? Every 60 / 130 seconds you warp in the Tengu with a alt. You align out with the cloaking device running. Deactivate cloaking device, hit link buffs and warp off to a safespot.
It's almost uncatchable since you'll be able to instantly warp it out after decloaking. Not to mention it's nullified so bubbles won't be a issue at all. Blog also mentioned link buffs will require alot of capacitor, which will be no problem for t3c at all ( yay cap battery's ).
I've got 2 proposals: 1: Proposal one is to make it impossible for tech 3 cruisers to use the nullification subsystem together with the warfare processor subsystem. 2: Penalize the link buff ship for 10 / 15 seconds not being able to warp.
Let me know what you guys think! Other than that, very very stoked about the changes!!!
This makes no sense at all...
We are losing Command Processors for rigs, and losing Warfare Links for Command Bursts...
What is this fit supposed to represent? You even have Command Rigs showing with Processors in mids, you won't have both. |
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:06:00 -
[562] - Quote
Well the only thing I have to say is after some lengthy chatting in my alliance comms, pretty much everyone agrees the idea of converting fleet boosters to a module that consumes ammo is a really dumb.
Most said up the PG, or make their fitting hull size relavant, line small, medium, large with progressively stronger outputs for larger modules/larger ships.
The other thing proposed was the run these off of scripts not ammunition.
Since everyone knows that once CCP gets set on a great new idea, it's pretty much set to happen, we hope the duration cycle for these new modules is quite long to off set the trouble. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:09:40 -
[563] - Quote
T2 fitted Rorqual = +102,38 % range / -43,88 cycle time or volatility T2 fitted Orca = +75.47 % range / -32,34 % cycle time or volatility |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
312
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:10:28 -
[564] - Quote
Spacetramp Sotken wrote: Oh really, and while this fleet is defending Rorqs/Orcas in 2 or 3 systems red fleets are wreaking havoc in every other system. Not every system has every ore or ice in it even in Null. Over the weekend there were constant 20+ red fleets going around, would you put out a capital ship in a belt to boost the fleet?
What do they do then?
Abandon the boosters, then chase the reds leaving the mining fleet defenceless, or constantly dock the Rorq/Orca up every 5 mins? Or do they use a Command Destroyer which is tight to fit now, fine the Processors are changing to rigs, which means no Armour rigs etc. How that's going to fit enough tank to sit in a belt I have no idea.
All in all another nerf to mining/indy and completely ignores the issue of neutral boosting, which is probably one of the most broken mechanics in the game..not surprising really considering the direction the game has been driven in the last few years.
HS will probably turn out to be the least affected by these changes.
Get bigger. More 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
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
312
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:16:06 -
[565] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP. You are a very small minority with this definition.
Uh. No. You are literally the 0.01% that DON'T define it that way. Get with the program, sir.
"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
312
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:22:35 -
[566] - Quote
Jason Ozran wrote:- we used to be able to lose SP (yes, it sucks, but at least you were learning from that mistakes and no other games had this...making it a bit special somehow) You still can. Ever fly T3?
Jason Ozran wrote:- you made the unlimited skill queue, making people connect once every 6 months instead of every other week (might sucks too, but that was making the universe active, not dead like it is now) If the skill queue is the only thing making you login, you are actually a detriment to the game.
Jason Ozran wrote:- you allow skill trading. Eve was always about making choices, and if you make the wrong ones, well you just have to deal with it. But no, they had to make the skill injectors and ruin that too... (I know some people that spent hundreds of dollars just to get PLEx and injectors, so I guess we all know why CCP did this feature...) Yes. Shame on CCP to combat the "veterans have all the advantages and you'll never catch up" evil rumor about EVE, and also making a tidy profit in the process to keep EVE afloat. How dare they?
Jason Ozran wrote:- you made so that some ship are invisible to D-Scan, which is just against every possible rule when it comes to balancing PVP, especially solo (making FW even more useless and annoying in low sec) There are no rules. This is EVE. There a very few ships that do not show up on D-scan, and there's been cloaked ships since forever. How is this suddenly a problem?
Jason Ozran wrote:Stop making the game so boring and safe all the time, we need the risks back, the lost of skills or money and all this that used to make Eve a game so special. You have much better stuff to focus on, starting with the Stargates you have been talking about for 3 years now... Oh, you mean like they should force people away from safe off-grid boosting and force people to be on grid? Hint: They just did.
"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
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:26:47 -
[567] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:Spacetramp Sotken wrote: Oh really, and while this fleet is defending Rorqs/Orcas in 2 or 3 systems red fleets are wreaking havoc in every other system. Not every system has every ore or ice in it even in Null. Over the weekend there were constant 20+ red fleets going around, would you put out a capital ship in a belt to boost the fleet?
What do they do then?
Abandon the boosters, then chase the reds leaving the mining fleet defenceless, or constantly dock the Rorq/Orca up every 5 mins? Or do they use a Command Destroyer which is tight to fit now, fine the Processors are changing to rigs, which means no Armour rigs etc. How that's going to fit enough tank to sit in a belt I have no idea.
All in all another nerf to mining/indy and completely ignores the issue of neutral boosting, which is probably one of the most broken mechanics in the game..not surprising really considering the direction the game has been driven in the last few years.
HS will probably turn out to be the least affected by these changes.
Get bigger. More fleets.
How about you get real?
We have members, but they can't be everywhere at once.
You have 6 members!!
-FRV- is a closed and tight nit community of primarily solo pilots under a single flag. We strive to go unnoticed and just make a living wherever we settle down. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:39:29 -
[568] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Looking forward to post 2 where CCP reveal now they will encourage pilots to fly orcas and rorquals into the belts. Will they address the issues of these ships being slow, fat targets yielding easy killmails for lazy hunters?
The PANIC button sounds nice for folks living in nullsec. Buy time for attackers and defenders to rally their fleets while the rorq sits there waiting for a siege cycle to complete?
I wonder how the requirement for command ships to be on-grid will alter incursion completion times?
1. you put a ship like the rorqual on the field you should have some preparation for the "what if..." case. 2. you can daisy chain rorquals. and with the mining boost in the last o7 show ... it might even be worth to do it. (hello mining fighter) |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:44:35 -
[569] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:[quote=big miker]Awesome changes, I love it!
....
Let's consider the Tengu for this example.
Every 60 / 130 seconds you warp in the Tengu with a alt. You align out with the cloaking device running. Deactivate cloaking device, hit link buffs and warp off to a safespot.
It's almost uncatchable since you'll be able to instantly warp it out after decloaking. Not to mention it's nullified so bubbles won't be a issue at all. Blog also mentioned link buffs will require alot of capacitor, which will be no problem for t3c at all ( yay cap battery's ).
How twisted this patch need to be if a playstyle of warping in and out highfrequently to apply boosts come into mind. Another reason to consider using amunition as the wrong way to apply boosts.
|
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:53:37 -
[570] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.
How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space). You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying. Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers.
you will be able to spread out easily afterwards too. |
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
14522
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:55:11 -
[571] - Quote
I keep getting this vision of CCP trying to pull crack out of an addicts hand while saying "it's for your own good" while the addict cries and screams
Some of these folks actually don't seem to know that EVE is possible without constant boosts and as far as mining goes it will all level out (fewer minerals being mined means the mins you do mine will eventually be worth more). I'm glad I never got addicted to boosts in the 1st place.
|
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1511
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:55:41 -
[572] - Quote
Desiderya wrote:The initial boost on the warp in is indeed an advantage. But on the other hand, plex advantage is also a big deal... Yes it is, but there is a clear exploit going to be available here. People who attack FW plexes are still going to be setting up dedicated off grid boosters. A Claymore with a set of 3 boosting rigs and 6 boosting modules for example. The attacking fleet warps to the gate and aligns. FC calls fleet in, Claymore fires off all 6 boosts and then warps to safety. Throw in a second booster alt and you can apply all 12 boosts.
Yes it only applies for one minute (or slightly more depending on skills), but the attacker also has the advantage of deciding whether to take the fight or not. He simply doesn't activate the gate if he hasn't got an overwhelming advantage and is sure he can break the enemy in that first minute.
If anything this will make offgrid boosting safer. At least in the current system it is possible to hunt them down. But the new system allows them to bounce to a safe and cloak up or simply bounce between safes. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:00:43 -
[573] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Lord Mudeki wrote: I don't afk mine never have I used 6 accounts to mine with but with these changes I'm letting 3 unsub as I wont be mining anymore not putting a rorq in a belt
but that is the problem that most want fixed. This 100% safe rorq thing that you think you should have. It was never meant to be that way and CCP have been saying for years that this is *going* to change. And *lots* of people have been howling for this change for years. Calling off grid boosting cancer etc.... The mistake made was letting you have a 100% safe rorq in the first place so that you have unrealistic expectations.
EVE players call things they don't like cancer all the time.
Doesn't necessarily make it objectively so, though... |
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:09:09 -
[574] - Quote
Please remove the industrial core from the game, or at least its "pinned down in space for 5 mins"
super defensive weapon all shiny and stuff, but that it is mandatory because this flippin slow giant has to wait out the timer is a joke.
Oh and that i manually have to press the boosts every 1-2 minutes? - seriously?
World of Warcraft Classic Paladin sends his greetings, please get a nice cloth dress for the rorqual *sarcasm*
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Echo Mande
80
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:12:28 -
[575] - Quote
Overall it's an interesting set of changes that will have to be thoroughly tested. A lot of the suggestions here (bonusing orca/rorq for armor and shield) look sane.
I find myself worrying that the burst radius may end up being lower than we'd really want. Large mining ops and battles come to mind. There may be some ways around this though.
The following things might be worth looking into adding. - Boost drugs, working like current combat drugs. These drugs could increase range or duration of the user's boosting modules boosts. These would give Eve's drug dealers an extra source of income or alternately provide an ISK sink. - Tuned boosting module ammo. You could have two or three types of ammo. Standard, shortrange high powered ammo and longrange lowpowered ammo. If you wanted to nerf the shortrange ammo it could also have a negative effect on duration.
Wallet remarks everywhere
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
461
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:17:36 -
[576] - Quote
There are people that are mad here because they like the play style in its current form, but I think most of these posts are aimed at the whole sweeping rework of mechanics that seems frankly unnecessary.
Personally, I have no issue bringing a command ship on grid. Super easy.
But lets look at a couple of scenarios? PVP and PVE. PVE: C4 site running - So we get newbros that want to site run, and we'll often provide boosts to make c4s even easier. Most of the time the fleet gets pretty spread out because you'll have pilots at varying level of skill and preference (cruisers and BCs are expecially prone here). So as a booster (or 2) there's no way I'm going to keep boosts on my fleet, and chances are good that the guys that need it (working out towards 1x falloff for shield reps) aren't going to get it. *Conclusion: It's just inconvenient, adds a frustration to an already low paying pve activity, that's more meant to get people used to working as a group and taking squad warps than it is to make any real isk. It also means, that in 99% of the situations we would just forego boosts and use that person as a scout or additional DPS. *Alternatively: If command links had a longer range, (100-200km?) we would hold onto them as a useful addition.
C5 site running: Here the effect is much less pronounced mostly because the sleepers come into much closer ranges. The isk is better, we would probably still keep a command ship on field. But, at that point you may as well just have 3 basi's other than the point/web utility for the drifter battleship that spawns at the end. *conclusion - minimal impact but it'd be a toss up if you just bring extra reps (since they'll have more range) or the command ship for a bit of utility.
PVP: Armor WH Brawls: Really no change. We'll be fighting at 0 w/an EOS or Damnation if we're getting boosts (which is rare). Although, being able to 'apply links' before the fleet jumps through the next hole into the fight is an interesting mechanic. It'll let the command ship hold cloak to avoid being the target of nuets and let him get his next set of links off. Although, more likely he'll just uncloak and burn to tackle something. *conclusion: no real change in gameplay.
Shield fights: This is where it gets tricky. A lot of times you're playing with a single scimitar, DPS, and some nuets. You'll generally have people at multiple ranges depending on preference (tackle, if you bring jams). If you're fighting on a hole - you maybe have something with a long point (rapier?) to grab some tackle, or a brawling gila. My point - your fleet is going to be spread out. The pilots are going to be making their own decisions on position. Commands on whether you follow enemies through or try to pull them out will be given directionally but it's on the team to figure out how to make them happen. For ganks, this doesn't really change anything - you just follow the sabre and apply dps. Conclusion: Inconvenient, doesn't give the command ship a clear role - stay closer to the hole to apply boosts to everyone? stay near logi? It's a reasonable trade-off but it seems like it gives armor fleets a clear advantage because their fleet is going to be set up to brawl and isn't going to worry about disengaging. I'd say that it's a clear pain in the ass and likely you'll see less command ships being flown in that capacity. It's especially frustrating if you have a rapier or long points because while dictating range and disengagement will be key - getting you command ship in position to boost the right people at the right times is just going to be frustrating especially when people are calling for reps, numbers of enemies, and directing ewar.
Overall, it seems like there's LESS of a reason to bring a command ship in wormhole space than their was before after the changes. Most of those changes are a direct effect of range.
Also, what about people that want to train INTO command ships? That what 18-30km initial command range is just going to be garbage. The only people you'll get training is alts, or people that already have everything they want because otherwise the time to train is too steep (for casual players). When I first trained into my command ship, I was popping T1 links in and knew I was making a difference.
My solution would be - increase the range dramatically. I really don't understand the need for a consumable ammo, but if it's gotta be there whatever. I hope that boosts just show up as one icon on your hud because you already have a bunch if your in pvp/pve as a group (nos, scram, cap transfer, shield transfer/armor transfer) I feel like it could be overload in certain situations.
|
Kleb Zellock
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:23:32 -
[577] - Quote
Players demand off-grid boosting be changed.
How players percieve the changes they demanded. -15k base range. CCP demands brawler doctrine. GTFO light tackle, ewar, and logi anchors -Love bomb gives weapon timer. CCP demands those brawls on gates, or, sacrifice a booster. -Love bomb gives no suspect timer. CCP demands hi/lowsec blood offering from solo players. -No skill reimbursement. CCP demands $$ for skill extractors. -Rorquals must be on-grid. CCP demands ore prices go up/No Poors. -Orcas must be on-grid. CCP demands ore prices go up/bow to CODE/No Solo Zones
Despite the seeming copious amount of salt above, I think you are headed in the right direction. My guess is that this will be like FozzieSov: good intentions never optimized. Please roll this out in a usable iteration.
How to make it better:
-A titan should be able to boost a full grid size. Let it scale down from there based on hull size. -Get rid of the weapon timer. Yes, there will be some abuse cases; but waiting around all the time for you booster to cool down is boring. Continue to loose boosts when you take gates, accel gates, jumps, wormholes and tether/dock. -If your going to suspect timer logi is see no reason to not suspect timer boosts. -Figure out a way to reimburse those skills. You're triple dipping our wallets and that BS. We paid to train them. We shouldn't have to pay to remove them and the re-inject the same character at a loss. Shame on you. -I'll hold off judgement on this until all the changes are announced. -Same as above.
-I'll add: if you can make boosts take fuel, you can make cloaks take fuel.
- |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5886
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:27:23 -
[578] - Quote
This is a huge improvement in overall balance.
If you want the power offered by a Moros in an operation, you need to put the Moros on grid and at risk.
Now, the same is true for the power offered by a command ship, or the very different type of power offered by a Rorqual. Want the rewards? Take the risks. Don't think the rewards are worth risking expensive ships? Then field a budget alternative, just as you might field Rattlesnakes or Megathrons instead of dreadnoughts if the mission was high risk.
The range numbers should be seriously thought out - I'm not going to comment on whether 15km is right or not without trying it. Even if another number would be better - 15km is the proposed rule for both sides.
_________________________________________
That said, one point: Command ships probably need the capacity to fit more tank (while still boosting) to remain viable. They've been OK in the past with their paper thin tanks but this hasn't actually been a case of good balance, it's been underpowered ships whose weaknesses were masked by overpowered mechanics.
I believe that a command ship which fits command bursts and totally eschews all offense should have comparable tank to a tech 1 battleship (whether this be active armor, active shield, buffer armor, buffer shield or passive shield, as long as you compare like for like).
______________________________________________
Finally, Crimewatch. As much as it pains me to say this, the suspect flag (and not the criminal flag) should be inherited when you boost someone, unless that person is cloaked. I will abuse the hell out of consequence-free boosting, and I will *certainly* abuse the hell out of any criminal flag transferring, but it is a broken mechanic.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
461
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:34:43 -
[579] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This is a huge improvement in overall balance.
Now, the same is true for the power offered by a command ship, or the very different type of power offered by a Rorqual. Want the rewards? Take the risks. Don't think the rewards are worth risking expensive ships? Then field a budget alternative, just as you might field Rattlesnakes or Megathrons instead of dreadnoughts if the mission was high risk. .
I would say that the general argument isn't about bringing this on grid (except in the case of rorqs or orcas) but your code signature at the bottom is a pretty ******* obvious bias on your stance there. More that the proposed range, weapons timer, ammo, doesn't really add anything useful to the ship class and makes it way too limiting. Yes bring that **** on grid, but don't spay command ships like an 8 week old puppy.
Also there's going to be a mining boosting battle cruiser. So, you'll probably not see many orcas at belts. Sorry code bros. |
flipfragz
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:39:29 -
[580] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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.
In light of your response for the following skills
Leadership Wing Command Fleet Command
Are you saying that these skills (be it renamed) will still be required to build a fleet?
So for a basic example to apply the links to the full squad currently you require leadership 5 and a 'Booster' in either Squad/Wing/Fleet Command . Am I correct in saying that with the propsed system you will still need to have a person in squad command with the correct skills to allow the full squad to recieve the 'Boost' but it doesn't require the 'Booster' to be in a command postion?
|
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
26
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:40:36 -
[581] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:1) I once caught an offgrid linkship using only dscan and midwarp bookmarks.
2) What would this something else be? The ewar bonus is pretty important for small fast gangs, exactly what the skirmish boosts are meant for.
3) I bet you that existing code for scripts doesn't allow for reload times and they just can't be arsed to change it.
1) Emphasis on "once" I presume. I know D-scan and midwarps work, provided the ship sits put in a midwarp to begin with. There are so many other things in that equation that can and will go wrong. Your case also bases on a stationary target. Anyone who cares for their boosting ship keeps it moving between safespots. I don't say your story is wrong - just irrelevant to the scenario I provided.
2) It's not important for small fast gangs, it's important for everyone who makes it work for their doctrine. Take it away for everyone, and it again evens the playing field. It's just another stack on top of already quite long-reaching disrupt / scramble distances if you take the right ships and modules.
3) You don't know that and they've gotten rid of lots of code already to change something.
Major Trant wrote:The first minute of the fight is the most important and often determines it's outcome. As for range, the fleet stacks up on the acceleration gate, perfect place to apply the boosts. Drawing a blank right now. I know you can't dock and use stargates with a weapons timer, but can you use acceleration gates with a weapons timer? It's been so long I last did so
Arrendis wrote:IbbnSaifun wrote:Easily - if you can scan an entire system to locate people real time that means you have FTL capabilities for 2 way systems I don't see what FTL scanning (and we know the lore has FTL communications capabilities - that's how your clone works) has to do with the radius of boosts. Both of you didn't quite understand the eve lore with the issues it has.
FTL communication is based on fluid router systems. They use quantum entanglement that causes Atoms to correspond with each other. This limits the bandwidth of communication to, I quote; x bytes per second. Neural scans at the time of pod breach are used to scan the entire brain and send it to the clone location where a brain inside the grown clone gets formed promptly (and apparently swiftly). The scan is, and I quote again; including every neuron connection between every brain cell
How an instantaneous copy of the brain on this level of depth can be transferred anywhere almost instantaneously is not possible with a mere limitation of "bytes per second", as FTL communication infers the information load to be small. As part of the suspension of disbelief, I'm sure there are bigger fluid routers in similar fashion which allow bigger chunks of data to go through, but with increased latency for communication between systems. I will also make room for just-as-fast routers with higher bandwidth as manufacturing processes improved. Still nowhere near the bandwidth required for a nigh-instantaneous brainscan.
There are many things wrong with EvE lore, even if you take suspension of disbelief into account. Before you tackle lore, tackle other much more impeding issues.
For example how highsec boosting with a neutral alt will only give a weapons timer and not cause suspect.
Boosting should fall under the same crimewatch categories as remote assistance. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:47:21 -
[582] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote: PVP: Armor WH Brawls: Really no change. We'll be fighting at 0 w/an EOS or Damnation if we're getting boosts (which is rare). Although, being able to 'apply links' before the fleet jumps through the next hole into the fight is an interesting mechanic. It'll let the command ship hold cloak to avoid being the target of nuets and let him get his next set of links off. Although, more likely he'll just uncloak and burn to tackle something. *conclusion: no real change in gameplay.
changing system removes the buff again.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3095
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:48:18 -
[583] - 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. |
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
26
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:49:47 -
[584] - Quote
Quote:Drago Misharie: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it. Delt0r Garsk: Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits. Drago Misharie: If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt? Illogical. To offset the reduced yield you have by fitting tank? stop making it sound like you are the only person affected. Everyone will be affected. If you are purely fitted for yield, then it only makes sense to go that way in a hostile environment when you can offset the losses you suffered from not tanking with that extra yield. For some this calculation works. For others, it doesn't.
Again, for all those who didn't get it; everyone will be affected. If something so all-encompassing is touched, then everyone feels it. So you can't even really talk about a nerf to boosts, as everyone is affected evenly. It's not a nerf to you if someone else can pilot that ship better than you. It's just that you have to step up your game in order to remain competitive. The notion that some seem to express as to how some people magically are not affected by the nerfs is beyond me.
Anyway, wait for the damn Industry boosting devblog that comes up next. Gosh.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all Sitting in station, watching your ship collection spin and Avatar sitting in station while sipping on a beer and talk to your pals while clicking through Project Discovery maps. What? You only asked for one example.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming even that is pvp. you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production You infer they're selling the product instead of using it for themselves, or rather, their corporation. You also infer they would be selling it themselves, and not give it to another trader to take care of it. Really, both of you circlejerk around. Yes, a lot of eve is PvP. Not all of it is. Yes, there is more to PvP than ship PvP. Yes, there is a chance that PvP is being forced upon you (in other forms than ganking) which increases the level of PvP participation on a statistical figure. But it never goes up to something like "everything" or 95%. Both are ridiculous figures and everyone knows it. Lots of people also mistake actual happening PvP with possibilities for PvP. You can mitigate tons of risks and exposures with ease.
Exchanges like these grant me great deals of amusement but I prefer if folks have less one-sided views and more agile minds. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2055
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:57:35 -
[585] - Quote
The range is too short, really too short :(
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:02:34 -
[586] - Quote
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but 25 pages is too much to read... The issues I would see are as follows:
Cyclical PANIC: Not really a criticism but an obvious tactic... Multiple Rorquals periodically re-upping PANIC. If the module burns out, they can probably survive long enough for a refit between cycles, or obviously a fleet of say 12 rorquals can PANIC for at least an hour. This should be plenty of time to get a fleet together, but it's also enough time to bubble all of the Rorquals.
AFK Mining: I'm still not sure this will get the Rorquals out into the belts in Null as the limitation of liability is a big thing in mining. Many null miners don't even use T2 miners, preferring the Procurer, to make less interesting targets so they can AFK mine. I don't think active mining will ever be "fun" which means that you won't have fixed what was broken with it in the first place that makes everyone want to AFK. I can see Rorquals being used heavily in hi-sec and low-sec like this because bubbles aren't an issue.
Speed Differentials: Many fleets rely on speed and kiting tactics. Command ships are not fast and won't be able to keep up with cruiser fleets very well. A Sleipnir, one of the fastest command ships, has to pulse MWD occasionally to keep up with a Cerberus fleet that has it's MWDs off. During a prolonged kite burn, there's no way for the Command ship to keep in range of the fleet so kiting fleets will need to rely on small booster ships. I'm not sure if this is desired tactic or if you plan to fix it, but it makes Skirmish boosts almost exclusively the realm of small probably shield-tankedships like Command Destroyers. This might result in greater emergence of Command Ship fleets. |
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:12:32 -
[587] - Quote
The only thing about this mighty nerfing of off-grid boosting I know for sure is it is getting some really cool people, who just want to help out new people and solo-ers, to leave EVE forever.
Now I subbed a year about 2-3 months ago. I like mining. I like being boosted. I like my booster to be able to relax while playing, not working while playing.
Isn't this game about community? I've played EVE for years now, years apart of course, but every time I come back it seems they keep changing things nobody wants...actually that most people hate.
So if these changes are how you repay and reward long-time players, then CCP,, you have lost touch with your playerbase.
I don't PvP, FW, PI, explore, PvE, incursions or any of that crap. I like to mine some rocks while I chat with friends and not get blown up.
So if these changes go through, you can better believe that many people will cancel their subscriptions, I included.
It's always a sign of game companies that fail when they start to ignore their player base. Nobody wanted these changes, everyone I know in-game hates these changes, these changes aren't needed.
Do better, CCP, because right now you really suck and I want my money back.
I play this game to mine with my friends, some of those friends can't stare at the screen all ******* day.
Let me add, of all the changes I've seen in this game (since 2005), this is the most asinine.
I truly hope that this is just some sick joke. CCP, and the devs responsible for this BS, you are killing this game. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1877
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:13:23 -
[588] - Quote
Ashterothi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all Incursion communities Industry corps Signal Cartel Drifter Hive "tours"
Incursion communities are full of PvPers' alts, making money with which to PvP.
Industry is completely PvP - not only is it the engine that drives all of the PvP (somebody's gotta build those ships, guns, ammo, etc!) but you're competing with other players for the best prices on everything.
Signal Cartel is competitive - they pay for those holes. If you get paid for one, nobody else gets paid for it.
Hive "tours" - folks are stockpiling the elements they get out of the hives, and a lot of them are hoping it'll prove profitable... to fuel pvp. This one's the closest though... so far. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1877
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:15:02 -
[589] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction
the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP. You are a very small minority with this definition.
No, he's not. All of the large players in nullsec understand industry and market manipulation are PvP. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
298
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:16:04 -
[590] - Quote
27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want |
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
462
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:18:52 -
[591] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want
There are a lot of specific implementation pieces that people do not want. But bringing boosts on grid has been a complaint of solo pvp players for a long time. It also makes sense. The range and mechanics feel off. |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:19:57 -
[592] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want
Just because people are talking about something doesn't mean they don't want it. I have wanted on-grid boosting forever, and CCP has been promising it forever. I think people just want it to be done correctly. Command ships hanging in empty space is not fun content during a battle. You are supporting the fleet, but have no hope of ever getting a killmail. It's boring, crappy content facilitated by the boosting mechanics.
|
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:20:00 -
[593] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want
They don't care because they always cater to the PvPers who whine and cry louder than any carebear I've ever seen.
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
462
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:23:33 -
[594] - Quote
Also, if boosts coming on grid is a shock just causing you to enter into this conversation then you haven't been very active in the community. At a couple of fanfests, all the time on the forums, the DEVs have said that they want on grid boosting but it wasn't a priority. Your time to try to pry industrial boosting from pvp boosting was then - not now. It's been an active discussion for a couple of years at least. |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:28:57 -
[595] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want They don't care because they always cater to the PvPers who whine and cry louder than any carebear I've ever seen.
Miners only care about low-interaction productivity. If they took Rorqual boosts away entirely and applied it as a basic bonus to the individual ships you would think that was perfect. The Rorqual is merely an inconvenience as it currently is and the on-grid Rorqual is an even further inconvenience.
What you really want is a ship with an auto-pilot button that flies itself out to a belt, pulses a smart bomb and pulls all of the minerals into your cargo hold then returns the entire solar system's mineral wealth to your station so you can play with blue prints and make isk.
Or perhaps just an isk printing press...
PVE always wants convenience.
If they offered you a structure that did what the Rorqual did, you'd praise their genuine intellect and for seeing the light. |
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:32:06 -
[596] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Bo Goodwin wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want They don't care because they always cater to the PvPers who whine and cry louder than any carebear I've ever seen. Miners only care about low-interaction productivity. If they took Rorqual boosts away entirely and applied it as a basic bonus to the individual ships you would think that was perfect. The Rorqual is merely an inconvenience as it currently is and the on-grid Rorqual is an even further inconvenience. What you really want is a ship with an auto-pilot button that flies itself out to a belt, pulses a smart bomb and pulls all of the minerals into your cargo hold then returns the entire solar system's mineral wealth to your station so you can play with blue prints and make isk. Or perhaps just an isk printing press... PVE always wants convenience. If they offered you a structure that did what the Rorqual did, you'd praise their genuine intellect and for seeing the light.
lol, hello incompetent ganker. Please cry a little more. My glass is not yet full. Actually what I really want is CCP to not make changes that will make all my friends leave. But you might know that if you quit crying and start using your brain. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1388
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:33:25 -
[597] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Anyone thinking of cashing out leadership skills they don't want into skill extractors should do so quickly before the market crashes. Prices are down already.
No. I hate that abomination of a mechanic and will not use it.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
462
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:34:12 -
[598] - Quote
@Lonan - I mean people play the game for different reasons. If you gave PVPers a way to generate killmails and post them to zkill to get their isk efficiency up without undocking there would be a ton of shittlers just plugging away at the I win button and rubbing their epeen.
Lets face it, our of the two PVE is the more monotonous. It's frankly a blessing that people are willing to mine an asteroid for the type of engaging game play it creates. |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:39:06 -
[599] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:@Lonan - I mean people play the game for different reasons. If you gave PVPers a way to generate killmails and post them to zkill to get their isk efficiency up without undocking there would be a ton of shittlers just plugging away at the I win button and rubbing their epeen.
Lets face it, our of the two PVE is the more monotonous. It's frankly a blessing that people are willing to mine an asteroid for the type of engaging game play it creates.
I mentioned in my first post that the Rorqual changes don't address the mindnumbing annoyance of warping between belts collecting rocks for 15 hours.
My point was that PVE has a tendency to prefer changes to the system which provide them with greater convenience which means that @Bo would probably be interested in the "Rorqual Tower" structure as a solution to the problem but doesn't want to admit it.
Improvement to PVE Mining content is a difficult thing to do... If mining was fun, minerals would be plentiful and not worth mining. The boringness of the activity inherently creates its value
Also @Bo, I'm not a mindless ganker. I've never ganked anything, actually. I'm more of a support ship pilot--I tend to favor stealth, command ships and logi which is why this thread interests me. |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
604
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:42:32 -
[600] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:@Lonan - I mean people play the game for different reasons. If you gave PVPers a way to generate killmails and post them to zkill to get their isk efficiency up without undocking there would be a ton of shittlers just plugging away at the I win button and rubbing their epeen. For what it's worth, there are already people who do that by smartbombing hundreds of cheap frigates to get their name in the Top-10 list for a particular ship or system.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
28
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:47:12 -
[601] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want Wrong assertion.
27 pages in 22 hours about a topic that people have mixed feelings about.
If you read through most of it you will find real concerns about the actual implementation to make it worthwhile and folks pointing out loopholes in the system already. They provide data from their experience from all kinds of different playing fields. Ongrid boosts are something not only wanted but needed to make the boosting mechanic worthwhile and reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if you cut out everyone who can't wait for the miner related devblog and thus put their opinions to the table based on their assumptions, the topic would still be fairly big. Even if you cut out the whiners who think their boosting alt will be worthless, the topic would still be fairly big.
Bo Goodwin wrote:Actually what I really want is CCP to not make changes that will make all my friends leave. Sounds like you have tons of friends who just jump the gun. The mining devblog is not yet out. Hold your horses. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:48:09 -
[602] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:The only thing about this mighty nerfing of off-grid boosting I know for sure is it is getting some really cool people, who just want to help out new people and solo-ers, to leave EVE forever.
Now I subbed a year about 2-3 months ago. I like mining. I like being boosted. I like my booster to be able to relax while playing, not working while playing.
Isn't this game about community? I've played EVE for years now, years apart of course, but every time I come back it seems they keep changing things nobody wants...actually that most people hate.
So if these changes are how you repay and reward long-time players, then CCP,, you have lost touch with your playerbase.
I don't PvP, FW, PI, explore, PvE, incursions or any of that crap. I like to mine some rocks while I chat with friends and not get blown up.
So if these changes go through, you can better believe that many people will cancel their subscriptions, I included.
It's always a sign of game companies that fail when they start to ignore their player base. Nobody wanted these changes, everyone I know in-game hates these changes, these changes aren't needed.
Do better, CCP, because right now you really suck and I want my money back.
I play this game to mine with my friends, some of those friends can't stare at the screen all ******* day.
Let me add, of all the changes I've seen in this game (since 2005), this is the most asinine.
I truly hope that this is just some sick joke. CCP, and the devs responsible for this BS, you are killing this game.
no offense, but I think you are overreacting a little bit
also please bear in mind that this is not all information we have got on the subject and that the next scheduler blog will talk about rebalancing of orca and rorqual |
Memphis Baas
1964
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:54:02 -
[603] - Quote
Most MMO's that use buffs allow the recipient to click off (turn off) beneficial buffs if they wish to no longer have the effects. Mostly this is just a waste of the materials / ammo the command ship used to buff the target, but there are some possible cases where extra MWD speed is not desirable. Will you let us turn off boosts by right-clicking their icon or something similar?
Also, if a cloaked ship is in range, will it be affected by the fleet boosts?
If yes, will the visual of the boost betray where that cloaked ship is?
How about same question for titan effects, particularly as they affect members of the opposite fleet too. |
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
201
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:55:05 -
[604] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Actually I normally Fly a Griffin/Kitsune, and I'm normally 50km+ from the Furball in the middle, the Siege Skills/Links are normally all that stops me from being 1 Lucky Volleyed off the field, allowing me to warp recharge shields and warp back in from a different area/angle and continue.
Perhaps you need to learn how to fly instead of staying stuck to an anchor :P
In case you were wondering, those siege links add roughly 300 EHP to a Griffin, and 500 to a Kitsune. Ships which, if currently available evidence is to be believed, you don't actually fly that often. You wouldn't be posting on an alt making spurious claims would you? Because honestly, trying to make a point of the importance of Siege Links to a Griffin smacks of desperation.
My point stands. Your Griffin is pretty low on the list of ships considered when bringing links to a fleet fight, and that handful of extra hitpoints was a byproduct of a flawed system that a large section of the community believed needed fixing. You still want them? You now know what you need to do. Hug a Command Ship/Destroyer.
Sure must be nice out there though, far from danger with your ECM to keep you safe. I wouldn't know, I'm often too busy flying in and around the hostile fleet, hounded by drones while every spare neut, web, and scram is being dedicated to putting an end to my shennanigans. Links made my job easier, a lot easier in fact, but not having them wasn't the end of the world. I won't miss them. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
425
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:57:19 -
[605] - Quote
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:Bo Goodwin wrote:The only thing about this mighty nerfing of off-grid boosting I know for sure is it is getting some really cool people, who just want to help out new people and solo-ers, to leave EVE forever.
Now I subbed a year about 2-3 months ago. I like mining. I like being boosted. I like my booster to be able to relax while playing, not working while playing.
Isn't this game about community? I've played EVE for years now, years apart of course, but every time I come back it seems they keep changing things nobody wants...actually that most people hate.
So if these changes are how you repay and reward long-time players, then CCP,, you have lost touch with your playerbase.
I don't PvP, FW, PI, explore, PvE, incursions or any of that crap. I like to mine some rocks while I chat with friends and not get blown up.
So if these changes go through, you can better believe that many people will cancel their subscriptions, I included.
It's always a sign of game companies that fail when they start to ignore their player base. Nobody wanted these changes, everyone I know in-game hates these changes, these changes aren't needed.
Do better, CCP, because right now you really suck and I want my money back.
I play this game to mine with my friends, some of those friends can't stare at the screen all ******* day.
Let me add, of all the changes I've seen in this game (since 2005), this is the most asinine.
I truly hope that this is just some sick joke. CCP, and the devs responsible for this BS, you are killing this game. no offense, but I think you are overreacting a little bit also please bear in mind that this is not all information we have got on the subject and that the next scheduler blog will talk about rebalancing of orca and rorqual
the info thats came out so far about the rorqual and orca has already impacted current sales of orca and rorquals..they already broke the game..its only going to get worse and once everyone see's how the market will react you will be trying to come up with something else to protect these awful changes..
so with that said... declare war on the market and wreck the market till the only thing they have left is boosting in freaking rookie ships!..
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1878
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:58:19 -
[606] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:27 pages in 22 hours. surly ccp can see this is something people dont want They don't care because they always cater to the PvPers who whine and cry louder than any carebear I've ever seen.
Well, then you've clearly not looked very much. Heh.
There's a lot of good concepts here, but much like Aegis Sov was shackled to the FW model that even FW players abandoned for the chance at a war, right now they're tying those good concepts to terrible implementation.
+HP boosts tied to timers - either this is going to make ships blow up if they haven't been repaired up over 20% armor when the buff hits a gap, or it's going to result in effective 'repairs' when it's reapplied. Look for special hilarity to ensue with tackle leaving range just before the buff's reapplied.
Boosts tied to ammo made from ice - Ice products are already, in terms of cubic meters per second of effort, pretty much the most profitable thing you can mine, anywhere. The cluster will now be awash with even more utterly useless Heavy Water (esp as Rorqual use drops), because you know they're going to make this nonsense be made out of Stront. Why Stront? Because it's already needed for all sov warfare, triage, siege modules, bridging... if there's something you can be sure of, it's that since the lost their on-staff economist, CCP will make the most economically bone-headed moves.
The PANIC module - will it include bonuses to local reps so that when the effect finally drops, the Rorq has half a chance to survive? Will it give a weapons timer to prevent refitting, or is every Rorqual going to carry a CEHE, depot, and spare PANIC?
I get what they're trying to do - the burst likely can't auto-repeat because it has a reactivation delay instead of a cycle time. It has the reactivation delay so that you can change ammo while it's counting down. That way, with max skills, a dedicated boosting pilot who is on the ball can supply 2 different buffs for each command burst module on the ship, without either one ever dropping.
That's basically all that pilot will be doing, though, because that will be most useful in small-scale conflicts. In larger fleets, the null blocs will (if they haven't been already) simply be pushing more people toward Command Ships and bringing more boosters. Stay on-anchor and you'll get everything you can hope for. With no limitation to only 1 Wing, 1 Fleet booster applying boosts, there is literally no reason ever for groups that can field a 256-man fleet to not have 4 max-skill command ships applying all of their racial boosts, all the time. Double that number for safety.
The intent is to put the boosts on-grid and increase the engagement level of those on-grid boosters - to give them something to do and to make them actually have to do it. So it's not surprising that once again Fozzie, who comes from a small-gang FW background, crafts a model that most meets his goals in that scale of engagement. Again, we saw this with Aegis Sov, where the 'orbit button in space for X minutes' model has pretty much been roundly panned by everyone who's had to actually do it as more than just an occassional novelty thing.
The real question is: how do you fix those issues?
I'm not sure there's an easy answer that doesn't just make the boosting module what it was before - turn it on, ignore it, and be doing some other role in the fleet, just less efficiently because you've got a boosting module, not a gun/launcher. That could've been easily achieved by simply changing things so that warfare links have to be on-grid, but Team Five-0 clearly has a more ambitious plan. Ambition's good. We should encourage them to be bold, to take grand steps - but we should also not be afraid to say 'that step goes off a cliff, dude' (and clearly, we're not).
Right now, we don't have enough in the way of specifics to really offer tweaks and fixes to how this will all work. The best way to get around the reactivation delay/cycle time/reload time issue may well be a secondary module that throws the whole model into chaos, or a special non-module boosting slot for the charges to go into - something like the fighter launch tubes on a carrier. Put the ammo/charges/scripts in the boosting slots, and when you activate the Command Burst Projector, it gives those boosts. You'd only need 1 Burst module, but then rigs or modules like the Command Processors could give additional boost slots.
As for the ammo itself... oy. At least make it use Heavy Water, hey guys? That crap just sits around doing absolutely nothing all over New Eden. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1388
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 14:58:24 -
[607] - Quote
Woow that are some changes.
First, thanks for listening and not really listening. My idea was to have your links / boosts on grid as a hictor-bubble, not a sabre bubble.
For command ships to really, really (not) shine, how about increasing the signature radius of command ship to 30.000km so that dreads can hit them better. Than increase the mass of commandships to 1 trillion mass, so they aren't so damn sooper slippery anymore and since they are goodererer now, I propose to increase the required moon materials by 7000% to make more Fereng- errm profit.
My Damnation was way too agile anyway.
Increasing the price to 60 billion won't make much of a difference anyways, since we are all skilled and stuff.
We are all doing incursions all day long, even the one character accounts that aren't logged on all day long.
One minute of sabre bubbles are a joke - an even bigger one since we still don't have Caldari, Gallente or Amarr interdiction destroyers.
The command destroyer pilots will rejoice since they will be renamed to "ever higher priority primary ships" that have a one time, one use with much, much, much ammo and stuff and 5y8m23d17h54m reload and go poof the can even think about "firing" a new boost-bubble.
On a 20km square-grid this almost makes sense.
And why wouldn't you want to fly an 8000km signature Vulture that wanted to be there too?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
463
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:01:59 -
[608] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Really disapointed, was really thinking OGB will be gone, at least the skirmish one. The new system is worst for small gang and FW pvp. Now we will be able to solo pvp in a linked frigate with booster in the next system The timer need to be very short or very long, or boosting capacity only based on position. The AOE with mid-lenght timers is the worst solution. Hope CCP get a lot of skin to sell in November, the drop in playerbase won't be funny..
I made this same mistake, apparently changing systems negates the boosts. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:02:00 -
[609] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Really disapointed, was really thinking OGB will be gone, at least the skirmish one. The new system is worst for small gang and FW pvp. Now we will be able to solo pvp in a linked frigate with booster in the next system The timer need to be very short or very long, or boosting capacity only based on position. The AOE with mid-lenght timers is the worst solution. Hope CCP get a lot of skin to sell in November, the drop in playerbase won't be funny..
did you actually read the post? changing systems will remove the buff. |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
605
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:02:16 -
[610] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Now we will be able to solo pvp in a linked frigate with booster in the next system You apparently missed the part where it said that boosts will be canceled by gate travel
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
|
Kleb Zellock
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:04:47 -
[611] - Quote
Just had a thought that will most likely be ignored:
Command ships (and only command ships, including industrial command) get a button like T3D's to shift functions. One is for full on grid boosts like the current proposals; the other allows 50% boosts to fleet members in the system at a fuel consumption rate that will burn through a cargo hold in a couple hours. If you want to off-grid it's going to cost you and it's not going to be running all day AFK.
Again, why can't this code be used for cloaking? |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
605
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:04:57 -
[612] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Woow that are some changes.
First, thanks for listening and not really listening. My idea was to have your links / boosts on grid as a hictor-bubble, not a sabre bubble.
For command ships to really, really (not) shine, how about increasing the signature radius of command ship to 30.000km so that dreads can hit them better. Than increase the mass of commandships to 1 trillion mass, so they aren't so damn sooper slippery anymore and since they are goodererer now, I propose to increase the required moon materials by 7000% to make more Fereng- errm profit.
My Damnation was way too agile anyway.
Increasing the price to 60 billion won't make much of a difference anyways, since we are all skilled and stuff.
We are all doing incursions all day long, even the one character accounts that aren't logged on all day long.
One minute of sabre bubbles are a joke - an even bigger one since we still don't have Caldari, Gallente or Amarr interdiction destroyers.
The command destroyer pilots will rejoice since they will be renamed to "ever higher priority primary ships" that have a one time, one use with much, much, much ammo and stuff and 5y8m23d17h54m reload and go poof the can even think about "firing" a new boost-bubble.
On a 20km square-grid this almost makes sense.
And why wouldn't you want to fly an 8000km signature Vulture that wanted to be there too? Your hyperbole makes you sound like a ****.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
438
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:05:46 -
[613] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:The only thing about this mighty nerfing of off-grid boosting I know for sure is it is getting some really cool people, who just want to help out new people and solo-ers, to leave EVE forever.
Now I subbed a year about 2-3 months ago. I like mining. I like being boosted. I like my booster to be able to relax while playing, not working while playing.
A booster isn't "relaxing" while playing. He quite literally is sitting in a POS doing nothing but providing a stats boost to players.
Bo Goodwin wrote:Isn't this game about community? I've played EVE for years now, years apart of course, but every time I come back it seems they keep changing things nobody wants...actually that most people hate.[/qupte]
It's hard to respond to this without engaging in the exact hyperbole you are using here but it is quite unlikely that *most* people hate this change and it is far from something that *nobody* wants.
[quote=Bo Goodwin]I don't PvP, FW, PI, explore, PvE, incursions or any of that crap. I like to mine some rocks while I chat with friends and not get blown up.
First, nothing changes here. You can mine rocks and chat, you just will be doing it without boosts unless you also choose to bring a boosting ship along. Remember, you are getting a brand new ship for this role. If not, you will still mine, just less efficiently. Does that fundamentally change your gameplay? No. It reduces your yield (and the yield of everyone else in the game that also chooses to not use boosts).
Don't make this about changing your gameplay or lifestyle or whatever else. It is nerfing yield for those that choose to continue to prefer risk free behavior and that is what you are upset about. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
463
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:06:48 -
[614] - Quote
Kleb Zellock wrote:Just had a thought that will most likely be ignored:
Command ships (and only command ships, including industrial command) get a button like T3D's to shift functions. One is for full on grid boosts like the current proposals; the other allows 50% boosts to fleet members in the system at a fuel consumption rate that will burn through a cargo hold in a couple hours. If you want to off-grid it's going to cost you and it's not going to be running all day AFK.
Again, why can't this code be used for cloaking?
Like the first half. Nullsec stop making every thread about afk cloaking. We get that you don't like neutrals in system.
EDIT: @Obil - i've never met a boosting char that was somebody's main account. Chances are good that the person is actively doing something, mining / pve / pvp. Dual boxing in any of those situations (actively) is ok but lets not pretend that there are 100s of boosting alts that guys are flying around as a main character. So while they are doing nothing, someone on the same computer is likely active. Seems like a useless argument. On grid - Yes, I would like that. Annoying on grid / reloading / range issues/ other junk - not really. |
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:07:20 -
[615] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Noxisia Arkana wrote:@Lonan - I mean people play the game for different reasons. If you gave PVPers a way to generate killmails and post them to zkill to get their isk efficiency up without undocking there would be a ton of shittlers just plugging away at the I win button and rubbing their epeen.
Lets face it, our of the two PVE is the more monotonous. It's frankly a blessing that people are willing to mine an asteroid for the type of engaging game play it creates. I mentioned in my first post that the Rorqual changes don't address the mindnumbing annoyance of warping between belts collecting rocks for 15 hours. My point was that PVE has a tendency to prefer changes to the system which provide them with greater convenience which means that @Bo would probably be interested in the "Rorqual Tower" structure as a solution to the problem but doesn't want to admit it. Improvement to PVE Mining content is a difficult thing to do... If mining was fun, minerals would be plentiful and not worth mining. The boringness of the activity inherently creates its value Also @Bo, I'm not a mindless ganker. I've never ganked anything, actually. I'm more of a support ship pilot--I tend to favor stealth, command ships and logi which is why this thread interests me.
Sorry, man. I've had a rough week. I'm sure my ganker comment was well-warranted, but poorly aimed. My apologies.
I had thought of a 'station-esque' as a workaround, like the 'rorq tower' you mentioned. Such would not be needed if the rang eon boosters were adequate. The very first thought when i heard about all of this was to have a 2AU(total shot in the dark) range on boosters, so they would have to be near, but not 'on-grid'.
I also have been looking into command/logi paths.
--
To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I? |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
463
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:14:06 -
[616] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:[ To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I?
Very, I couldn't do it. Different strokes. Back to the matter at hand - your thoughts are 1-2 AU boosts for industrial purposes? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:19:42 -
[617] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Really disapointed, was really thinking OGB will be gone, at least the skirmish one. The new system is worst for small gang and FW pvp. Now we will be able to solo pvp in a linked frigate with booster in the next system
I like you. Some people might have chosen to make this post a simple inquiry, but you decided to go full bore with the criticism and condescension.
If only you had read the blog, you wouldn't look like a complete fool right now, because you would have seen the bit where session changes remove the boost, and refrained from making your completely incorrect post in such an obnoxious tone.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
53
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:23:28 -
[618] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Now we will be able to solo pvp in a linked frigate with booster in the next system You apparently missed the part where it said that boosts will be canceled by gate travel
Oh yes, sorry, good news ! But don't fix the problems at all, i will still be able to fight linked now with a cloacked alt. And blob will still get a bigger numerous advangtage. |
JoAnnaBeth
Just Ore Excavators
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:26:19 -
[619] - Quote
JUst when you thought CCP was doing something cool ,you find out they just reinvented the way of reaching all the way around their backside just to scratch their elbow. Seriously,what were you trying to fix...fleet boosts ?cause people hate trying to figure out where they fit in inside the fleet? this is something you learn as you play and play with others,perhaps 'Explain' things a bit better for us undereducated folks,either way just another tickmark on the CCP Ship, THese burst modules will proably do good out in Null sec, but anywhere else i just dont see them being that helpful .Using them in High sec just means You became the primary,just seconds before the rest of your fleet get rolled over the belts ,this would be anywhere maybe out in null fleets will last longer ok their hitting the booster warp out (cause there is a counter for that right?)((or how about that fleet accouncement thingie collecting dust,like DUST)) . besides this is stuff a new character wouldnt even be bothered with unless it was an alt . For our alts that wasted all that time just to get a booster to help them,you gave us what...oh yeah extractors and injectors and auruim (sp?) Oh my,CCP was clever with this one,you shoot up this tengu,loki or just about any high end ship and you got character days old inside something "beyond his years" , skill points do not make up for experience,maybe stablize your ship more ,yay people wasted money to sit inside something they could have used another ship for ,this hasnt changed at all CCP once again you definitely all about that buck...hey spread the wealth a bit,fix our combat logs to show NPC kills differently ,its kinda bland Ship Kills->Losses. Umm how about take the middleppl out of this do up a table like the way any spread sheet that updates like with any api,perhaps , oh yeah there is probly a reason you havent done this...stop sipping on your lattes',ok back to these updates.the 'Fleet boosting should allow counterplay by enemies' section is not reveling enough,we can assume a sizeable number of CCP devs dont play like the rest of us,ship pops boosts are down ( even with the boosting duration,),why are we adding to this again?your going to take someone off grid but allow the boost to last? (where is this making on grid better?) Sorry as i read this blog all i can see is negative,the thought of a new ship would have made most cream their pants,now all i feel is why do I still play this , for pvp(oh wait we call this content...why?its player verus player,content would imply the gamemaker have done something to add to said game) , for PVE (CCP can always make a bigger NPC ship to top drifters)..(storyline is even gotten to the point its recycled),for Mining,yeah you killed that one again with this blog. CCP why are we playing this game of yours? You have nerfed just about everything to the game you have takened most of our modules turned them into something low grade all except for t2,faction mods,you cant even get decent reprocessing out of a wreck,took skill training skills out,attribute enhancers are soon to be gone,Trading skills dont really matter,Leadership skills pointless now,Social skills are being kept for what reason now,even the fun,More of the game is played outside than inside.KIllboards?you got ppl padding it left and right now to the point its not even a realiable way to judge a target.Half the thrid party programs are delayed and dont really give actual pricing,Forums are endless,apis to everyone,you almost have to have a government background check to get into a big alliance to get to said place to do all this "New and Great" stuff. Its funny,you want more people to pay to play(pay to win as well) ,dont care if they play or not but now if they are using alts its bad? CCP it definitely looks like your trying to do stuff,bravo on posting updates,you keep only counting ships destroyed as the only fun, you gotten us to this point to where it pointless to have alts now,so no need to keep them subbed,right , well it is august,you still have time this year to pull something out that is actually great. Whereever your doing the testing for how your stuff works server is failing you cause you have a narrow audience,even more so now,Your real feedback is from your numbers, which are based on ???ships loss,(this is suppose to be fun?) really at any given time there is roughly at least 10k+ on the server,who perform the main stuff of the game,pvp,pve,mining, and you want to drop that down to what 5k? i dont know what the purpose of this game is anymore so why log in now ,CCP you been doing this for what 13 years,i have seen ten of that ,this wasnt the biggest disappointment so far thats good. In my opinion since you have "so many great" third party tools,just make one called "Local" some chat based on your location (another API thing for people to use however they see fit),Take local out of the game,since you dont even care to use the eve chat or update it,this way you can keep users "logged in" since they would need a character on both sides of gates like wormhole space,(cause the option of playing with local up and running is just sooo cool and informative with spam,scams,and bully people talking foul language and aggressive natures. Why does CCP keep all this negative stuff? Who is actually telling CCP this stuff works,who at CCP is believing it, i know you think you got something going on similair to departments or sections,how about a department to sort this meat grinder ,all this stuff you got coming in and all that is coming out is not a very nice word. and for what we pay for the said bad word can provide a better christmas on a console .I hope you got your Do Not Fire List made up cause this one will cost you a few jobs but hey at this rate i wont be worrying of EVE soon.i can go back and play something easier on the eyes similiar to WOW.Good Luck CCP,use what you got of this year and fix yourself. |
Oradric Cube
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:27:26 -
[620] - Quote
I would like to comment on the changes to mining boosts only. I do not have any opinion at this time about the combat boosts changing.
Please take into consideration the negative effect this will have on the new player experience. I am part of an in-game community where veteran players volunteer their orca boosters free of charge to help new players. These established players are very often afk and gain nothing for this. If they were at the keyboard they would probably do something profitable with their time instead. Could you please design these changes so that these selfless individuals can continue to help newer players that want to mine?
Here is my idea to make it possible: Make it so that the new bursting boost modules stay active between warps for mining boosts. That way an afk booster can be dragged belt to belt via the existing "Warp Squad" mechanism without breaking the boosts. I don't think that this violates the risk vs reward design principle. If they're in the belt then they're at risk. They have very little personal reward. If they choose to afk then why not let them?
Please also take into consideration what this will mean for players that only have 1 account. If I'm a miner with only 1 account then I can only get boosts from someone else. Why would someone invite me? Burst boosts will mean that I will always be in the same belt as them, mining the same asteroids as them, slowing them down. I think the net result of the burst boost change will be that single account players will be invited far less frequently.
Here is my suggestion to address this issue: Make "boost with dedicated hauler" mining operations easier to run. That will make it so more people run them and in that way single account players can also hopefully benefit from burst boosts. How? Change the fleet history tab to be more granular for ores & ice. Right now fleet history cannot be used to reliably determine who mined how much because mining 1 unit, kicking it to a jetcan, then looting it will sum up to 2 units "looted" in the fleet history. If you simply separated "mined" and "looted" into 2 separate aggregation buckets it would solve this problem. That would make boost & haul mining operations much easier to track. (I'd actually prefer a fleet history mode that would record each event as its own transaction. A mode with no aggregation whatsoever. That wouldn't solve the problem directly, though, because we would still need a way to differentiate between "mined" and "looted".)
This is sort of a corollary to the previous point. It relates to the boosters themselves. If I'm a single account player and I want to be a Burst Booster for other players then what's in it for me? Why would I want to be active all the time if I'm making no isk? You can already pay folks for access to their boosts, but in practice few do because it's so easy to be scammed (IE: pay for 3 hours and the booster leaves early or kicks you out but keeps your isk). Even when it's not a scam it's a hassle to keep track of.
One possible solution: Make tipping your booster more convenient. Facilitate the transacting of boosts as a service. Build an in-game mechanism that would allow a player to voluntarily pass X amount of isk (of their choosing) to a particular booster every time they get hit by a boost burst tick from that person. Then give the booster a readout of some sort. I'd love a line graph showing isk per burst on the Y axis on a 30 minute or 60 minute period over the X axis. Each person could be a different color line so that the booster could easily, at a glance, see if someone stops paying (and who). I'd like to be also able to tell visually the difference between someone not paying because the burst didn't hit them vs someone turning off their payment and still getting hit by boost (leeching). Perhaps a broken line vs a line that stays continuous but is drawn at 0. Either that or drawing the line to 0 vs -1. |
|
Red lensman
BlackSky inc.
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:27:54 -
[621] - Quote
hi sec Mining this will ruin it as mining fleets of more than 1 booster +2-3barges + 1 hauler can strip 1 belt in 10-30mins or so mins so for fleets of more you need the the boost the cover more than 1 belt as in the past I've run fleets of 20+ covering 5+ belts in large systems. so this system is not very useful for more than 3barges as the booster will need to be in Constance warp to refresh the boost in all the belts or you need a booster in each belt which increases the need for boosters, I used to run a 23/7 hour booster fleets with up to 30 people dropping in and out which will be imposable under new system |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:28:03 -
[622] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote:Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Now we will be able to solo pvp in a linked frigate with booster in the next system You apparently missed the part where it said that boosts will be canceled by gate travel Oh yes, sorry, good news ! But don't fix the problems at all, i will still be able to fight linked now with a cloacked alt. And blob will still get a bigger numerous advangtage. Timers need to be very short.
you wont gain anything to make the blob weaker per se. but you gain things like "pulling people out of boost range". which with proper flying can net you kills more easily. also straggler might not have boosts anymore and are easier to kill.
|
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:30:53 -
[623] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Bo Goodwin wrote:[ To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I? Very, I couldn't do it. Different strokes. Back to the matter at hand - your thoughts are 1-2 AU boosts for industrial purposes?
I would have to look at the positions of all the asteroid belts in all systems. But if the range was close to 2AU, how many belts would that cover in your average system?
It would still allow for boosting to several belts or fighter wings or whatever, but perhaps excluding several key areas. At worst it would require one extra boosting ship?
Maybe if each boosting ship created a big boosting field, so if there are two boosters and only one is at max everyone within the field would still get max boosts?
As far as PvP or WH logistics, I can say I do not know enough to make a decision. |
Emma Madullier
Nomads of Republic Smile 'n' Wave
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:37:03 -
[624] - Quote
Those are very good changes.
I like the idea of 30-120 seconds buffs. So in FW t1 frigates can get a buff and then enter a novice plex occupied by an enemy fleet. Now the position advantage of the defenders is mitigated by the buff received by the attackers (defenders don't have it in case of t1 frigates). This will bring some new tactics into FW.
|
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
53
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:39:13 -
[625] - Quote
KhanidLady wrote:
you wont gain anything to make the blob weaker per se. but you gain things like "pulling people out of boost range". which with proper flying can net you kills more easily. also straggler might not have boosts anymore and are easier to kill.
Exactly that, but with 130 sec timers the boost range is just stupidly big.. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14367
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:40:43 -
[626] - Quote
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone!
A few Q&As based on some stuff I'm seeing come up in the thread:
Q: Will a pilot be affected by his/her own boosts? A: Yes, even if they are not in a fleet
Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch? A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.
Q: If a ship loses armor links, will they explode? A: Nope. If it worked like that jumping out of a Wolf-Rayet would be a deathtrap. If you have less than 20% armor remaining and lose a max-bonused Armor Reinforcement burst effect your armor will be set to 0 but your hull won't be damaged in any way. In some cases there may actually be a deficit of armor that must be repaired through before repairers can start bringing you above 0% again, to prevent exploits. This works exactly the same way as the current mechanics if you offline a layered plating module, or leave a fleet with an armored warfare mindlink effect, or jump out of a wolf-rayet wormhole system.
Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid? A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
Q: Why do the higher level range skills give smaller bonuses per level than the lower level skills? A: This is something we do almost everywhere in EVE. Diminishing returns help ensure that players with lower levels of skillpoints can compete against veterans.
We've also made some initial adjustments to the numbers thanks to some of your feedback so far. We're going to tone down the scan res bonus from info bursts since very high levels of scan res can sometimes become degenerate (instalock camps), and buffing some other aspects of the info boosts to compensate. We're also going to buff the mining links significantly since this transition is going to be especially dramatic for some miners used to the old system. All of these changes have been edited into the dev blog so you can take a look there to see how they fit into the big picture.
Information Command: Sensor Optimization: 18% (+2%) targeting range, 9% (-7%) scan resolution Information Command: Electronic Hardening: 18% (+2%) sensor strength, 9% (+1%) RSD/WD Resistances
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
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:41:49 -
[627] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:... I had thought of a 'station-esque' as a workaround, like the 'rorq tower' you mentioned. Such would not be needed if the rang eon boosters were adequate. The very first thought when i heard about all of this was to have a 2AU(total shot in the dark) range on boosters, so they would have to be near, but not 'on-grid'.
I also have been looking into command/logi paths.
--
To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I?
2AU would make the Rorqual content relatively similar to how Off-grid Booster content is today which is "Hunt the Rorq" except that Rorquals are capital ships and you know they're within 2AU of the belt which means one sweep with the scanner will always get you unless the scanner sucks. If Hunt the Rorq is the intended content (and I doubt CCP is interested in that) then they should just be made to be like Command Ships are today--not in a POS or tethered.
When I mine, I crochet. Mining isn't content to me, it's just a way to get isk to buy ships with. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
463
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:44:35 -
[628] - Quote
Thanks Fozzie, With how big grids are now - do you think that a 60km radius (roughly) is large enough for these boost ships? I obviously disagree but hoping you can shed some light on the thought process?
A lot of fights take place on gates, wormholes, stations, but an equal number take place in the wide wide open - where the range is going to become a much bigger consideration. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:44:56 -
[629] - Quote
Thogn wrote:(( My German is way better than my English ))
I'll try to stay super-calm.
There are many open points with boosting itself - so I'm astonished ... CCP is already jumping.
1.) I think, the basic idea is good. To hide a booster in nowhere - didn't really make sense to me. 2.) I'm positive to some of the changes coming, but here are my issues :
Assumed : a) you are a single customer with two ( 2 ) hands and two ( 2 ) accounts. b) you invested a lifetime to come up with one charcter for small gang PvP and another one for support. The support character is a perfect booster. ( Fleet Command 5 is missing ... Rest is T2-fully there. ) Up to now you could "park" your booster in the skies of New Eden and give continuous boosts to your fleet. c) if this is no longer valid - and the boosts have only a few kilometers reach on grid - that's interesting - because d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target." e) Therof follow 2 things : e1) if fielded - the booster himself will raise more acceptance and e2) because of d) the booster pilot might be quite busy - right ?
Here comes the joke : because of a) ... it will be impossible to a single customer to run his 2 accounts simultaneously and therefor ... a customer in the above constellation will consolidate his 2 accounts to one. ( at least )
o7
You need more thinking on the issues.
you perfectly explained what is broken with the old system. Thank you for that. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
438
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:46:39 -
[630] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Thanks Fozzie, With how big grids are now - do you think that a 60km radius (roughly) is large enough for these boost ships? I obviously disagree but hoping you can shed some light on the thought process?
A lot of fights take place on gates, wormholes, stations, but an equal number take place in the wide wide open - where the range is going to become a much bigger consideration.
Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid? A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
|
|
Irregular Apocalypse
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:47:34 -
[631] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch? A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combatl
Neutral Logi goes suspect, so I really think neutral buffers should go suspect as well for consistency. And while we're at it, bump tacklers should go suspect and not be defended by concord. |
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:52:40 -
[632] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Thanks Fozzie, With how big grids are now - do you think that a 60km radius (roughly) is large enough for these boost ships? I obviously disagree but hoping you can shed some light on the thought process?
A lot of fights take place on gates, wormholes, stations, but an equal number take place in the wide wide open - where the range is going to become a much bigger consideration.
their thought was 'Let's let gankers kill people because then they will have to buy more ships and we will make more money!! Muahaha!!!'
Counter offer. What about 1500Km base range? Is that small enough for the murderous thugs in your ear, Fozzie? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1878
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:56:33 -
[633] - Quote
JoAnnaBeth wrote:perhaps 'Explain' things a bit better for us undereducated folks
The irony of this clause in a massive, unformatted, poorly-punctuated, hard to read, unbroken wall of text is just sublime. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:03:34 -
[634] - Quote
Thogn wrote: d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."
Seen a few people say this, and it doesn't make sense.
Primarying the booster ship will not remove the boosts he's sure to drop before you get him, so it's not the obviously correct tactical decision you are suggesting. You're just removing a ship who has likely already done the bulk of the "damage" he was likely to do. Probably better popping a logi or ECM boat or something.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1878
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:06:57 -
[635] - Quote
Irregular Apocalypse wrote:And while we're at it, bump tacklers should go suspect and not be defended by concord.
And exactly how would that work? You trigger the proximity alert on another ship, you go suspect? Who gets the suspect flag then, the freighter, or the battleship, since they both trigger one another? Wouldn't that just make bumping even more effective, as it immediately means the freighter no longer enjoys CONCORD's protections? What happens when two freighters undock at a similar time and bump one another?
|
Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit The Ditanian Alliance
117
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:09:08 -
[636] - Quote
the boosts should be missile like, so you can pick a fleet mate as a target, and then fire the boost beacon at him. then giving the bonus to him and the toons around him. Then you could have the booster sit further off the grid, while still giving bonuses where needed. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1878
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:12:13 -
[637] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Thogn wrote: d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."
Seen a few people say this, and it doesn't make sense. Primarying the booster ship will not remove the boosts he's sure to drop before you get him, so it's not the obviously correct tactical decision you are suggesting. You're just removing a ship who has likely already done the bulk of the "damage" he was likely to do. Probably better popping a logi or ECM boat or something.
In small groups, you remove the force multipliers. Boosting ships are a force multiplier. If you can identify the booster, and have a reasonable level of confidence that a)they've only got one or two, and b)you can kill them despite any logi on-field, then it only makes sense to kill them, and kill them quickly. Yes, they've applied their boosts... once. If they can't apply them again, then you've reduced the effectiveness of the rest of the fleet with that one kill.
Obviously, order of priority on force multipliers (including EWAR and Logistics) depends on the fleet composition, and which of them represents the greatest weak point. If the fleet has few logi, each one you kill is a considerable loss of combat effectiveness. OTOH, if they have a lot of logi, you may need to focus on them to be able to kill anything else.
Everything is fluid, and situational. But killing the boosting ship(s) is definitely on the list of 'obvious moves'. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
663
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:12:53 -
[638] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Stuff after sifting through 28 pages of material in a timely fashion, discussed it with the dev staff, and came to the forums to politely engage with the playerbase While this update didn't cover everything I brought up in my patented Wall-O-Text, I am very grateful for the response. The Dev team, and yourself included, are obviously very invested in this update and I appreciate all the work going into making it work, and trying your best to make it as right as you can.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:13:27 -
[639] - Quote
Time to toss my two cents into the jar. With the exception of the Rorqual changes these look good to me. The old mechanic was pretty stupid, and moving it on grid while divorcing it from the fleet command structure should make it a lot more interesting. So good work there, while I'm sure it will need some refinement the overall concept looks solid. Now, that out of the way, on to the part I think will be an utter disaster! (I am an eve player after all, just getting three lines of praise out probably made me strain something...)
First, I do mine. I have a personal Rorqual, three maxed out barge characters, and I have quite enjoyed sucking big rocks while sipping some scotch on ice for years. So I'm not pulling this complaint out of nowhere. And I am aware of the line in your dev-blog, "This is just one of the many enhancements that the Rorqual will be getting in November and weGÇÖll be going into more detail about it in the upcoming dev blog."
But still, I think it's important for me to point out the following: If the Rorqual boosts are implemented in their current form without also making the Rorqual more survivable and/ore useful the ship will see a massive drop in use.
The reason for this is a question of security. Requiring players to park a 2.5 billion Isk ship in an anom/belt for five minute increments to increase mining output will, in the vast majority of situations, make no sense. It would take days to see return on the investment, and I don't think a Rorq would be likely to live that long. As a roamer, if the changes go through and the industrial core anchoring mechanic stays as-is, that the moment I see a Rorqual on D-Scan I'm going to get an erection.
At that point I know there is a pinata which is going to be parking for long stretches in a very small number of potential locations. Even if I can't get the thing myself I'm going to note its location and start sneaking around in system; all I need to do is catch it with a minute left on its core ONCE. A Sabre with a cyno, a pre-bookmarked anom, and I have a mega-killmail coming.
Having an invulnerability button that buys a couple minutes for the mining fleet before they get their faces wrecked does nothing to fix this because it relies on the mining fleet having a pool of PvP ready players standing by at all times to save the day. Even in large organizations that is no sure bet; in smaller ones it's likely impossible.
Still, there are quite a number of things you could do to fix this. The blog gives me hope that at least some of them are planned. For the sake of discussion I'm going to list off everything I can think of:
- Make the Rorqual give such a boost to output that it justifies the effort involved in using one with a reasonable degree of security.
- Remove, or greatly reduce, the rooting effect on the industrial core. Ten or fifteen seconds would be workable. A buff to agility would also be in order here.
- Bubble immunity for the Rorq and a high warp core strength so it takes a sizable effort to pin one down (This is highly questionable I know).
- Make mining anoms back into signatures which require probing (ignores problems of lowsec, which is bad).
- Give the Rorqual serious defensive capabilities, in line with a crappy dread oriented towards killing subcaps. Again, make it so getting bubbled is not guaranteed to be fatal without the intervention of fifty other players. A few sub-ideas here: * Let the capital tractor beams pull in subcaps (hilarious, even if probably broken). * Massive bonuses to neut range/strength so one can gimp attackers. (Battle Rorqs for capfights anyone?) * Incredibly stiff tank that is sustainable over time rather than just a one-shot invulnerability. * Ability to fit capital type RLML swarm launchers to clear tackle (Probably bad, but hilarious again).
- Allow two tiers of bonuses, one that can be run from the safety of a POS that is low, and an on-grid one that is much more powerful for when the pilot feels secure enough to put their baby in a belt.
These are just what I could come up with over my cup of coffee. I'm sure there are others. Just please, whatever you do, don't simply slap the new boost mechanics on the Rorq with a five minute root timer and confine it's use to players with balls of steel/brains of sand. Mining does not pay well enough for that kind of risk. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:17:22 -
[640] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Wall of text
you will get the panic button and a local/remote tank roughly close to a FAX. not good enough?
|
|
Agul Chith
Department of Magical Law Enforcement
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:17:51 -
[641] - Quote
After seeing the proposed changes I'm less worried. But still have two big concerns...
1. That range... not everyone anchors up and presses F1. Need more range for small gangs who tend to spread out more.
2. The ammo idea is just plain dumb. Please use scripts instead. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:21:43 -
[642] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:Quote:Drago Misharie: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it. Delt0r Garsk: Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits. Drago Misharie: If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt? Illogical. To offset the reduced yield you have by fitting tank? stop making it sound like you are the only person affected. Everyone will be affected. If you are purely fitted for yield, then it only makes sense to go that way in a hostile environment when you can offset the losses you suffered from not tanking with that extra yield. For some this calculation works. For others, it doesn't. Again, for all those who didn't get it; everyone will be affected. If something so all-encompassing is touched, then everyone feels it. So you can't even really talk about a nerf to boosts, as everyone is affected evenly. It's not a nerf to you if someone else can pilot that ship better than you. It's just that you have to step up your game in order to remain competitive. The notion that some seem to express as to how some people magically are not affected by the nerfs is beyond me. Anyway, wait for the damn Industry boosting devblog that comes up next. Gosh. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all Sitting in station, watching your ship collection spin and Avatar sitting in station while sipping on a beer and talk to your pals while clicking through Project Discovery maps. What? You only asked for one example. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming even that is pvp. you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production You infer they're selling the product instead of using it for themselves, or rather, their corporation. You also infer they would be selling it themselves, and not give it to another trader to take care of it. Really, both of you circlejerk around. Yes, a lot of eve is PvP. Not all of it is. Yes, there is more to PvP than ship PvP. Yes, there is a chance that PvP is being forced upon you (in other forms than ganking) which increases the level of PvP participation on a statistical figure. But it never goes up to something like "everything" or 95%. Both are ridiculous figures and everyone knows it. Lots of people also mistake actual happening PvP with possibilities for PvP. You can mitigate tons of risks and exposures with ease. Exchanges like these grant me great deals of amusement but I prefer if folks have less one-sided views and more agile minds.
Why would you boost with tank when you will get just as much without a tank and without the boosts? |
Kleb Zellock
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:25:06 -
[643] - Quote
Quote:Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid? A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
2 years from now you will get a 10% increase to range. Because playtesting. |
Deep Space Cowboy
Crisis Gate Viral Society
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:31:37 -
[644] - Quote
As a miner I am extremely disapointed with your decision to force miners to siege their rorquals in a belt just to maintain the same yield we currently enjoy. If you insist on going thru with these changes, could you please consider shortening the Industrial Core cycle time (and reducing the fuel cost to match) to something similar to the bastion cycle times? 5 minutes is an eternity to be stuck helplessly in a siege cycle when hostiles come roaming. Otherwise I don't see alot of miners outside of large nulsec power blocs being able to effective deploy and defend their rorquals. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:35:40 -
[645] - Quote
Arrendis wrote: In small groups, you remove the force multipliers .... Yes, they've applied their boosts... once. If they can't apply them again, then you've reduced the effectiveness of the rest of the fleet with that one kill.
You reduce the effectiveness of the fleet two minutes from now. That's a really long time in the small group fights you're talking about.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
240
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:36:18 -
[646] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Tess Storm wrote: Why not make the game fun again, stop making everything difficult.
Wait you said fun again... as in afk mining? Fun really, is that what kids are calling it these days.
first off ore mining is not AFK. I do agree OGBs for mining are totally AFK in a majority of the situations hiding out in a POS or a deep safe. But with boosts the actual mining ships are working pretty hard to manage crystals and roid targets and drones etc. especially if they are multiboxing.
However, the whole crux of the argument is that mining is the absolute basis for EVERYTHING in eve. Nothing gets done without mining. Making mining harder or more annoying is just going to make everything else in eve more expensive. We should be going the other way. Making mining easier will make everything else cheaper. Remember when BCs were like 25million isk and fully fit for under 40 mil. I rat/mine/mission that up in an hour or two and then go get blown up in some fun PVP. It was easy to afford the losses and Im reasonably decent at PVP. But, not with everything a lot more expensive people who are part time PVPers get into it a lot loss since it costs so much and the total carebears have almost no incentive to try it out.
Also Rorquals in belts is idiotic at best unless these mining fighters have a ridiculous yield so that you can afford to buy new Rorquals every few days. A ceptor can dscan down the belt or anom in less time than the cycle of the indy core and your already tackled and then dead shortly afterwards. So the new rorqual changes better be damn good or rorquals will be only used for clones and as poor mans JFs. And no the new freeze everyone in place will not save you, but it may let more bad guys get in on the killmail |
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:43:03 -
[647] - Quote
KhanidLady wrote:
you will get the panic button and a local/remote tank roughly close to a FAX. not good enough?
Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS.
If I see a Rorq in an anom mining I know it's going to be there for a while. Assuming it roots itself in five minute increments to provide boosts it is an easy kill. All I need to do is batphone a titan, or enough dudes to overwhem the locals for a few minutes so I can bring in a dread, and it's toast. Then warp in a sabre, knowing that I will have plenty of time to bubble before it could possibly run. But most importantly I have all the time in the world to get that set up because I'm hitting a stationary target.
If the above is how the Rorq is going to work going forward they will become the toys of only the biggest and best organized blocs. As a Goon that would actually be kinda nice for me personally, but crushing thousands of other miners in smaller outfits would be horrible overall. There is no way a hundred man mining corp could use Rorquals if they lived within a couple BLOPS jumps of a halfway decent lowsec outfit, let alone PL or Goons. |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
71
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:45:52 -
[648] - Quote
I like that boosts now affect your own ship even if you're not a member of a fleet, that's a nice touch and a decent boost to battlecruisers.
Any plans on adding something for the solo players out there? I didn't always use links, but they were definitely a nice thing to have when your opponents out escalated you and that's kind of going away with these changes. Solo play has become much more challenging over the years (not that I'm opposed to a challenge) and the pendulum has really swung into the favor of the blob with the changes to recons, hics, and carriers. It'd be nice to see implants, modules, or ships more geared towards solo pvp, and keep the paradigm at least a little bit removed from alt ECM, logi, etc. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
582
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:46:25 -
[649] - Quote
What if the command bursts were given an optimal similar to the currently proposed ranges, but then also had a falloff that's 2x or 3x the optimal?
|
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:47:18 -
[650] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:KhanidLady wrote:
you will get the panic button and a local/remote tank roughly close to a FAX. not good enough?
Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS. If I see a Rorq in an anom mining I know it's going to be there for a while. Assuming it roots itself in five minute increments to provide boosts it is an easy kill. All I need to do is batphone a titan, or enough dudes to overwhem the locals for a few minutes so I can bring in a dread, and it's toast. Then warp in a sabre, knowing that I will have plenty of time to bubble before it could possibly run. But most importantly I have all the time in the world to get that set up because I'm hitting a stationary target. If the above is how the Rorq is going to work going forward they will become the toys of only the biggest and best organized blocs. As a Goon that would actually be kinda nice for me personally, but crushing thousands of other miners in smaller outfits would be horrible overall. There is no way a hundred man mining corp could use Rorquals if they lived within a couple BLOPS jumps of a halfway decent lowsec outfit, let alone PL or Goons.
I am sure goons will manage to have defense fleets up. worked for your ratting carriers too. |
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
242
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:48:02 -
[651] - Quote
KhanidLady wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Wall of text you will get the panic button and a local/remote tank roughly close to a FAX. not good enough?
Not even close. People will come out of the woodwork to 'rorqual tackled in belt X in system Y' on any channel I've ever been in. And I'm sorry, but a single curse or geddon will eventually cap out a FAX or Rorqual and neither of them can do anything to stop that.
Yes, I know they should have a support fleet, but how many PVPers do you know who will hang out and guard people mining? And the Panic Button freeze locks the barges in place so they can't reship so your pretty much just delaying your death for 5 minutes. |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:48:44 -
[652] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:[quote=Delt0r Garsk] Also Rorquals in belts is idiotic ...
This points to the fact that a Capital Mining Ship has to do something more than compress and boost and mine a bit. They have to be worth bringing which is what most miners want.
I would say that the appropriate design direction for the Rorqual is to start with the idea that we could make it like the analog between ratting in an Ishtar and ratting in a Thanatos.
So when you deploy your Thanatos, you make sure you do it in a relatively well-protected space. You bubble up the gates that form the entrances to your constellation, you rat in the back of the constellation (the system that takes the most jumps to reach), and you post scouts in the entry systems.
That, at least, is how most smart carrier ratters seem to operate.
You operate the Rorqual in a similar way... The issue is that CCP wants you to SIEGE the Rorqual which is not something you do with an exposed solo capital ship in null which is where the disconnect is.
Typically, the ships that Siege in Null are Ratting Marauders which are not preferred, but you see the occasional Vargur... Most Ratting Marauders are used to do 10/10s--forcing you to probe down the ship and jump acceleration gates to reach it, giving it time to unsiege and safe up.
I think that miners are correct in their misgivings about belt sieging. Perhaps if CCP added Deadspace or Scanned Mining Anomalies that you had to probe down or pick up Journal coordinates by killing rats, this type of activity would be viable, but I totally agree that sieging in a belt in null is kinda reckless.
Of course, people do it with Marauders... Not many, but some do rat in warpable anomalies in Marauders. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:48:49 -
[653] - Quote
KhanidLady wrote:Thogn wrote:(( My German is way better than my English ))
I'll try to stay super-calm.
There are many open points with boosting itself - so I'm astonished ... CCP is already jumping.
1.) I think, the basic idea is good. To hide a booster in nowhere - didn't really make sense to me. 2.) I'm positive to some of the changes coming, but here are my issues :
Assumed : a) you are a single customer with two ( 2 ) hands and two ( 2 ) accounts. b) you invested a lifetime to come up with one charcter for small gang PvP and another one for support. The support character is a perfect booster. ( Fleet Command 5 is missing ... Rest is T2-fully there. ) Up to now you could "park" your booster in the skies of New Eden and give continuous boosts to your fleet. c) if this is no longer valid - and the boosts have only a few kilometers reach on grid - that's interesting - because d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target." e) Therof follow 2 things : e1) if fielded - the booster himself will raise more acceptance and e2) because of d) the booster pilot might be quite busy - right ?
Here comes the joke : because of a) ... it will be impossible to a single customer to run his 2 accounts simultaneously and therefor ... a customer in the above constellation will consolidate his 2 accounts to one. ( at least )
o7
You need more thinking on the issues. you perfectly explained what is broken with the old system. Thank you for that. And as a counter point ... let a friend fly the link ship with you. 2 people and you might actually have more fun. EULA violation |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
242
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:49:51 -
[654] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:KhanidLady wrote:
you will get the panic button and a local/remote tank roughly close to a FAX. not good enough?
Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS. If I see a Rorq in an anom mining I know it's going to be there for a while. Assuming it roots itself in five minute increments to provide boosts it is an easy kill. All I need to do is batphone a titan, or enough dudes to overwhem the locals for a few minutes so I can bring in a dread, and it's toast. Then warp in a sabre, knowing that I will have plenty of time to bubble before it could possibly run. But most importantly I have all the time in the world to get that set up because I'm hitting a stationary target. If the above is how the Rorq is going to work going forward they will become the toys of only the biggest and best organized blocs. As a Goon that would actually be kinda nice for me personally, but crushing thousands of other miners in smaller outfits would be horrible overall. There is no way a hundred man mining corp could use Rorquals if they lived within a couple BLOPS jumps of a halfway decent lowsec outfit, let alone PL or Goons.
I agree with a Goon...what is EVE coming to |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:55:13 -
[655] - Quote
Agul Chith wrote:After seeing the proposed changes I'm less worried. But still have two big concerns...
1. That range... not everyone anchors up and presses F1. Need more range for small gangs who tend to spread out more.
2. The ammo idea is just plain dumb. Please use scripts instead.
1. Bring multiple boosters that follow the various combat units in space (new gameplay) 2. Scripts are a one time purchase. Ammo, similar to interdiction charges, promote industry for a near identical feature
|
Suitonia
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
703
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:55:16 -
[656] - Quote
Hi Fozzie, these look absolutely amazing, I have one caveat however.
Please consider replacing the Evasive Manuever effect, it is still by far the most powerful link and exceeds a powerlevel of all the other warfare links by being significantly stronger than the HG implant counterpart. HG Halos+Strong X-Instinct is roughly the same as Evasive Maneuevering, and it causes so many problems with missile balance, it is much more difficult to balance missile systems like Heavy Missiles while Evasive Maneuevering is in the game, every Tech I cruiser while webbed gets damage mitigation from HMLs when hit by EM, often reducing damage by 32.34%. This makes it difficult to balance because you either have to account for insane damage mitigation (EM requires roughly 48% more tracking on a ship to hit it at the same effectiveness as the same ship shooting an unlinked ship) and it is an entirely passive.
I know some players feel that this is essential for dealing with bombs in nullsec, but bomb explosion radius could just be increased to compensate.
Things that I think would be good alternatives Agility: You removed the 15% passive agility and unlike other old passive effects they haven't been compensated into a new link or rolled in. An agility boosting link would be useful for damage mitigation, kiting and oversized AB stuff. (Higher agility means you can create higher angular velocities through sharper turning circles) Brawlers would also like this as it helps slingshot targets. This is a much more 'active' feeling damage mitigation tool. Agility is useful in other areas too for pinging or travelling. MWD/AB cap reduction: lower cap usage on prop modules helps a lot of doctrine fits that want to always MWD, helps kiters sustain, helps brawlers with lower cap costs on MWD/AB feeding into tank instead.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
245
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:57:23 -
[657] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Krystyn wrote:[quote=Delt0r Garsk] Also Rorquals in belts is idiotic ... This points to the fact that a Capital Mining Ship has to do something more than compress and boost and mine a bit. They have to be worth bringing which is what most miners want. I would say that the appropriate design direction for the Rorqual is to make it like the analog between ratting in an Ishtar and ratting in a Thanatos. So when you deploy your Thanatos, you make sure you do it in a relatively well-protected space. You bubble up the gates that form the entrances to your constellation, you rat in the back of the constellation (the system that takes the most jumps to reach), and you post scouts in the entry systems. That, at least, is how most smart carrier ratters seem to operate. You operate the Rorqual in a similar way... The issue is that CCP wants you to SIEGE the Rorqual which is not something you do with an exposed solo capital ship in null which is where the disconnect is. Typically, the ships that Siege in Null are Ratting Marauders which are not preferred, but you see the occasional Vargur... Most Ratting Marauders are used to do 10/10s--forcing you to probe down the ship and jump acceleration gates to reach it, giving it time to unsiege and safe up. I think that miners are correct in their misgivings about belt sieging. Perhaps if CCP added Deadspace or Scanned Mining Anomalies that you had to probe down or pick up Journal coordinates by killing rats, this type of activity would be viable, but I totally agree that sieging in a belt in null is kinda reckless.
Indeed trying to catch a tengu or marauder in the back end of a plex is pretty tough. Only managed it a few times. Gotta scan it down and then run through the gates and catch them, which involves some failures on their part to notice your probes and to get out before you get to them. So if people had to probe down a mining belt that had a gate or two then it might make sense to siege a rorqual for the impressive mining boosts and mining fighters. Also for PVPers and I a trick I know I will attempt to use is I will search for these belts when they are empty and BM for later hoping someone is in them and skip the whole seeing my probes on d-scan bit. But this helps get the risk/reward a bit more balanced. If clearing out a few of these 'hidden' belts will cover the cost of a rorqual they may actually get used and isn't that the point. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3096
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:01:32 -
[658] - 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. |
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:02:55 -
[659] - Quote
KhanidLady wrote: I am sure goons will manage to have defense fleets up. worked for your ratting carriers too.
FearlessLittleToaster wrote: As a Goon that would actually be kinda nice for me personally, but crushing thousands of other miners in smaller outfits would be horrible overall. There is no way a hundred man mining corp could use Rorquals if they lived within a couple BLOPS jumps of a halfway decent lowsec outfit, let alone PL or Goons.
As I said in my post, we certainly will. But even though the change would actually benefit me personally I think it would be bad for Eve because it would flatten the smaller and less well organized groups. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:10:02 -
[660] - Quote
btw I have just noticed one thing [speaking of miners and new system]
they say that all skills and implants that was providing passive boosts will be reworked to buff the command burst and will no longer provide fleetwide passive bonuses.
what about mining foreman 2% per skill level bonus to the mining yield?
what about mining foreman mindlink replacign that bonus with 15% yield bonus?
according to a blog it seems they will both now bosot strenght of the mining foreman bursts, but there is nothing to compensate for the lost yield.....
or did I missed something? |
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1881
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:10:49 -
[661] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Arrendis wrote: In small groups, you remove the force multipliers .... Yes, they've applied their boosts... once. If they can't apply them again, then you've reduced the effectiveness of the rest of the fleet with that one kill.
You reduce the effectiveness of the fleet two minutes from now. That's a really long time in the small group fights you're talking about.
Yes it is - which is why, as I said, it's a fluid determination. Can you hold them for two minutes? Can you nail the booster and then stay our of their way for two minutes? Will popping the booster cause them to withdraw so as not to risk that 2-minute timer?
Did you pop him immediately after he boosted, or 60-90 seconds after? That comes into play, too. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:11:23 -
[662] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote: If the above is how the Rorq is going to work going forward they will become the toys of only the biggest and best organized blocs. As a Goon that would actually be kinda nice for me personally, but crushing thousands of other miners in smaller outfits would be horrible overall. There is no way a hundred man mining corp could use Rorquals if they lived within a couple BLOPS jumps of a halfway decent lowsec outfit, let alone PL or Goons.
Why is that a bad thing? Smaller groups get Porpoise and Orcas. Larger groups field *capital* boosters. This idea that the smallest mining group should have the best boosts because the current state of the game allows everyone to have zero risk boosts is silly. It is exactly the scenario being fixed by this change. Your boost capabilities scale with your size or your risk level.
|
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:17:30 -
[663] - Quote
My question:
Don't you think that ammoes for Comm. Bursts are a bit too much? Wouldn't it be better to just use scripts?
You're modifying a core mechanic, which includes also touching Mining Links, not only Combats, do you see it feasible for, say, an Orca, an industrialist, the necessity to -also- care every now and then to build ammoes just to provide a simple thing like Mining Links? I find it just another layer of stress added to the game, and not a valid or entertaining gameplay solution.
edit: one more general question: you are committing to get rid of AFK gameplay, which we all agree on, but why don't you also come up with something to fix the most detrimental effect still present nowadays: afk cloaky campers? |
Mark SilverStep
MATARSOC
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:18:25 -
[664] - Quote
Hi, As i can see some of the advantages in solo / small fleet pvp where there was no telling if passive boost/link was applied I am a bit worried - because it took me ff-ing ages to skill up for this boosting role. And nowhere I see or read if these skills will be covering the new system - does that mean i wasted millions of isk and time?
Further more - being a fairly new player - I allready have seen so manny changes, either little or big roll-outs, keeping me running in the dark trying to catch up in a game that allready need a lot of effort en time to learn all the mechanics.
Why all these changes? - leave it at it is for a couple of years - it's great ! Then nobody has to change his gameplay every time - and finaly get used to it and/or good in what he or she is doing - skiling for etc. without being just there - and WHAaa change again - start over.
Only change the feedback on a vessel that has passive boost/link applied to it (say in D-scan) so its opponent can see what is going on.
I see some numebers being given for the levels of boost - but what about their radius? field of effectiveness?
o7
|
Decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:24:29 -
[665] - Quote
I have no problems with getting rid of off grid boosts, but unless you're in a super alliance anyone with a rorq is going to be selling after this patch. The defensive mode on this is undesirable at best if you're in a medium to small alliance.
My thoughts on the biggest problems with the current was the rorq is.
If you're ganked you have no escape option, your only choice here is to be rescued. You are vulnerable for 5 minute periods of time and given how big this ship is it makes it VERY easy to combat scan down. This ship can be held down with a single point.
possible solutions each is its own option and not to be taken together as maybe to OP :P
Make it immune to Dscan like the combat recon ships (apply this to the Orca too) If they can not see it right away then that may give you a chance to power the core down and get away before they realise you are there.
Make it much harder to combat scan down.
Like the supers make it need more than just a point to pin the ship down (possibly by granting it warp core stab in built like the venture.
Also maybe give it a Capital MJD designed by ORE that takes say 3 scrams to shut it down. (only available for capital industrial ships)
My final option is to give it a Mega Burst tractor pulse. one time only (burns out)and pushes all ships and pods within a 30km range away to 100km.
All numbers can be changed ofc and are merely suggestions. Again i do not advocate all of these on the ship as would be mega OP :P
My personal choices would be adding warp core stabs and the MJD with the Dscan immunity. Thoughts? |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:28:31 -
[666] - Quote
Mark SilverStep wrote: Why all these changes? - leave it at it is for a couple of years - it's great ! Then nobody has to change his gameplay every time - and finaly get used to it and/or good in what he or she is doing - skiling for etc. without being just there - and WHAaa change again - start over.
EDIT: lol sth went wrong when posting >.>
thing is that these mechanics are in a place "couple of years" already
the warfare link system is for my knowledge AT LEAST 6 years old |
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
95
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:34:54 -
[667] - Quote
Probably wont use the Orca as a in belt booster - so - How many ships need to be in a mining fleet before swapping out a Skiff for a Fleet booster becomes profitable? |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
606
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:44:09 -
[668] - Quote
Poking around with numbers a bit, an All V's Rorqual will have a range of 43.75km when not sieged. Using a T1 Core, that becomes 87.5km, while a T2 Core makes it 131.25km.
Would there be any consideration to increasing the Rorqual's Role Bonus from +50% range to +75% range? It would make the All V's range 51.2km when not sieged, 102.4km with a T1 Core, and 153.5km with a T2 Core.
When using a T2 core, it would put the max boost range to just a shade over what the minimum warp distance is, while being unsieged would make it a bit more viable in large belts to be able to use a Higgs and align to a safe. That will make it marginally less of a hassle to keep ships in range when they're spread out over belts.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Derth Ramir
Pod Liberation Authority
50
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:50:25 -
[669] - Quote
CCP do you have any comments about the drake navy Issue? It is currently the only battle-cruiser unable to use a warfare link without sacrificing a good portion of its DPS. A slight added damage hull bonus is all that would be needed to free up a high slot.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/506byu/dear_ccp_drake_navy_is_excluded_from_link_changes/ Reddit thread showing player Support.
Fight The Blob.
|
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:57:58 -
[670] - Quote
The main problem that was seen by the community was the presence of off grid, cloaky T3 boosters.
Either remove the subsystem or put a limit to combat boosting to be on grid. Problem solved.
Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and handcuffing Mining gameplay and decent on grid mechanics to this dead hooker. |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6367
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:01:24 -
[671] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Poking around with numbers a bit, an All V's Rorqual will have a range of 43.75km when not sieged. Using a T1 Core, that becomes 87.5km, while a T2 Core makes it 131.25km.
Would there be any consideration to increasing the Rorqual's Role Bonus from +50% range to +75% range? It would make the All V's range 51.2km when not sieged, 102.4km with a T1 Core, and 153.5km with a T2 Core.
When using a T2 core, it would put the max boost range to just a shade over what the minimum warp distance is, while being unsieged would make it a bit more viable in large belts to be able to use a Higgs and align to a safe. That will make it marginally less of a hassle to keep ships in range when they're spread out over belts. Thanks for the math,
One would have hoped the range would have been at least as far as a Capital Tractor Beam |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:03:05 -
[672] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:The main problem that was seen by the community was the presence of off grid, cloaky T3 boosters.
Either remove the subsystem or put a limit to combat boosting to on grid. Problem solved.
Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and handcuffing Mining gameplay and decent on grid mechanics to this dead hooker.
That's not the main problem. Booster content is garbage. Many people who like Command Ships are interested in the on-grid change. You don't need to couple the two problems and I think you've gotten a bit oversimplistic in suggesting everything has to be congruent content wise.
As I've said above, the Rorqual at present is not really a ship. It's basically just a manned tower module. CCP intends for it to be used as a ship. You're not going to escape that eventuality and you shouldn't be trying to. If you don't like it as a ship, might as well just ask for a mine-boosting structure which, I believe, they're working on anyway, so...
Rorqual will need a new role. As an on-grid booster, it could work provided it didn't have to siege--it would engage in content similar to ratting carriers today.
If siege is a requisite or intended form of activity then it needs a type of content suitable to sieging. Presently, the analog to siege content is ratting with Marauders in Deadspace Anomalies. Hidden Belts, in other words, is the new content type that sieged rorquals necessitates.
Don't think so small. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6367
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:08:21 -
[673] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Please remove the industrial core from the game, or at least its "pinned down in space for 5 mins"
super defensive weapon all shiny and stuff, but that it is mandatory because this flippin slow giant has to wait out the timer is a joke.
Oh and that i manually have to press the boosts every 1-2 minutes? - seriously?
World of Warcraft Classic Paladin sends his greetings, please get a nice cloth dress for the rorqual *sarcasm* Please tell me you didn't just write that: activate module manually? Seriously?
OMFG. That would be grounds for me to self-destruct my Rorqual for basic insurance, or reprocess it. |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
4399
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:08:29 -
[674] - Quote
Fozzie,
I'm happy that links are getting wrecked, but I feel like the approach is very slightly off. I'm disappointed with the removal of the passive leadership skills - and make no mistake, you are removing them. Making the tier 1 leadership skills apply only to an active module is very much like making the RCU an active module and only making Engineering apply when it's activated. The tier 1 leadership skills - even with mindlinks - are fairly harmless, and I'd like to see them stick around. It would also give you the ability to create new skills for me to train if I still cared about links at all. As it stands, the arguments for reimbursement are actually pretty valid (because the skills no longer affect the same areas of the game).
I would also like to point out that armor/shield and maybe even info links are probably going to be fine. However, skirmish links are going to take a massive whack to the face. So much of their utility is based on tackle and movement that short range AOE is simply unworkable. What do you say to some long range targeted variants for links? Eh? Eh!
That said, I haven't used my link alts much and with this change I don't even have a pretense for keeping them active. I'll be shuffling my market alts around and closing them. Thanks for saving me $30/month! <3 <3
-Liang
Ed: Formatting failures. My keyboard sucks. Also, it wouldn't have been too much to ask for you to simply delete links altogether would it? Pretty please? :)
I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
173
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:14:16 -
[675] - Quote
Does the links auto repeat in such a way that the button doesn't need to be pressed every time? And if it doesn't auto repeat could you consider makeing the boost duration on mineing links greatly extended, so as not to overly inconvenience miners. Poor things, we already want them to risk more stuff in the belt the least we could do is to make sure that they don't have to check thier boosting alt more often than thier main.
I feel the base range could go up a bit to say 20km but it feels pretty nice being short. Command destroyers should have a bit more range.
As for getting the rorqual on site. The panic button will help some, but what you really need is to give more powerful Intel tools for industrialists. The map data outs them from across the game, descan outs them in system. Local also gives them up to passers by. If you want them to actually get out there you need to give them a way to hide from prying eyes. |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:15:51 -
[676] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:Does the links auto repeat in such a way that the button doesn't need to be pressed every time? And if it doesn't auto repeat could you consider makeing the boost duration on mineing links greatly extended, so as not to overly inconvenience miners. Poor things, we already want them to risk more stuff in the belt the least we could do is to make sure that they don't have to check thier boosting alt more often than thier main...
Yes, they have ammo like guns and auto-repeat until out of ammo then go through reload. If you haven't read the Dev Blog, you should do so. That information is in there. |
Jalen Mynar
Kestrel Security Company
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:19:54 -
[677] - Quote
I dont get why indy boosts and combat boosts are being treated the same. A rorq gives its fleet members no combat advantage, aside from passive boosts. A combat booster gives his/her fleet a massive advantage.
I get ccp wants to lose off grid, but why treat them alike?
for the rorq, why not lose the indy core, have it apply full boosts with no 5 min lock down, but to all fleet members on grid. Having a rorq slowboating around a colossal belt, trying to keep everyone in range would just be downright frustrating.
There would be a level of risk, whether its a booster only or using mining fighters, as there is for those that rat in carriers. Its not like risking a handful of mining ships, its a fairly pricey ship to mere mortals like me.
As others have said, the 5 minute invul thing would just delay the inevitable.
I realise its early days for these nerfs, but why over complicate it. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6368
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:21:17 -
[678] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:Does the links auto repeat in such a way that the button doesn't need to be pressed every time? And if it doesn't auto repeat could you consider makeing the boost duration on mineing links greatly extended, so as not to overly inconvenience miners. Poor things, we already want them to risk more stuff in the belt the least we could do is to make sure that they don't have to check thier boosting alt more often than thier main.
I feel the base range could go up a bit to say 20km but it feels pretty nice being short. Command destroyers should have a bit more range.
As for getting the rorqual on site. The panic button will help some, but what you really need is to give more powerful Intel tools for industrialists. The map data outs them from across the game, descan outs them in system. Local also gives them up to passers by. If you want them to actually get out there you need to give them a way to hide from prying eyes. If I'm mining, hauling in cans, watching d-scan, intel channels, etc., I don't want to also have to remember to press a button for bacon repeatedly. Auto-cycle or bust.
Capital Tractor Beam I has a 200 km range, and the T2 is 240 km. Just saying.
"Oh look! There's an warp-able asteroid belt, and a Rorqual on d-scan. I wonder where the Rorqual is?"
"Oh look! There's an warp-able mining anomaly, and a Rorqual on d-scan. I wonder where the Rorqual is?"
|
Grookshank
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
116
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:24:08 -
[679] - Quote
Quote:Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid? A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
You are adjusting the range just for anchoring fleets. Please consider that smaller fleets piloting manually, interceptors going for tackle want boosts too. |
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:28:27 -
[680] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:
That's not the main problem. Booster content is garbage. Many people who like Command Ships are interested in the on-grid change. You don't need to couple the two problems and I think you've gotten a bit oversimplistic in suggesting everything has to be congruent content wise.
As I've said above, the Rorqual at present is not really a ship. It's basically just a manned tower module. CCP intends for it to be used as a ship. You're not going to escape that eventuality and you shouldn't be trying to. If you don't like it as a ship, might as well just ask for a mine-boosting structure which, I believe, they're working on anyway, so...
Rorqual will need a new role. As an on-grid booster, it could work provided it didn't have to siege--it would engage in content similar to ratting carriers today.
If siege is a requisite or intended form of activity then it needs a type of content suitable to sieging. Presently, the analog to siege content is ratting with Marauders in Deadspace Anomalies. Hidden Belts, in other words, is a new content type that sieged rorquals points towards.
Don't think so small.
Absolutely it's the main problem. Suggesting we got here for any other reason than off-grid combat boosting neglects the bulk of the complaint over the past years being aimed at that single point.
Replacing the Rorqual booster with the Rorqual 5 minute loot pinata in a belt is not a valid option. It's stupid and anyone who doesn't fly one and thinks it's great is being a CCP fanboy apologist. As far as the structures, they're not here yet so it's not a replacement and thus a poor argument for going ahead with these ill thought out changes.
Rorquals do need new roles, but in addition to their current ones to encourage them to come out of their POS. Telling Rorq pilots they have to siege in the belts is the work of small gang trolls looking for shinier kill mails and it's disengenous.
The "olive branch" of the panic button is the work of people who don't mine and saying it gives the group time to form up and save a mining fleet completely overlooks the general disinterest, let alone ability for groups in null to form up in less than a couple minutes and fly across their region to save said screwed group.
It's not a solution.
|
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
673
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:30:42 -
[681] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:On a nearly unrelated tangent:
Since we're going to remove skills that just let you have more numbers of people in a fleet, perhaps we could do a similar thing with other skills? Corp Management (number of members) for instance? Maybe even the Trade (buy/sell order limits) or contracting skills too?
They seem like such silly and arbitrary limits.
From personal experience: trading skills do matter. They don't at first, until you start importing goods in bulk from a tradehub to your local friendly nullsec station.
That's when you know what that skill is for ;-) |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:31:09 -
[682] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:... It's not a solution.
vOv Bitter vet is bitter and always right, of course. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:38:16 -
[683] - Quote
Jalen Mynar wrote:I dont get why indy boosts and combat boosts are being treated the same. A rorq gives its fleet members no combat advantage, aside from passive boosts. A combat booster gives his/her fleet a massive advantage.
I get ccp wants to lose off grid, but why treat them alike?
for the rorq, why not lose the indy core, have it apply full boosts with no 5 min lock down, but to all fleet members on grid. Having a rorq slowboating around a colossal belt, trying to keep everyone in range would just be downright frustrating.
There would be a level of risk, whether its a booster only or using mining fighters, as there is for those that rat in carriers. Its not like risking a handful of mining ships, its a fairly pricey ship to mere mortals like me.
As others have said, the 5 minute invul thing would just delay the inevitable.
I realise its early days for these nerfs, but why over complicate it.
your rorqual has bonuses to shield links. personally i would stick some on it |
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:39:10 -
[684] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:
vOv Bitter vet is bitter and always right, of course.
I know, it's almost like people with experience in a subset of game play in EVE would know more about how changes to the mechanics would affect said subset than some useless troll. |
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:44:23 -
[685] - Quote
I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Max Fubarticus
K Diamond Holding LTD. Bullets Bombs and Blondes
164
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:46:54 -
[686] - Quote
My very concise thoughts on this controversial topic. Not well thought out!
Quote:Fleet boosting should represent a distinct and valuable support role that allows skilled players to shine
It still does! That is, it represents a value to those who know how to make the best use of it. To those who have not invested time and money to skill a character at a level that gives you a tactical and strategic advantage it is "unfair". It is distinct in that the character has a very important role as a force multiplier that " I use in a manner that benefits me". Not others! I have not invested the time and money in characters to be "fair and equitable" for others. In your rush to 'Socially Engineer" the sandbox and create "fairness and equitable outcomes", you have stepped on those who have created and maintained the very foundation that keeps Eve going. No CCP, you are not the foundation, you are just the geeks who write code. We are the ones who make it real.
About the stats... You gave us a patchwork of stats, new mechanics, etc. You also gave a blog schedule that will cover details. Really! One cannot begin to give you an honest and informed opinion when given bits and pieces of information that can only congeal into a quivering mass of opinionated crap.
Regardless of the outcomes that will undoubtedly be forced upon the players, we will adapt. CCP, your time to let "discretion be the better part of valor" has arrived. Choose wisely!
Max
Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never.
Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
|
Jalen Mynar
Kestrel Security Company
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:48:26 -
[687] - Quote
KhanidLady wrote:Jalen Mynar wrote:I dont get why indy boosts and combat boosts are being treated the same. A rorq gives its fleet members no combat advantage, aside from passive boosts. A combat booster gives his/her fleet a massive advantage.
I get ccp wants to lose off grid, but why treat them alike?
for the rorq, why not lose the indy core, have it apply full boosts with no 5 min lock down, but to all fleet members on grid. Having a rorq slowboating around a colossal belt, trying to keep everyone in range would just be downright frustrating.
There would be a level of risk, whether its a booster only or using mining fighters, as there is for those that rat in carriers. Its not like risking a handful of mining ships, its a fairly pricey ship to mere mortals like me.
As others have said, the 5 minute invul thing would just delay the inevitable.
I realise its early days for these nerfs, but why over complicate it. your rorqual has bonuses to shield links. personally i would stick some on it
yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links? |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:49:37 -
[688] - Quote
Thank you CCP for finally fixing broken off grid boosts. Especially fixing the even more broken mining boosts where people are able to stay safe inside a POS field. This was always violating Risk/Reward philosophy of Eve Online.... getting +xx% reward at a cost of _zero_ risk. Similar to the off grid combat boosts had not enough risk for the reward... (but at least it wasn't objectively 0.0 risk)
It's always fun to see (mostly industry) people whining when something totally broken in their favor gets balanced. Why can't you be at least honest and say: yes, it was broken in our favor and we're sad that it is gone soon but we're glad we could (ab)use it for several years now. My observation is that PVPers generally admit if something is broken in their favor (T3 cruisers/destroyers - don't know about new cap/fax changes) and wont rage as much if it finally gets balanced but just adapt after a short time. But maybe I'm biased there and they whine the same... Feel free convince me otherwise (with sources).
Also as mentioned above, you'll get another industry boosting ship. So you tell me it's unfair you have to risk a capital in a belt for the boosts? I've a proposal for you: don't f**ing commit a capital for its gain if you cannot defend it.... or be ok with the risk you're taking.
@incursions: so you're participating in another totally broken risk/reward (hisec incursions) mechanic of Eve Online and are still whining about changes slightly affecting-Ś you?
TL;DR: * risk free mining boosts always violated Risk/Reward philosophy of Eve Online - Hurray for being it fixed * off grid boosts also had not enough risk for its reward * please fix broken risk/reward (hi sec) incursions next
-Ś damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1882
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:50:37 -
[689] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Please tell me you didn't just write that: activate module manually? Seriously?
OMFG. That would be grounds for me to self-destruct my Rorqual for basic insurance, or reprocess it.
That appears to be the likely result of a 'reactivation delay' rather than a 'cycle time'. Think of the MJD or Cloaks - they're the only modules I can think of right now with a 'reactivation delay'. They don't auto-cycle. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:52:50 -
[690] - Quote
Jalen Mynar wrote:yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links?
Most mining ships are shield tanked, with the exception of some bait hull tanked ones. The rorqual is shield tanked too. so if you want to have a self sustained group, which doesnt need yet another person on grid for shield links. I would stick the shield links on the rorqual and have it boost the defensive of the fleet.
couple that with a few of those mining ships which actually have drone dmg bonuses. that might work quite well to get rid of initial tackle.
Fozzie mentioned last fanfest the story of a miner who wiped a blackops fleet with his drones. ymmv.
|
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1882
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:53:14 -
[691] - Quote
Jalen Mynar wrote:KhanidLady wrote:your rorqual has bonuses to shield links. personally i would stick some on it yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links?
To ensure your mining fleet lives long enough to run away - or, if you're flying a bunch of Procurers and Skiffs, to eat the attackers alive while they scream about drone hordes. |
Kaphrah
Nemesis Logistics Nemesis Enterprises.
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 18:57:41 -
[692] - Quote
RIP boosts.
But I still have a rather constructive idea imo for the burst things: Why should the armor be set to 0 if under 20% armor remains? Let the ship lose 20% of the remaining armor, no matter how much remaining, that'd make a lot more sense. |
Lawrence Lawton
The Conference Elite CODE.
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:01:56 -
[693] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:I'm just wondering if Incursions were taken into account for these features at all. Currently you'd have 1 (vanguards) or 2 command ships sitting offgrid afk; now every FC will have to train into a command ship and boost ongrid which is going to be a pain in the ass -_- (inb4 can't you just run with more logistics?) The efficiency is seriously hampered by either having ongrid boosters or not at all (both are viable ideas of what might happen.) Or just have the booster in fleet and leave fleet when site is about to end (so you don't affect site payouts) in any case there needs more thinking!
Calm down, ratter, and check your sense of entitlement. Incursions already have the most favourable risk:reward ratio of all activities in highsec. You get to grind out 100+ million ISK/hr in the safety of deadspace using exorbitantly blinged out faction ships and almost never get ganked. You already tip the offgrid (AFK) booster. Now he'll get onsite payout and work for the money. |
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
139
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:12:43 -
[694] - Quote
WTS rorqual, cheap!
I really like an idea and all these changes, except rorqual. For commands it's fine. It's pvp and you should be on grid.
But for mining... so you offer somebody to drop rorqual in a belt within 45km (with max skills) to each mining barge to provide a boost? The risk can be worthy only when you're giving a boost to 20+ miners. Otherwise, most of ppl will not risk their 2b+ ship just to provide a bonus for few miners. Of course, you tried to balance it implementing a new invulnerable module for rorqual. If industrial core still has 5 minutes cycle and invulnerability module can provide you a safety only for 1 minute, then it's not worthy. Example: you activated an industrial core, and suddenly same minute reds appear in a system. To deactivate your ind core you need 5 minutes. Let's take 4 minutes. So, to warp off you have to save your invul module till you're ready. In 4 minutes reds can nail your ship.
I mean, it's fine, it's PVP, it's EVE :D
But comparing benefits and shortcomings, for me, it does not cost a risk. Maximum what I will use is ORCA, because it has no industrial core and it won't be stuck in a belt for 5+ minutes. If you trying to excite rorqual pilots just with adding a huge mining drone, then It will not work. At least, it's my opinion.
Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established.
- Confucius
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
250
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:23:09 -
[695] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:Probably wont use the Orca as a in belt booster - so - How many ships need to be in a mining fleet before swapping out a Skiff for a Fleet booster becomes profitable?
right now 3 or 4 barges is max fleet size before boosts become optimum. Your fifth mining fleet member should be in a booster ship of some sort. And if you use an orca to haul as well as boost then the 4th member of the fleet should be an orca. Now where and what you are mining comes into play a bit here. Nullsec you might not have a booster at all or you might always have a booster in a POS. In highsec I've seen 3 man fleets 2 barges and an orca which work ok. Orca's chilling out in the belt is mostly a high sec only thing. So that is where most of the mining will end up happening. In ice belts I've seen and used a booster BC especially in null sec. Everyone warps out whenever reds or neuts show up. Hauling really isn't an issue there. You rarely have to warp back totally full unless your left alone for long periods of time, which isn't particularly often. This may have to become the norm in null sec after the changes without POS based boosters for mining. |
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club Play Hard Pray Harder
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:28:48 -
[696] - Quote
Georgiy Giggle wrote:WTS rorqual, cheap!
I really like an idea and all these changes, except rorqual. For commands it's fine. It's pvp and you should be on grid.
But for mining... so you offer somebody to drop rorqual in a belt within 45km (with max skills) to each mining barge to provide a boost? The risk can be worthy only when you're giving a boost to 20+ miners. Otherwise, most of ppl will not risk their 2b+ ship just to provide a bonus for few miners. Of course, you tried to balance it implementing a new invulnerable module for rorqual. If industrial core still has 5 minutes cycle and invulnerability module can provide you a safety only for 1 minute, then it's not worthy. Example: you activated an industrial core, and suddenly same minute reds appear in a system. To deactivate your ind core you need 5 minutes. Let's take 4 minutes. So, to warp off you have to save your invul module till you're ready. In 4 minutes reds can nail your ship.
I mean, it's fine, it's PVP, it's EVE :D
But comparing benefits and shortcomings, for me, it does not cost a risk. Maximum what I will use is ORCA, because it has no industrial core and it won't be stuck in a belt for 5+ minutes. If you trying to excite rorqual pilots just with adding a huge mining drone, then It will not work. At least, it's my opinion.
your numbers for boost range are wrong. your are missing the other boosts to the ship mentioned in the last o7 show. |
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:30:23 -
[697] - Quote
JoAnnaBeth wrote:JUst when you thought CCP was doing something cool ,you find out they just reinvented the way of reaching all the way around their backside just to scratch their elbow. Seriously,what were you trying to fix...fleet boosts ?cause people hate trying to figure out where they fit in inside the fleet? this is something you learn as you play and play with others,perhaps 'Explain' things a bit better for us undereducated folks,either way just another tickmark on the CCP Ship, THese burst modules will proably do good out in Null sec, but anywhere else i just dont see them being that helpful .Using them in High sec just means You became the primary,just seconds before the rest of your fleet get rolled over the belts ,this would be anywhere maybe out in null fleets will last longer ok their hitting the booster warp out (cause there is a counter for that right?)((or how about that fleet accouncement thingie collecting dust,like DUST)) . besides this is stuff a new character wouldnt even be bothered with unless it was an alt . For our alts that wasted all that time just to get a booster to help them,you gave us what...oh yeah extractors and injectors and auruim (sp?) Oh my,CCP was clever with this one,you shoot up this tengu,loki or just about any high end ship and you got character days old inside something "beyond his years" , skill points do not make up for experience,maybe stablize your ship more ,yay people wasted money to sit inside something they could have used another ship for ,this hasnt changed at all CCP once again you definitely all about that buck...hey spread the wealth a bit,fix our combat logs to show NPC kills differently ,its kinda bland Ship Kills->Losses. Umm how about take the middleppl out of this do up a table like the way any spread sheet that updates like with any api,perhaps , oh yeah there is probly a reason you havent done this...stop sipping on your lattes',ok back to these updates.the 'Fleet boosting should allow counterplay by enemies' section is not reveling enough,we can assume a sizeable number of CCP devs dont play like the rest of us,ship pops boosts are down ( even with the boosting duration,),why are we adding to this again?your going to take someone off grid but allow the boost to last? (where is this making on grid better?) Sorry as i read this blog all i can see is negative,the thought of a new ship would have made most cream their pants,now all i feel is why do I still play this , for pvp(oh wait we call this content...why?its player verus player,content would imply the gamemaker have done something to add to said game) , for PVE (CCP can always make a bigger NPC ship to top drifters)..(storyline is even gotten to the point its recycled),for Mining,yeah you killed that one again with this blog. CCP why are we playing this game of yours? You have nerfed just about everything to the game you have takened most of our modules turned them into something low grade all except for t2,faction mods,you cant even get decent reprocessing out of a wreck,took skill training skills out,attribute enhancers are soon to be gone,Trading skills dont really matter,Leadership skills pointless now,Social skills are being kept for what reason now,even the fun,More of the game is played outside than inside.KIllboards?you got ppl padding it left and right now to the point its not even a realiable way to judge a target.Half the thrid party programs are delayed and dont really give actual pricing,Forums are endless,apis to everyone,you almost have to have a government background check to get into a big alliance to get to said place to do all this "New and Great" stuff. Its funny,you want more people to pay to play(pay to win as well) ,dont care if they play or not but now if they are using alts its bad? CCP it definitely looks like your trying to do stuff,bravo on posting updates,you keep only counting ships destroyed as the only fun, you gotten us to this point to where it pointless to have alts now,so no need to keep them subbed,right , well it is august,you still have time this year to pull something out that is actually great. Whereever your doing the testing for how your stuff works server is failing you cause you have a narrow audience,even more so now,Your real feedback is from your numbers, which are based on ???ships loss,(this is suppose to be fun?) really at any given time there is roughly at least 10k+ on the server,who perform the main stuff of the game,pvp,pve,mining, and you want to drop that down to what 5k? i dont know what the purpose of this game is anymore so why log in now ,CCP you been doing this for what 13 years,i have seen ten of that ,this wasnt the biggest disappointment so far thats good. In my opinion since you have "so many great" third party tools,just make one called "Local" some chat based on your location (another API thing for people to use however they see fit),Take local out of the game,since you dont even care to use the eve chat or update it,this way you can keep users "logged in" since they would need a character on both sides of gates like wormhole space,(cause the option of playing with local up and running is just sooo cool and informative with spam,scams,and bully people talking foul language and aggressive natures. Why does CCP keep all this negative stuff? Who is actually telling CCP this stuff works,who at CCP is believing it, i know you think you got something going on similair to departments or sections,how about a department to sort this meat grinder ,all this stuff you got coming in and all that is coming out is not a very nice word. and for what we pay for the said bad word can provide a better christmas on a console .I hope you got your Do Not Fire List made up cause this one will cost you a few jobs but hey at this rate i wont be worrying of EVE soon.i can go back and play something easier on the eyes similiar to WOW.Good Luck CCP,use what you got of this year and fix yourself.
erm |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2657
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:31:02 -
[698] - Quote
I am quite excited about the Rorqual changes. It will be nice to fly the ship for a change.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6370
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:32:36 -
[699] - Quote
Jalen Mynar wrote:yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links? Triple battleship NPC spawns with their escorts. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
250
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:33:30 -
[700] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging.
I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. |
|
Lando Tarsadan
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:36:25 -
[701] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote:Poking around with numbers a bit, an All V's Rorqual will have a range of 43.75km when not sieged. Using a T1 Core, that becomes 87.5km, while a T2 Core makes it 131.25km.
Would there be any consideration to increasing the Rorqual's Role Bonus from +50% range to +75% range? It would make the All V's range 51.2km when not sieged, 102.4km with a T1 Core, and 153.5km with a T2 Core.
When using a T2 core, it would put the max boost range to just a shade over what the minimum warp distance is, while being unsieged would make it a bit more viable in large belts to be able to use a Higgs and align to a safe. That will make it marginally less of a hassle to keep ships in range when they're spread out over belts. Thanks for the math, One would have hoped the range would have been at least as far as a Capital Tractor Beam I would also think the range would be the same as that one.
I do use the tractor on my rorq. and well when placing the rorq in the field id think that using that module even more would be beneficial. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6370
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:37:57 -
[702] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. You're more brave than most.
Just not going to happen for me with: * 5 minute siege timer * Booster module with reactivation delay (no auto-repeat). * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:50:24 -
[703] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:(...) * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction
Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Or would that be too much work and you just want to have a risk free reward (like possed mining boosts)? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:51:40 -
[704] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:[quote=Krystyn](...) * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Not if your corpmates are frozen in mining ships. |
Jack 0'Neal
Taru Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:51:48 -
[705] - Quote
Why are command ships being nerfed down to providing less boosts and needing to sacrifice half of their rig slots to give the same boosts they currently could without any command processors?
Also it would be nice to shorten the aggression timer to 30 seconds so gangs on the run from blobs could use speed boosts to burn through bubbles without sacrificing their boosting ship.
The current max range is also a bit short for anything smaller than n+1 orbit the anchor gameplay. |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:53:35 -
[706] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:[quote=Krystyn](...) * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Not if your corpmates are frozen in mining ships.
Sorry but what do you mean with 'frozen in mining ships'? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 19:55:08 -
[707] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:[quote=Krystyn](...) * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Not if your corpmates are frozen in mining ships. Sorry but what do you mean with 'frozen in mining ships'? The "super weapon" affects all mining ships in the fleet with the Rorqual.
Last I heard anyways. |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:04:09 -
[708] - Quote
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. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:09:28 -
[709] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote: damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here?
When in doubt use impact instead of affect or effect |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3099
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:13:51 -
[710] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:-Ś 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. |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:23:41 -
[711] - 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. If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3099
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:27:09 -
[712] - 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. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
425
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:27:22 -
[713] - 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.
because if its hot dropped on.. 9 out of 10 times they'll have tackle with the drop..
here's another fiasco ccp is avoiding to discuss.. the miner-fighter drones.. will the rorqual be able to field those while this panic-button is hit? i doubt it cause they honestly believe 5 funky fighters will be enough to defend it.. |
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:28:33 -
[714] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:29:08 -
[715] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote: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. If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do? Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships? Prevent everyone from warping away.
I see what you mean, but if you're not able to warp off in time having local (I assume we're talking about k-space-Ś), than you're already doing something wrong in my eyes. Or are we talking about being (semi-)afk? Because anyone being afk deserves to loose the ship.
-Ś If we're talking about w-space, than it's not much different.... collapse all non-static holes, crit (or not jump your new) static, bubble it and have eyes there (both times, k- and w-space: watch dscan/sigs and stay aligned). |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:35:51 -
[716] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote: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. If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do? Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships? Prevent everyone from warping away. I see what you mean, but if you're not able to warp off in time having local (I assume we're talking about k-space-Ś), than you're already doing something wrong in my eyes. Or are we talking about being (semi-)afk? Because anyone being afk deserves to loose the ship. -Ś If we're talking about w-space, than it's not much different.... collapse all non-static holes, crit (or not jump your new) static, bubble it and have eyes there (both times, k- and w-space: watch dscan/sigs and stay aligned). I lived in w-space for nearly my first 3 years of EvE. I built my first Rorqual in a C2. I bought a replacement Rorqual after self-destructing, when we moved into a C5. I still have that Rorqual (docked in lowsec at the moment). I know all about w-space life. I still habitually spam d-scan, and don't trust local
You seem to be recommending NOT using the "super-weapon", which helps point out what a stupid idea it is. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:39:51 -
[717] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:44:15 -
[718] - Quote
Jack 0'Neal wrote:Why are command ships being nerfed down to providing less boosts and needing to sacrifice half of their rig slots to give the same boosts they currently could without any command processors?
Also it would be nice to shorten the aggression timer to 30 seconds so gangs on the run from blobs could use speed boosts to burn through bubbles without sacrificing their boosting ship.
The current max range is also a bit short for anything smaller than n+1 orbit the anchor gameplay.
no you need to give up the rig slot to give LESS Boosts almost all the ones i looked at have the max values nerfed
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Raido Kudonen
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:44:48 -
[719] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled
Only if you forgot to be 2-3 jumps in. It might be 15 seconds between when ceptors spike a system and shotgun anoms and when they land on you, if it's a small system. But it takes around 30 seconds to warp gate to gate in a typical nullsec system, so if you are watching the entrance to your bearing constellation and you're 2-3 jumps in you have at least 75-90 seconds to work with.
In short, don't be afk and bear while aligned. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:45:07 -
[720] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled even cepters cant make 2 jumps in 15 seconds
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Mafone
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:52:05 -
[721] - Quote
My main comments were at #347
But reading through this I am not sure of the whole mining boosts thing that seems to have overtaken this topic.
The risk/reward balance for Rorq on grid in belts/anoms and fixed in place a la siege may be a bit to much - speaking as someone who enjoys nothing more than ganking miners and would love to find a whole immobile PANIC mining fleet while I ping for more dps. There does have to be some balance and perhaps the balance is off in this.
I have seen a number of suggestions - moving mining anoms back to scanned sites would make a bit of sense to mitigate this - however this should also be done with either the removal of or delay of local chat (in null/low) which is the biggest annoyance for pvp roams in null especially. Yes make the belts harder to find but encouraage active gameplay by making ppl check D-scan for probes rather than relying on an alt a few jumps out seeing ppl in local. Even a 1 minute delay in local would help.
As for the links as I said before yes stop offgrid, but nerfing range, duration, amount and command ships themselves (less links) as well as passive nerfs to fleets usually small without boosters at present (by removing base skill effects) is too much.
AOE boosts with decent duration and range good. They have to also be significant in effect not nerfed as suggested - indeed should if anything be buffed to make them more reflect increased effort.
Specialised command ships/Destroyers need to be reworked in this properly.
Also unless I am very much mistaken we will start to see Sleipnir's online for high skill players and groups which will decrease rather than increase ship diversity in fleets. Ppl who cant afford/fly these may use a T1/Faction BC doctrine where everyone boosts but not sure this is the best way to go. |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:53:40 -
[722] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled
So? You only need 2-4 seconds (including reaction time and server tick) to warp off (hit one button, that's all). Obviously you need to be aligned first..... Higgs anchor and friendly webs are your friends... |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:59:20 -
[723] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:no the ships can keep mining but they can't fight if they are shielded Thanks for the information, didn't know that and I'd have loved to see some nice baits :-) Still I guess the way to go than is to warp off mining ships and activate that weapon afterwards to buy you some time until your reinforcement arrives. |
Hilmar Fudd
Wery Wascally Wabbits
22
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:01:36 -
[724] - Quote
Just skimmed the Blog for now.... and some of the posts.
What took you so long CCP. Found another treasure trove of hard earned SP's and skills to GIVE AWAY to noobs.
Welcome to Command Spew, from the folks who took away the usefulness and rewards for your probing skills, destroyed many gazillions in researched BPO's ad nauseum. Now they have done it to your Command Skills, which I am sure all the Fanboi's loving this don't have.
Command bursts
Why do I even bother. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:03:46 -
[725] - Quote
Hilmar Fudd wrote:Just skimmed the Blog for now.... and some of the posts. What took you so long CCP. Found another treasure trove of hard earned SP's and skills to GIVE AWAY to noobs. Welcome to Command Spew, from the folks who took away the usefulness and rewards for your probing skills, destroyed many gazillions in researched BPO's ad nauseum. Now they have done it to your Command Skills, which I am sure all the Fanboi's loving this don't have. Command bursts Why do I even bother.
nothing wrong with the bursts the problem is the strength rig and overall power nerf even with the rig
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
181
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:04:03 -
[726] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits. If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt? Illogical
You fit for tank, and then have boosts to up your yield to make up for the deficit. That way, you have the best of both worlds (tank and yield). You don't have the highest yield possible, but you have a really nice margin and are still able to tank multiple bombs. That is how you maximize your risk/reward when there are cloaky reds in system. If you have a great alliance with secure space, you can fit less tank and even more yield... you reap the rewards of your hard work (or rather, the hard work of your defense fleets).
protip: Don't try to call out the logic of others when yours is so obviously flawed.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Ivor Bucket
Chinese Gold Farmers Play Hard Pray Harder
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:04:36 -
[727] - Quote
Is there a plan to balance command ships along with this patch?
Most command ships are terrible |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:04:53 -
[728] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled So? You only need 2-4 seconds (including reaction time and server tick) to warp off (hit one button, that's all). Obviously you need to be aligned first..... Higgs anchor and friendly webs are your friends... You do realize the Rorqual cannot move, right? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:07:24 -
[729] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled So? You only need 2-4 seconds (including reaction time and server tick) to warp off (hit one button, that's all). Obviously you need to be aligned first..... Higgs anchor and friendly webs are your friends... You do realize the Rorqual cannot move, right?
i don't think you are supposed to use it if you can't defend it just like every other capital ship
EDIT:
it would be nice if the rorqu could hold standard ships and you could reship even when shielded (losing the shield ofc)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:12:16 -
[730] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled So? You only need 2-4 seconds (including reaction time and server tick) to warp off (hit one button, that's all). Obviously you need to be aligned first..... Higgs anchor and friendly webs are your friends... You do realize the Rorqual cannot move, right?
Yes, I was assuming the Rorqual to not be able to move/align (but seriously thanks for pointing it out because my knowledge about Rorquals and mining ships is not complete and I might be lacking some other info/mechanics). In my above post I was talking about having the mining ships ready to warp out to switch to fighting ships. While the mining ships are off grid, the Rorqual can activate the weapon to buy the time needed for the reinforcment to come back.
But again, I'm just thinking aloud so please correct me if I'm assuming some game mechanics wrongly. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:15:45 -
[731] - Quote
double
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:16:35 -
[732] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:
So? You only need 2-4 seconds (including reaction time and server tick) to warp off (hit one button, that's all). Obviously you need to be aligned first..... Higgs anchor and friendly webs are your friends...
You do realize the Rorqual cannot move, right? Yes, I was assuming the Rorqual to not be able to move/align (but seriously thanks for pointing it out because my knowledge about Rorquals and mining ships is not complete and I might be lacking some other info/mechanics). In my above post I was talking about having the mining ships ready to warp out to switch to fighting ships. While the mining ships are off grid, the Rorqual can activate the weapon to buy the time needed for the reinforcment to come back. But again, I'm just thinking aloud so please correct me if I'm assuming some game mechanics wrongly.
not game mechanics no but you are wrongly assuming that miners will use tools given to them to defend themselves
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Circumstantial Evidence
355
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:16:54 -
[733] - Quote
Ivor Bucket wrote:Is there a plan to balance command ships along with this patch? Most command ships are terrible Yes, the Dev Blog says that a future Dev Blog will cover proposed tweaks to ship balance. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:19:17 -
[734] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:But again, I'm just thinking aloud so please correct me if I'm assuming some game mechanics wrongly. So little info is available -- that's why we really need a blog NOW not in November -- that nobody can assume to know with certainty what the new mechanics are going to be.
I'm doing my best with what I've got. I assume others are doing the same. I do own and have experience with a Rorqual with the current mechanics. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:20:16 -
[735] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Ivor Bucket wrote:Is there a plan to balance command ships along with this patch? Most command ships are terrible Yes, the Dev Blog says that a future Dev Blog will cover proposed tweaks to ship balance.
but will it be enough to make up for losing a rig and losing boost power?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1082
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:31:19 -
[736] - Quote
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote: Since everyone knows that once CCP gets set on a great new idea, it's pretty much set to happen, we hope the duration cycle for these new modules is quite long to off set the trouble.
And yet with a long cycle time, you'd have to wait to rebuff your fleet mates, who would then be out of buffs because they only last about 60 seconds. Trust me when I say that long cycle times will not make the problem you perceive any better.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:42:02 -
[737] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled even cepters cant make 2 jumps in 15 seconds We are talking from the point it is posted in intel, of course |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
4399
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:44:56 -
[738] - Quote
I'm actually kinda curious, but is the Rorq actually such a big deal as to cause more consternation than refactoring all of combat links? Is it really that central to gameplay in Eve, or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?
-Liang
I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
|
Lando Tarsadan
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:45:45 -
[739] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:But again, I'm just thinking aloud so please correct me if I'm assuming some game mechanics wrongly. So little info is available -- that's why we really need a blog NOW not in November -- that nobody can assume to know with certainty what the new mechanics are going to be. I'm doing my best with what I've got. I assume others are doing the same. I do own and have experience with a Rorqual with the current mechanics. from the dev blog
Quote: These changes are currently scheduled for our big November release[/b 9, and we have four dev blogs planned between now and then to go over the new system and many associated changes.
This blog will cover the goals of the new system, the new mechanics and the plan for leadership skills and other modifiers.
Blog two will go into detail on the changes to Mining Foreman gameplay, including the Mining Foreman Bursts, changes to the
Rorqual and Orca, and the new Porpoise-class industrial command ship.
Blog three will focus on the balance tweaks being made to combat-focused boosting ships to release alongside the new system.
Blog four will be released right before the November release, covering all the changes to the plan we made thanks to your feedback and summarizing all the ship and module balance changes in the [b]November release for easy reference.
As I read that all the dev blogs will be out way before november as that's when the changes go out. I'm guessing they will post one every 7-14 days from now on. |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1082
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:47:00 -
[740] - Quote
Daenna Chrysi wrote:Then you could have the booster sit further off the grid, while still giving bonuses where needed.
Do you not understand that this is exactly what they don't want? They don't want the boosters sitting off in a corner somewhere only occasionally doing something interesting. They want them in the middle of the fight, in the thick of it, putting foot to ass for their fleet mates.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
4399
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:47:18 -
[741] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Elyia Suze Nagala wrote: Since everyone knows that once CCP gets set on a great new idea, it's pretty much set to happen, we hope the duration cycle for these new modules is quite long to off set the trouble.
And yet with a long cycle time, you'd have to wait to rebuff your fleet mates, who would then be out of buffs because they only last about 60 seconds. Trust me when I say that long cycle times will not make the problem you perceive any better.
All of the buff duration skills make it look like they're going to last significantly longer than module cycle times. That, at least, is at least interesting and good from a gameplay perspective. Fozzie, can you confirm? Also, a specific "Fleet command at 4" number for how long the buffs last would be pretty good. Not saying its because I have FC at 4, but... :P
-Liang
I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
|
Jathen Codexus
Dragon Souls Memento Draconis
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:48:24 -
[742] - Quote
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?
They are moderately expensive for the t2 models, but the yield boosts weren't removed. They were just rolled in with the cap reduction boost, so the crystal damage reduction link is just gravy. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:50:43 -
[743] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits. If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt? Illogical You fit for tank, and then have boosts to up your yield to make up for the deficit. That way, you have the best of both worlds (tank and yield). You don't have the highest yield possible, but you have a really nice margin and are still able to tank multiple bombs. That is how you maximize your risk/reward when there are cloaky reds in system. If you have a great alliance with secure space, you can fit less tank and even more yield... you reap the rewards of your hard work (or rather, the hard work of your defense fleets). protip: Don't try to call out the logic of others when yours is so obviously flawed. Your logic doesn't and isn't convincing, you don't need to make up a deficit if you don't have one.
Self made problem you are trying to solve. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:53:50 -
[744] - Quote
Jathen Codexus 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? They are moderately expensive for the t2 models, but the yield boosts weren't removed. They were just rolled in with the cap reduction boost, so the crystal damage reduction link is just gravy. Actually, it was the capacitor reduction bonus that was removed. |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
606
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:00:07 -
[745] - Quote
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.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:02:26 -
[746] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm actually kinda curious, but is the Rorq actually such a big deal as to cause more consternation than refactoring all of combat links? Is it really that central to gameplay in Eve, or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?
-Liang I think re-factoring combat boosting has little to do with the Rorqual, and that changes to combat boosting shouldn't suffer because of the Rorqual.
However, combat boosting is a very different application than mining boosting, and shouldn't be painted the same.
As a Rorqual owner, I honestly feel it could be removed, or converted into a specialized ice / ore hauler. The Rorqual's current role might better be served by a system-wide bonus on a Drilling Platform. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
253
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:04:00 -
[747] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Krystyn wrote:I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. You're more brave than most. Just not going to happen for me with: * 5 minute siege timer * Booster module with reactivation delay (no auto-repeat). * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction
I meant across all of EVE being only a very small number of rorquals in belts. There are always a few idiots. Maybe a few super groups will have massive enough forces to guard one. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:12:46 -
[748] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Elyia Suze Nagala wrote: Since everyone knows that once CCP gets set on a great new idea, it's pretty much set to happen, we hope the duration cycle for these new modules is quite long to off set the trouble.
And yet with a long cycle time, you'd have to wait to rebuff your fleet mates, who would then be out of buffs because they only last about 60 seconds. Trust me when I say that long cycle times will not make the problem you perceive any better.
if you have read teh blog from the beginnign to the end you'd know that MINIMAL STARTING point of a command burst buff is 60 seconds which WITH SKILLS and some other shiny stuff gets up to at least 90 seconds
giving you at least 30 seconds for reapplication of a buff
reading is hard stuff isn't it?
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
254
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:17:01 -
[749] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm actually kinda curious, but is the Rorq actually such a big deal as to cause more consternation than refactoring all of combat links? Is it really that central to gameplay in Eve, or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?
-Liang
Mining is the basis for everything in eve. Literally, EVERYTHING. Mining leads to everything else. Jacking up mining will ultimately affect everything else. Mostly by increasing prices and a decrease in supply.
So command boosts big whoppie. People will figure out new ways to work with boosters in fleet and on grid or not, but that won't majorly change the game.
I like the change for no OGBs, but mining needs to be addressed better. CCP says there will be new changes incoming, but the rorqual changes are virtually useless to the current meta and along with the boosts nerf will decimate mining and industry. As the dominoes fall from the massive hit to mining and then industry and then everyone will notice the big increase in prices for everything.
Every time CCP does one of these ill-advised massive meta changes they lose subscriptions to rage quitters or people who cut back to fewer accounts due to the changes making their extra accounts useless. Lots of booster alts will go unsubbed pretty soon. My rorqual pilot is unsubbed and I'm not seeing a reason to bring him back online coming any time soon. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:17:17 -
[750] - Quote
Jathen Codexus 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? They are moderately expensive for the t2 models, but the yield boosts weren't removed. They were just rolled in with the cap reduction boost, so the crystal damage reduction link is just gravy.
thats only cycle time reduction the actuall yield bonus was in mining foreman skill and or implant - and that one seems be gone for what we know now
[it was not that major buff though I think....] |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:21:39 -
[751] - Quote
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 nerf because a strip was removed.
However, that doesn't compensate for removal of the boost.
Feel free to correct me. |
Qutain Malakovic
Nisroc Angels
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:21:46 -
[752] - Quote
Overall for the more combat minded players I can see this as an interesting addition to the game. I am not one of those. I enjoy mining and building. I do this with an alt, not a corp or a large alliance. In low sec I park my rorqual outside of the station and let it boost me while I watch who comes into system so that I can fly my barge back to the station and dock. Your changes will take away what I enjoy doing in this game. Leave mining as it is. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6371
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:27:46 -
[753] - Quote
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:thats only cycle time reduction the actuall yield bonus was in mining foreman skill and or implant - and that one seems be gone for what we know now
[it was not that major buff though I think....] 15% Mining Yield 25% Command Link bonus |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:28:51 -
[754] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Andrea Cemenotar wrote:thats only cycle time reduction the actuall yield bonus was in mining foreman skill and or implant - and that one seems be gone for what we know now
[it was not that major buff though I think....] 15% Mining Yield
for the mindlink implant, yeah :) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3099
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:29:00 -
[755] - 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. |
Kusum Fawn
Perkone Caldari State
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:34:31 -
[756] - Quote
Dont make any other changes then "boosts affect all fleet members on grid." and be done.
Or if you really have to, make it a 1,000 km bubble of boost range. all fleet members not in that bubble do not get boosts.
Thats all you had to do. none of this other crap that you are pushing makes any sense and the rorqual changes are completely awful.
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:38:17 -
[757] - Quote
Kleb Zellock wrote:Players demand off-grid boosting be changed.
...
How to make it better:
-A titan should be able to boost a full grid size. Let it scale down from there based on hull size. -Get rid of the weapon timer. Yes, there will be some abuse cases; but waiting around all the time for you booster to cool down is boring. Continue to loose boosts when you take gates, accel gates, jumps, wormholes and tether/dock. -If you're going to suspect timer logi I see no reason to not suspect timer boosts. -Figure out a way to reimburse those skills. You're triple dipping our wallets and that BS. We paid to train them. We shouldn't have to pay to remove them and the re-inject the same character at a loss. Shame on you.
*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all.
Gates, jumps, WHs, tether/dock are all session changes and will cut the boosts off, but it's not clear that accel gates will... they're not session changes, why would they cut off the boosts?
reimbursing at LEAST Fleet Command (if not also Wing Command and Leadership) would be nice to do, but... personally I want to eventually have all 3 of my toons in command ships (currently only 1 has perfect boosts), so I'll personally live either way. But anyone who never plans to train into and/or fly cmd DDs or cmd BCs or boosting capitals/indies will probably be wanting their SP back from leadership/WC/FC, for sure. |
Pod Bot90
Overnix Logistics
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:43:48 -
[758] - Quote
CCP, when will the ORCA get something new?
Rorquals got all these shiny things... have you forgotten the orca? the stablemaster of new eden's work horses?
CCPlease, we need micro industrial core for orca ! |
Vyle Feelings
Southern Cross Incorporated Shadow Cartel
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:46:46 -
[759] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
I get that they're similar, but there are plenty of people who trained leadership skills just to *pass* boosts along but never intended to actually use active booster modules. For example, our corporation required Leadership V to be trained for anyone who wanted to rank up internally. We did that because otherwise fleet boosts couldn't be passed to squads, and nobody wanted to train leadership skills when they could be training more useful combat skills.
Similarly, I would have never trained FC 5 if I found out that the ultimate impact was going to be a few km on an active boost AOE module. At the time I trained it it was required to pass boosts to the entire fleet and was a necessity if I wanted to host a fleet with the maximum number of wings.
With the old boosts I would argue that some of these skills were a necessity, whereas now they will be a nicety. For argument's sake you can say that it's the same, that the larger AOE will still allow me to pass boosts to my entire fleet, however, in the new booster mechanic gameplay can compensate for a lack of skills (anchoring, better piloting, etc). In the old system there was no way to pass fleet boosts to all wings unless you had the proper skill trained.
I guess I don't understand why you *wouldn't* refund the SP? Seems like you could garner a lot of good will from some of the players bitter about the changes, and not really negatively impact those who think they want the skills. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
182
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:05:03 -
[760] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:-Ś 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.
Affect = cAuse Effect = sEE
for example - to sEE the Effects of the command bursts (love bombs), you can look at your timers/buffs - the rEsults a command ship Affects the changes, as in, it cAuses them
That's how I remember it anyway.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Top Belt for Fun
4402
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:08:48 -
[761] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I'm actually kinda curious, but is the Rorq actually such a big deal as to cause more consternation than refactoring all of combat links? Is it really that central to gameplay in Eve, or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?
-Liang Mining is the basis for everything in eve. Literally, EVERYTHING. Mining leads to everything else. Jacking up mining will ultimately affect everything else. Mostly by increasing prices and a decrease in supply. So command boosts big whoppie. People will figure out new ways to work with boosters in fleet and on grid or not, but that won't majorly change the game. I like the change for no OGBs, but mining needs to be addressed better. CCP says there will be new changes incoming, but the rorqual changes are virtually useless to the current meta and along with the boosts nerf will decimate mining and industry. As the dominoes fall from the massive hit to mining and then industry and then everyone will notice the big increase in prices for everything. Every time CCP does one of these ill-advised massive meta changes they lose subscriptions to rage quitters or people who cut back to fewer accounts due to the changes making their extra accounts useless. Lots of booster alts will go unsubbed pretty soon. My rorqual pilot is unsubbed and I'm not seeing a reason to bring him back online coming any time soon.
Sure, I get that. I guess I'm asking if the Rorq is currently central to mining. It wasn't last time I heard anything about it, and the fact your Rorq pilot is unsubbed is telling. Which is to say: it sounds like the rorq changes are effectively a no-op because nobody uses them anyway. The combat link changes, however, are not no-ops, and the discussion of a ship that nobody seems to actually use is overshadowing the discussion of ships that many people use.
-Liang
I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6374
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:10:47 -
[762] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Rowells wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:-Ś 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. Affect = cAuse Effect = sEE for example - to sEE the Effects of the command bursts (love bombs), you can look at your timers/buffs - the rEsults a command ship Affects the changes, as in, it cAuses them That's how I remember it anyway. Effect is the noun (subject or recipient of the action) Affect is the verb (action).
I remember: "The effect" and "To affect".
"Look, lady, I only speak two languages: English and bad English!" - Korben Dallas |
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:12:34 -
[763] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Why would you boost with tank when you will get just as much without a tank and without the boosts? At this point, why bother with a booster anyway You didn't quite catch the nature of the irony here. If you are running a boosted mining ops in nullsec or lowsec, then because you have POS nearby or - in rarer cases - bounce through a circle of safespots permanently, which isn't exactly "afk". If you aren't afk, you're active. If you're active, might as well play it right. The only reason to not tank is because you already own the territory and have the bottlenecks secured. At this pint, it's irrelevant if your booster sits in the belt or in the POS. If you mine in unsecured territory, the reason to field the tank is so that you can live longer and not get volleyed off the field. The example was brought with bombs and is valid. At least in nullsec. If you do your ops in lowsec you're safe from bombing runs but doesn't mean you can't get other nasty crap thrown at you. If you do not have guards to protect your ships, and know it's a hostile area, then you do risky mining. If you fly Mining Barges or Exhumers at this point, then that's your thing. Can't play eve wrong. Yet would point you to the Prospect and Endurance. Unless a smartbombing battleship uncloaks directly beside you, chances of survival are much higher in these. They're built for quite these ops. I could continue spinning the story, but if you already risk fielding a mining ops in hostile territory, you might as well drag the booster on the field too. Wait for the ship announced in the second blog and see how it would add up in your scenario.
Deep Space Cowboy wrote:As a miner I am extremely disapointed with your decision to force miners to siege their rorquals in a belt just to maintain the same yield we currently enjoy. Why is everyone so in love with their numbers? Sheesh, why can't you put it into perspective? You either mine with boost, or you don't. If that means less people boost the average yield is going to decrease which means market prices for ore will increase over time if the number of boosters decrease. You get more ISK as mineral and ore prices go up in time. You can sell your manufactured items at higher prices over time as base prices go up. People ragequitting over afk boost changes means less miners too, so prices go up gradually. And still you complain about your numbers, instead of waiting for the second devblog and ponder an actual way to be more inclusive of the proposed changes. Way to go.
Tau Cabalander wrote:Please tell me you didn't just write that: activate module manually? Seriously? OMFG. That would be grounds for me to self-destruct my Rorqual for basic insurance, or reprocess it. For some reason X Mayce doesn't seem to think about the possibility of auto-repeat the module. Oh dear, having to check once per hour for reload is likely too much to ask for when people let their computer run while they're off working! Serves them right.
Lawrence Lawton wrote:Calm down, ratter, and check your sense of entitlement. Incursions already have the most favourable risk:reward ratio of all activities in highsec. You get to grind out 100+ million ISK/hr in the safety of deadspace using exorbitantly blinged out faction ships and almost never get ganked. You already tip the offgrid (AFK) booster. Now he'll get onsite payout and work for the money. That's funny, I remember about a graph where CCP debunked the so called Incursion income madness which always seems to be be thrown as a tantrum when any price spike occurs. In the general sense of ISK rewards for the player (which includes LP rewards), I remember Incursions being fairly down on the bottom. And what's that with biggest income of all highsec activities? Doubtful.
Sylvia Kildare wrote:*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all. Sure about it? Offgrid boosting was never seen as issue by many because it catered to exactly their paradigm of throwing money / ISK at a game to gain more benefits. Does that make it a better game? I doubt so. Yet I'm not buying the minority bit who demanded ongrid boosting, considering this idea has been toyed with for years now. To be real, it doesn't make any difference if it was a minority or majority. Objectively speaking, offgrid boosting was bad for the game, but good for the bonus crowd. Sometimes you need to **** off people and do something that's better for the game as a whole. This is CCP as it lives and thrives. The ideas usually are in a good direction, the course of implementation is what often makes these ideas seem like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo. |
Gulmuk
Control-Space DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:14:25 -
[764] - Quote
Well I have to say, I am an industrialist. Why are you screwing with boosts for the miners when the VERY small portion of the population wants COMBAT boosters to be on grid... Makes no sense to me.
I HAVE NEVER IN 7 YEARS OF EVE HEARD ANYONE SAY MINERS SHOULD HAVE TO BOOST FROM ON GRID. NEVER...
With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with several of the commenters about Rorquals being mothballed. The owners won't even bother to sell them because NOBODY will want them. They will be POINTLESS once these changes are made. I don't currently own a rorq, but I have owned 2 in the past. With the invent of citadels, and now the booster changes. I can very much see someone boosting from on grid with a BC or something similiar. Sure the boosts won't be as big, but you're NOT going to see a rorqual in a belt or anomaly. Unless someone gets really brave or REALLY stupid.
I can also agree you are going to see subs drop because of these proposed changes. Like one person already said. Once you kill the off-grid booster, the people with the mulitple accounts are going to stop using them. OR they might continue to use them, but now the amount of minerals they produce just went down substantially. So the prices of stuff all across EVE is going to sky rocket. It's bad enough that things in eve are already expensive enough. Perfect example is the T2 capital armor rep. 300M just build one of them. That's insane! SO they have to sell for about 350 just to make a decent profit, and then heaven forbid you want to make a faction armor rep. You get almost zero profit from manufacturing those.
Seems to me the devs are very keen on killing industry in eve. They have it out for the miners and they are the foundation EVE is built on. With the boost changes and Exhumer changes coming up. We're screwed good... |
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:20:55 -
[765] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Thogn wrote: d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."
Seen a few people say this, and it doesn't make sense. Primarying the booster ship will not remove the boosts he's sure to drop before you get him, so it's not the obviously correct tactical decision you are suggesting. You're just removing a ship who has likely already done the bulk of the "damage" he was likely to do. Probably better popping a logi or ECM boat or something.
Not true. You pop the booster and then 60 seconds later, max, all the boosts he gave are gone. Some fights can take longer than that, disengage/warp off to get better positioning or simply run away.
Killing the booster then the logi will work out. The easiest way would be to alpha the booster/s so logi can't do squat then go back to the normal grind of logi or if you just want the fight over, head shot the FC |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:22:10 -
[766] - Quote
Gulmuk wrote:(...) I HAVE NEVER IN 7 YEARS OF EVE HEARD ANYONE SAY MINERS SHOULD HAVE TO BOOST FROM ON GRID. NEVER... (...)
Really? I'd be surprised if no one already pointed out that risk less mining boosts (sitting inside pos field) are bad and against Risk/Reward principle of eve online... oh wait.... there is google and you can quickly find: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6260285#post6260285 for example. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:23:04 -
[767] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Moraguth wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Drago Misharie wrote: Stealth Bomber stuff .
Fit for tank vs fit for yield = safe from lone bomber If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt? Illogical You fit for tank, and then have boosts to up your yield to make up for the deficit. That way, you have the best of both worlds (tank and yield). You don't have the highest yield possible, but you have a really nice margin and are still able to tank multiple bombs. That is how you maximize your risk/reward when there are cloaky reds in system. If you have a great alliance with secure space, you can fit less tank and even more yield... you reap the rewards of your hard work (or rather, the hard work of your defense fleets). protip: Don't try to call out the logic of others when yours is so obviously flawed. Your logic doesn't and isn't convincing, you don't need to make up a deficit if you don't have one. Self made problem you are trying to solve.
I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6374
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:23:35 -
[768] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Please tell me you didn't just write that: activate module manually? Seriously? OMFG. That would be grounds for me to self-destruct my Rorqual for basic insurance, or reprocess it. For some reason X Mayce doesn't seem to think about the possibility of auto-repeat the module. Oh dear, having to check once per hour for reload is likely too much to ask for when people let their computer run while they're off working! Serves them right. Please put my post back in context.
If Rorqual pilots are being required to operate in a mining op (tractor cans, compress, pass crystals, take care of NPC spawns, etc), plus keep situationally aware in a hostile environment, via d-scan, intel channels, etc., then having to also press a button repeatedly is extremely annoying inconvenience that just adds to the workload (is it time yet? is it time yet? is it time yet?)
If auto-repeat exists, I have no complaints. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
12
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:30:35 -
[769] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:Lawrence Lawton wrote:Calm down, ratter, and check your sense of entitlement. Incursions already have the most favourable risk:reward ratio of all activities in highsec. You get to grind out 100+ million ISK/hr in the safety of deadspace using exorbitantly blinged out faction ships and almost never get ganked. You already tip the offgrid (AFK) booster. Now he'll get onsite payout and work for the money. That's funny, I remember about a graph where CCP debunked the so called Incursion income madness which always seems to be be thrown as a tantrum when any price spike occurs. In the general sense of ISK rewards for the player (which includes LP rewards), I remember Incursions being fairly down on the bottom. And what's that with biggest income of all highsec activities? Doubtful.
I'd love to see that chart, considerign that there are actually high sec incursion based communities overlyspecialising into setting new records of isk/per hour earned
although if said graph was something like overall income from incursion running players per month [and averaged out] I can totally see it "averaging" quite low - these record breakers does not run them all the time, because you know at some point you have more than enought iskes for any of yoru needs and then willingfullness to ru nthese things drops..... and also these guys are actually quite minor part of all incursion running players with probably quite a few ppl who goes really low with incursion incomes.
and then truth be said - as far as I know incursioners they [mostly] won;t whine - they'll adapt and keep going |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:30:48 -
[770] - Quote
Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.
Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.
Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2056
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:37:43 -
[771] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. For instance, I have fleet command V on this character so that I can be a fleet commander, not a fleet booster. I have an alt for that.
I will have no use for the puny range bonuses, and being able to pass on boosts from other characters is NOT the same as being able to increase the range of the boosts you are giving out.
There is a profound misunderstanding of the way links currently work, CCP Fozzie. You seem to think that all the skills in the leadership category fill only one role, but in fact they filled two.
One of these two roles (Fleet command) is very explicitly removed from the game, this should be a no brainer that CCP will reimburse those skills.
As for the second role (Fleet boost), while CCP is trying to spin it like it's basically the same thing than off grid links, this couldn't be much further away from the truth. The role is wildly different, the usability is wildly different, the mecanics are nearly the complete opposite (close range vs system wide, need to be unprobable vs need to be tanky, temporary vs permanent, trickle down boosts vs free-for-all, etc...). So, while the first role is a no brainer in term of skill refund, the second is not, but refusing to refund it seems like an act of bad faith.
And how can you say that it "impacts the same type of gameplay"? I thought the whole point was that current links gameplay was terrible. It's NOT the "same type of gameplay" anymore, that's why it's called a revamp.
I hope you reconsider the decision of not refunding the SP.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:44:31 -
[772] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Jalen Mynar wrote:yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links? Triple battleship NPC spawns with their escorts.
I had that exact config drop on me when I was solo mining in my skiff and the only danger was whether they shot at my drones or not. Its slightly annoying to replace them, but that it. Heck I once kept two bs rats as pets for about an hour before someone stopped by randomly and blew them up. May JoBob and Francis my beloved Blood Pirates rest in pieces.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:45:35 -
[773] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.
Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.
Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me.
I disagree with your opinion. Some of us (speaking definitely for myself, probably for others too) aren't great at direct pvp. I do a pretty good job at support roles though. Running links, logi, scouting... that type of stuff is more fun for me and I'm way better at that than brawling. In fact, I'd like to see more support roles.
And as for only having passive bonuses... CCP and I agree that those mechanics are bad. Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6377
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:47:40 -
[774] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. For instance, I have fleet command V on this character so that I can be a fleet commander, not a fleet booster. I have an alt for that. I will have no use for the puny range bonuses, and being able to pass on boosts from other characters is NOT the same as being able to increase the range of the boosts you are giving out. There is a profound misunderstanding of the way links currently work, CCP Fozzie. You seem to think that all the skills in the leadership category fill only one role, but in fact they filled two.One of these two roles (Fleet command) is very explicitly removed from the game, this should be a no brainer that CCP will reimburse those skills. As for the second role (Fleet boost), while CCP is trying to spin it like it's basically the same thing than off grid links, this couldn't be much further away from the truth. The role is wildly different, the usability is wildly different, the mecanics are nearly the complete opposite (close range vs system wide, need to be unprobable vs need to be tanky, temporary vs permanent, trickle down boosts vs free-for-all, etc...). So, while the first role is a no brainer in term of skill refund, the second is not, but refusing to refund it seems like an act of bad faith. I hope you reconsider. Playing devils advocate, because I'm still upset another skill wasn't refunded:
Unfortunately there is a precedent: Advanced Industry, which has no resemblance to the Material Efficiency skill that the skill points were moved from.
I'm sure there have been a few others that I've missed because I wasn't as salty about them.
To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy. |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:49:55 -
[775] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:(...) * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Or would that be too much work and you just want to have a risk free reward (like possed mining boosts)?
Depending on the skills they have your beloved corp mates my simply add to the kill mails by reshipping and coming to help. Only thing they accomplished is to further delay the inevitable destruction of said Rorqual by being a distraction.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
425
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:51:29 -
[776] - Quote
so just whats the tally so far on folks canceling, unsubbing, unskilling their alts so far by November?
whats the going price on a rorqual since its nothing but a juicy fat target?
hows the price on those warfare link modules currently in game.. will we get any kind of reimbursement for them? or will they just convert to what ever they're becoming...
and the processor mod.. so thats now becoming a rig.. does this mean we get a free T2 rig? or will that rig just be a T1?
how much are skill extractors?? can we get some free ones once these changes go live since ccp refuses to reimburse SP?
im sure this is going to make the news around all mmo websites.. and for the most part i'll be there explaining why its very important for a paying player to avoid eve at all cost just cause they work so hard on making the game worse year by year.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2056
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:53:59 -
[777] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Playing devils advocate, because I'm still upset another skill wasn't refunded: Unfortunately there is a precedent: Advanced Industry, which has no resemblance to the Material Efficiency skill that the skill points were moved from. I'm sure there have been a few others that I've missed because I wasn't as salty about them. To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy.
It's almost as if CCP doesn't want to be able to measure how many people will not put their SP back into the leadership category. The right move is very simple, when you change a skill enough that you have to change its name and description, then refund the SP. Even for the entierty of leadership skills, it will not be that big of a deal: It's one of the smallest skill categories in the game, and it's not something that most characters have trained a lot.
And even if the amount of refunded SPs were really truly massive, it'd still be a drop of water next to the average SP of people who can afford to invest into leadership skills.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
The Receptionist
Astra Zeneca.
22
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:00:12 -
[778] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Playing devils advocate, because I'm still upset another skill wasn't refunded: Unfortunately there is a precedent: Advanced Industry, which has no resemblance to the Material Efficiency skill that the skill points were moved from. I'm sure there have been a few others that I've missed because I wasn't as salty about them. To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy. It's almost as if CCP doesn't want to be able to measure how many people will not put their SP back into the leadership category. The right move is very simple, when you change a skill enough that you have to change its name and description, then refund the SP. Even for the entierty of leadership skills, it will not be that big of a deal: It's one of the smallest skill categories in the game, and it's not something that most characters have trained a lot. And even if the amount of refunded SPs were really truly massive, it'd still be a drop of water next to the average SP of people who can afford to invest into leadership skills.
^^ Indeed. I took all leadership skills out of my training queue as soon as I saw these proposed changes. I suspect CCP more likely is hoping by ******* up a skill, they will force people who trained the super-long leaderhsip skills will have to pay them more money to get their injectors back via skill extraction.
Also, these changes make the rorqual useless. This is the fozzie-sov of off-grid combat link rebalances. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:05:20 -
[779] - Quote
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Just because people are talking about something doesn't mean they don't want it. I have wanted on-grid boosting forever, and CCP has been promising it forever. I think people just want it to be done correctly. Command ships hanging in empty space is not fun content during a battle. You are supporting the fleet, but have no hope of ever getting a killmail. It's boring, crappy content facilitated by the boosting mechanics.
I'm like 80%-90% a PVE player as I only occasionally PVP in NPSI fleets such as Spectre and RvB Ganked and the like when I feel the itch or get advance notice about one of my fave fleet comps coming up (HACs and navy/pirate faction battleships mostly), but I've been in numerous fleets where either the FC + maybe one or two backup pilots were in ships such as the Vulture (for the bulk of the DPS ships being sniper Eagle/Railgus especially), the Damnation, or the Absolution... and on grid, I mean. I've also missed out on a couple of ALL Command Ship fleets due to at the time not having a booster alt and not having trained my two mains into command ships yet (still haven't).
One was all Absos and the other was all Sleipnirs... or was it Vultures?... either way. Either way, I guarantee you plenty of command ship pilots got on tons of killmails those days. I was also in a Nightmare fleet last Halloween (yay for theme fleets!) where we got wrecked by PL Sleipnirs, so... yeah. ;)
On-grid command ships have already been used, they just aren't used all the time.
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS.
Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).
Mafone wrote:Also unless I am very much mistaken we will start to see Sleipnir's online for high skill players and groups which will decrease rather than increase ship diversity in fleets. Ppl who cant afford/fly these may use a T1/Faction BC doctrine where everyone boosts but not sure this is the best way to go.
Ever since I was a 1 month old Gallente droneboat pilot in a Vexor and then a Myrmidon my dream ships were Ishtars and Eoses... Ishtar I trained into 2 years ago but Eos I've only been able to fly because I got a booster alt. I dream of triple Eos in the somewhat-near future, but... triple (or maybe just double... no drone assist to help with 3 like with Eoses) Sleipnir would be pretty hot, too. EPIC ALL SLEIPNIR ACTION!
Diversity is always going to be there, if not as wide-ranging as some would like. Before sleips everywhere it was all Machs everywhere or all Tengus or all Proteus/Legion blobs or all Ishtars or all Drakes or all original-pre-nerf/"balance"-Hurricanes everywhere. And on and on it goes. |
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:06:39 -
[780] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.
Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP. |
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2931
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:08:31 -
[781] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:Zappity wrote:I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging. I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Zifrian
Distortion. Amplified.
1756
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:10:18 -
[782] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Krystyn wrote:Zappity wrote:I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging. I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change. I suggested this earlier as well.
Can't think of what it would be like to mine in a wormhole.
GÇŁAny fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.GÇĽ - Dale Carnegie
Industry guy, third-party developer, jack-of-all-trades - master of none
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:14:16 -
[783] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:All of the buff duration skills make it look like they're going to last significantly longer than module cycle times. That, at least, is at least interesting and good from a gameplay perspective. Fozzie, can you confirm? Also, a specific "Fleet command at 4" number for how long the buffs last would be pretty good. Not saying its because I have FC at 4, but... :P
The only way making the cycle times longer than they're talking about making them now is if they make the pre-or-post-ship-hull-bonused boost effect duration longer as well, yeah. Otherwise, big gaps in coverage.
I believe duration boosting is handled elsewhere, from what I remember in the blog, Leadership/WC/FC only affect the range, so FC 4 would put you at NEAR-max range (so like 56km instead of 58km with otherwise-maxed Command Ship)?
My booster alt is FC 3, so I'm right there just behind ya. :)
Tau Cabalander wrote:I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.
There won't be 3 strip miner ships any longer since they're upping the proc/skiff from 1 to 2, keeping the ret/mack at 2, and reducing the cov/hulk from 3 to 2, so... both strips should be okay, no more triple cap hit from covetor/hulk strip activation.
Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:-Ś damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here? Effect is the noun (subject or recipient of the action) Affect is the verb (action). I remember: "The effect" and "To affect".
Yep. For example...
"The November 2016 EVE update is going to affect anyone who uses a fleet booster ship at all, be it combat or mining."
vs.
"I am/am not looking forward to the effects of the November 2016 EVE update on my fleet booster ship(s)." |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6377
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:14:39 -
[784] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS. Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting). For what it is worth:
Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!
CCP Larrikin on behalf of Team Five-0 wrote:No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity
Yes, titans can be tackled by enough Rifters, or jammed by enough Falcons. We've got some interesting mechanics for this and I'll go through them one by one -
Warping: Supercarriers and Titans will have an innate warp strength of around 20 to 50. We haven't locked these numbers in and we'd love to hear from you on what you think is appropriate. Heavy Interdictors with a focus point will work as they do now, as will bubbles. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5888
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:18:16 -
[785] - Quote
I love seeing all of the tears from people that KNEW for years that they were abusing a broken system whose days were numbered and are now threatening to unsubscribe over the most needed balance change since the nerf to (original) AoE doomsdays.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:20:37 -
[786] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Moraguth wrote:[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity. Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.
They don't eff the usefulness of your boost alts, they force you to actually put them in harm's way. Heaven forbid you actually have to be actively playing to have any impact on other players.
Man... I wish I could have a FAX sitting safe at a friendly POS repping people's shields far away in the system without actually putting it at risk Man... I wish I could have my Dread sitting safe at a friendly POS while still pounding away at a hostile POS in system somewhere without putting it at risk Man... I wish I could have my Rorq sitting safe at a friendly POS vastly increasing the mining yield of every miner in the system without putting it at risk
These are all capital ships which have a big impact on a fleet's performance. Nobody is forcing you to use them, but they are amazing force multipliers. Whether they are killing enemies, repping friendlies, or increasing isk earned, they shouldn't be able to do so from afar where nobody has a chance of stopping them.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:24:52 -
[787] - Quote
Moraguth wrote: So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.
What are you even talking about. I said I would quit if these changes came into effect and they didn't give me my rorqual SP back so I could fly something that wasn't ****. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:26:22 -
[788] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:Sylvia Kildare wrote:*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all. Sure about it? Offgrid boosting was never seen as issue by many because it catered to exactly their paradigm of throwing money / ISK at a game to gain more benefits. Does that make it a better game? I doubt so. Yet I'm not buying the minority bit who demanded ongrid boosting, considering this idea has been toyed with for years now. To be real, it doesn't make any difference if it was a minority or majority. Objectively speaking, offgrid boosting was bad for the game, but good for the bonus crowd. Sometimes you need to **** off people and do something that's better for the game as a whole. This is CCP as it lives and thrives. The ideas usually are in a good direction, the course of implementation is what often makes these ideas seem like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo.
Most people using off-grid links in big nullsec fleet engagements where both sides have them didn't have issues with the current system, most people using off-grid links to boost mining, missioning, or incursioning in highsec didn't have issues with the current system.
The main issues people were having with off-grid links seems to have been in the arena of lowsec PVP. Lowsec CSM candidates in the past few years often speak about feeling left out with CCP paying attention to WH/null/highsec concerns, but this change seems catered to lowsec specifically.
Whether or not it was a majority or minority of the entire playerbase (not just lowsec) wanting these changes may not make a difference in the greater scheme of things and in the end as to whether CCP changes things or not, but since Fozzie did say their 4th dev blog would take into account feedback to this first dev blog and then the 2nd and 3rd ones about mining/combat changes specifically... seems to me that while it's not simple CCP putting out a poll saying "yes/no/maybe later in a different way" to these changes where it can just be like an election, they still do care about players' opinions.
But hell, it's their game, we just pay for it and play in it. If 0% of people wanted a change, they could still make it. :::shrugs:::
Just wanted to respond to a lot of people in this forum thread implying (if not flat out saying) that everyone wanted this, as that's just not true, nothing to do with for CCP's benefit.
GeeBee wrote:Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.
Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.
Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me.
If they did that, they'd better buff the hell out of command ships tank/DPS/application-wise, then... some sort of unholy HAC/Marauder hybrid. I mean... there's 2 or more tech 2 variants of frigs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships... but just ONE kind of tech 2 battlecruiser, so... if boosts went away, give us better tech 2 battlecruiser action, CCPls! :D |
lord xavier
Hax. The-Culture
124
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:26:43 -
[789] - Quote
Quote:Amarr Effect Generator: +Capacitor, -Speed, -EM Resistances, +Kinetic Resistances Minmatar Effect Generator: -Signature Radius, -Turret Optimal Range, -Explosive Resistances, +Thermal Resistances
This has to be the best part of the entire blog. The minmatar effect is so terrible people will be self-destructing ragnaroks in protest. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5888
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:31:52 -
[790] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Moraguth wrote:[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity. Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
The Rorqual costs about as much as the Moros.
Both are pathetic ships unless anchored in space for five minutes.
Both are extremely powerful ships if used well.
The difference is that fielding a Moros provides intel to other players that want an expensive killmail that their structure is being shot by an expensive ship. Fielding a Rorqual doesn't feed anyone any intel unless you are an idiot about it.
The Rorqual will remain an excellent ship at its niches - providing incredible support to mining operations deep in your space that you are willing to actively defend, and providing high-risk high-impact support to mining operations you are willing to try to hide from your enemies.
And it will remain useless for some niches too. The Moros is a terrible ship for running level 5 missions (which doesn't make it a bad ship). The Rorqual is a terrible ship for providing support to mining operations on the border of your space.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
|
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:31:57 -
[791] - Quote
In case CCP is wondering, the change I've heard people asking for since I joined is this:
1) Remove off-grid combat boosts. Keep links exactly as they are, but require the boosting ship to be on-grid so that it can't be abused for lowsec FW fights.
2) Leave mining boosts alone, they're fine off grid.
Not this weird complete kneejerk reaction to re-work the whole system into something completely different. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:33:51 -
[792] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Moraguth wrote: So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.
What are you even talking about. I said I would quit if these changes came into effect and they didn't give me my rorqual SP back so I could fly something that wasn't ****. To clarify, since you can't read apparently, I wouldn't fly the ship. I would want all that SP back, because it would be useless + wasted SP under this new system. I'm not saying they shouldn't go ahead with these proposed changes, I'm just saying I would want my SP back because it no longer does what I spent months training for it to do.
To be clear, you said
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
"... and if I were a rorqual pilot, I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP"
But what you said in response was much more clear, although very different.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:43:31 -
[793] - Quote
These rorqual changes remind me of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the day when they changed titans to force them on grid to do their doomsday. Before, you could target your doomsday through a cyno (without ever jumping through it) to do a large AOE destroying an entire sub-cap fleet. Then they forced it on grid, so people could actually fight back, react, and have a meaningful engagement. All of these were good changes.
It's time for mining boosts to go through the same growing pains. Your titans of industry will still work, you just have to actually commit them to the field in order to get the commiserate reward.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5889
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:45:32 -
[794] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:In case CCP is wondering, the change I've heard people asking for since I joined is this:
1) Remove off-grid combat boosts. Keep links exactly as they are, but require the boosting ship to be on-grid so that it can't be abused for lowsec FW fights.
2) Leave mining boosts alone, they're fine off grid.
Not this weird complete kneejerk reaction to re-work the whole system into something completely different.
If you want the power boost provided by a Rorqual, you need to undock and use a Rorqual.
If you can't afford to risk a Rorqual, or you are unwilling to risk one, why should you get the benefits of one?
People risk more expensive ships then the Rorqual every minute. Whether it's a ratting Nyx, a transport Erebus or a driveby doomsday Avatar, people are willing to put their expensive ships at risk to reap the rewards.
If the Rorqual isn't at risk it should have no effect in space, just like a docked up Moros.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Denavit
We are not bad. Just unlucky DARKNESS.
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:45:49 -
[795] - Quote
So much tears and peanut brained people. stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus... |
Jon Krab
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:52:24 -
[796] - Quote
Good changes. Off-grid boosts tend to be used by low-skill pilots who have forgotten the challenge and exhilaration of winning fights without the advantage of what is essentially an imperceivable extra pilot on your side.
Also to the people complaining about kiting ships being nerfed with these changes, I have no trouble winning fights in disruption fit ships without using boosts, maybe you guys should get good at the game! |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1889
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:57:04 -
[797] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).
Only supercapitals. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1889
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:58:54 -
[798] - Quote
Denavit wrote:So much tears and peanut brained people. stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus...
That's exactly what they're doing: trying to find a new and better way to revamp boosts. When the devs ask for feedback, giving honest feedback is constructive. Telling people not to give that feedback is expressly working against trying to help the devs get the best exchange of ideas possible. |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:59:34 -
[799] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:These rorqual changes remind me of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the day when they changed titans to force them on grid to do their doomsday. Before, you could target your doomsday through a cyno (without ever jumping through it) to do a large AOE destroying an entire sub-cap fleet. Then they forced it on grid, so people could actually fight back, react, and have a meaningful engagement. All of these were good changes.
It's time for mining boosts to go through the same growing pains. Your titans of industry will still work, you just have to actually commit them to the field in order to get the commiserate reward.
I see what you're getting at but you chose a poor source for your analogy. A rorque is stupifyingly easier to kill than a titan. So while yes for in grid boosting, some serious looks into how the mechanics are actually going to work are needed. And since they have already changed some things since the initial announcement, [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6614670#post6614670[/url] I have some hope for thhe final product in November.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:03:16 -
[800] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:The only reason to not tank is because you already own the territory and have the bottlenecks secured. At this pint, it's irrelevant if your booster sits in the belt or in the POS.
Blah Blah Blah.....worm holes
|
|
Wednesday Askira
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:07:55 -
[801] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far everyone!
A few Q&As based on some stuff I'm seeing come up in the thread:
Q: Will a pilot be affected by his/her own boosts? A: Yes, even if they are not in a fleet
Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch? A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.
Q: If a ship loses armor links, will they explode? A: Nope. If it worked like that jumping out of a Wolf-Rayet would be a deathtrap. If you have less than 20% armor remaining and lose a max-bonused Armor Reinforcement burst effect your armor will be set to 0 but your hull won't be damaged in any way. In some cases there may actually be a deficit of armor that must be repaired through before repairers can start bringing you above 0% again, to prevent exploits. This works exactly the same way as the current mechanics if you offline a layered plating module, or leave a fleet with an armored warfare mindlink effect, or jump out of a wolf-rayet wormhole system.
Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid? A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
Q: Why do the higher level range skills give smaller bonuses per level than the lower level skills? A: This is something we do almost everywhere in EVE. Diminishing returns help ensure that players with lower levels of skillpoints can compete against veterans.
We've also made some initial adjustments to the numbers thanks to some of your feedback so far. We're going to tone down the scan res bonus from info bursts since very high levels of scan res can sometimes become degenerate (instalock camps), and buffing some other aspects of the info boosts to compensate. We're also going to buff the mining links significantly since this transition is going to be especially dramatic for some miners used to the old system. All of these changes have been edited into the dev blog so you can take a look there to see how they fit into the big picture.
Information Command: Sensor Optimization: 18% (+2%) targeting range, 9% (-7%) scan resolution Information Command: Electronic Hardening: 18% (+2%) sensor strength, 9% (+1%) RSD/WD Resistances
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
The problem with mining boosts isn't the numbers. The problem is the fact you guys are still requiring industrial core. Forcing it to be a sitting duck. This new invul shield thing isn't going to save anyone.
Will we not be able to end the cycle early/warp out while it's active? Will mining boosts effect mining drones? Will it effect the rorqual pilots own drones? |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:09:27 -
[802] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all. "making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot.
The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
184
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:14:10 -
[803] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Moraguth wrote:I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all. "making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot. The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it.
Ah, I never use the T1 barges, so fair enough on that point. Even with the remote repping abilities of the orca or rorqual it wouldn't help if you get blown up with one shot. To be fair though, the lack of tank on those ships means you probably shouldn't be using them in such dangerous areas anyway. Or they should be as paranoid as WH people and ready to warp if a mouse farts in the next room.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:17:17 -
[804] - Quote
Wednesday Askira wrote:The problem with mining boosts isn't the numbers. The problem is the fact you guys are still requiring industrial core. Forcing it to be a sitting duck. This new invul shield thing isn't going to save anyone. Will we not be able to end the cycle early/warp out while it's active? Will mining boosts effect mining drones? Will it effect the rorqual pilots own drones?
That's not a bad train of thought. Have the panic button last its thirty seconds and burn out as it does now. However, if the roqual is sieged the panic button force cancels the siege and burns out the industrial core. Yes it would be expensive to replace the the indy core but a couple hundred million vs 2.5 billion I know which one I'd take. Especially if you can make your own indy cores. You could recoup the loss fairly quickly under non siege boosts if you didn't already have a back up stashed some where. This also aligns with the unsiege transition time fairly closely.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Flappy Beefcurtains
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:18:42 -
[805] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? [/b][/u]
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.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Requiring an active pilot, positioning themselves properly due to range constraints, dealing with enemy targeting & damage, dealing with ammo etc, VS an offgrid, afk-able setup.
Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use. |
Titus Cole Dooley
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:20:08 -
[806] - Quote
The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options. |
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
363
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:22:08 -
[807] - Quote
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? [/b][/u]
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.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Requiring an active pilot, positioning themselves properly due to range constraints, dealing with enemy targeting & damage, dealing with ammo etc, VS an offgrid, afk-able setup. Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use.
Agree. I have multiple toons trained up to use all links, now pretty much redundant. SP refund to those that request it please. |
Akoha Uisen
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:23:25 -
[808] - Quote
I am an industrialist who has 10 accounts. I have 1 rorqual pilot, 9 barge pilots, and several of my characters can fly a freighter. All of my characters can build capital ship parts. When I log into EVE, I go to work... and it is hard work. I sit down and I crank out a capital ship in about 10 hours of mining with 10 accounts active running that whole time. My room heats up to about 95 degrees from my graphics card and CPU (which are both CLC cooled) pumping heat into my room. There are times when I am sweating from mining, because it gets that hot. Some days, I feel like I'm literally in the salt mines over here.
I pour my heart into this profession that I love. I simply do not understand why it is imperative that off-grid boosting for the rorqual be taken away. Every hour, with 10 accounts and max rorqual boosts I can churn about 250-300m in minerals out. To put that into perspective, an afk ishtar running anomalies can make 60mil an hour easy, and with 10 accounts, can rackshaw up about 600mil isk in LIQUID isk. That is not mineral that has to be turned into something or shipped to its destination to be sold. That doesn't include index job costs, or production costs.
The fact is, I cant kill anyone with a mining laser. As hard as I try, they just dont let me activate on enemy ships. Perhaps if they did I could see where an on-grid boosting requirement would make sense. But this change really does not make sense. It seems to me like this is all motivated by the desire to have dank rorqual frags, and I can assure you if these changes go through my rorqual (and probably a lot of others as well) will be reprocessed and the parts used to make something else.
I'm not upset at the changes because my rorqual is going to die, to be honest I can build a new one in around 2 days plus build time, what frustrates me is that these changes are just going to make my job a lot harder. It will take me twice as long to do what I do now and it will be way more of a headache than I want to bother with. I already have to go mine up heavy water for my rorqual boosts. Now I am going to have produce ammo, monitor boosting effects, build the boosting charges, etc for my rorqual to boost with, while then subjecting it to extreme peril for no additional bonus than what I have now.
What is the actual impact of the changes that are recommended right now? Well, it's pretty simple. Everything that has been announced is only going to serve to make the job that I do even harder. Everyone I play with says to me repeatedly, "How can you do that... mining is so boring... I'd go crazy. I hate it. Mining almost made me quit the game" So I ask you, why? Why is this necessary? I already make less income per hour than most other activities in the game with a similar number of accounts, it just doesn't make any sense.
Oh, and for clarity, while all of the "income" math above is theoretical, I don't actually make that in liquid isk. Because most of what I do is steeply discounted to my corp, used to build large projects, or given away... Like my free T1 ship (of any hull size) program for my corporation. I'm not in this to make the ISK in the game. I'm in this to give my friends the materials they need to get back into the fight. In other words, I am a tried and true industrialist.
So, I ask you again, why do you insist on making this harder with no gain to an industrial pilot?
I have a few suggestions on how this can be done differently:
1. Remove industrial boosts from the game. They already offer no PVP advantage, and the changes to boosting is being balanced for a PVP purpose, not a PVE purpose. In their place do one of the following things:
A. Give us new skills for miners to train that focus on cycle time, efficiency of cap usage, and yield. or B. Roll the current maximum boosted amount calculations into the ship bonuses themselves.
2. If the Rorqual needs a new niche role to give it more flavor, give the rorqual a new hold, one for compressed minerals. Give the rorqual a new ability mineral compression , and a special hanger that has an exceptionally large volume but can accomodate only compressed minerals.
3. Remove industrial boosts from the game. Create a new mining industrial array named something fancy that the porpoise, orca or rorqual can dock with, which provides system wide boosts equivalent to 50% of current (with the previous 50% boosting amount being rolled into either A or B above) but has a reinforcement timer if attacked. Make this array be visible on the overview and in space. The rorqual cannot be removed until the reinforcement timer has been resolved. If the array is destroyed, the rorqual is destroyed.
Also, as cute as the PANIC button is, the PANIC button is basically just ULTIMATE ECM 2K16. I know how much Fozzie hates ECM. Why are we making ships invulnerable for set periods of time? Thats not exactly engaging gameplay. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:26:39 -
[809] - Quote
Denavit wrote:So much tears and peanut brained people. stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus... Like reprocess Rorqs and sell the skill points, got it
Thank you |
Arakoinae Veldor
Aphelion Monks
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:27:53 -
[810] - Quote
Does this mean we have to actually manually activate the booster every 1 or 2 minutes when mining, It wont be continuous? What a pain that would be. |
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:32:53 -
[811] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Drago Misharie wrote:Moraguth wrote:I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all. "making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot. The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it. Ah, I never use the T1 barges, so fair enough on that point. Even with the remote repping abilities of the orca or rorqual it wouldn't help if you get blown up with one shot. To be fair though, the lack of tank on those ships means you probably shouldn't be using them in such dangerous areas anyway. Or they should be as paranoid as WH people and ready to warp if a mouse farts in the next room. We can use them today and we can use them tomorrow without boosts. So why would we boost?
There aren't any rooms protecting us, anyone who warps will warp right at zero cloaked ready to target the booster with a bomb to dumpster 1.4b in mining ships. The Rorq will be safe since it can tank it. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
120
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:36:33 -
[812] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:GeeBee wrote:Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.
Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.
Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me. I disagree with your opinion. Some of us (speaking definitely for myself, probably for others too) aren't great at direct pvp. I do a pretty good job at support roles though. Running links, logi, scouting... that type of stuff is more fun for me and I'm way better at that than brawling. In fact, I'd like to see more support roles. And as for only having passive bonuses... CCP and I agree that those mechanics are bad. Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.
There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.
The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue. |
Titus Cole Dooley
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:43:03 -
[813] - Quote
Titus Cole Dooley wrote:The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options.
I mean hell its got a CLONE VAT BAY!!!! |
lord xavier
Hax. The-Culture
125
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:46:12 -
[814] - Quote
While I enjoy the thought of a rorqual being forced into the belt. I think the mining boost change is pretty stupid. Giving them a weapons timer already stops them from docking. POSes are going away "soon." So, with a 1 minute timer + 1 minute cycle timer on your links. You've 2 minutes best case scenerio and 1 minute worst case (for you) that you cannot dock in an astrahouse/NPC station with a rorqual. That seems pretty well off to kill/bump it off the docking of whatever it is sat on. Sure, for a fortizar thats a pretty HUGE docking radius.
Maybe, make the Rorq have a specific AU range. So, some days your mining site is in range of your citadel(s). Other days it isn't and you either go without boosts or you warp into the site, use a safe, use an orca or whatever this new ore command ship will be.
I'd rather have a chance to kill a Rorqual, then to never see them ever used cause most wont risk a rorq everyday. Where they may if they have a random belt spawn outside of the AU range so they risk it that one day because of the "Well, its just this one day." instead of "Well **** this. I am just gonna sell this damn thing." |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
184
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:52:44 -
[815] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:
There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.
The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue.
I disagree. I defend the bonuses and I think they add interesting gameplay choices. Removing them is your solution, and while I respect your views, I still think you are 100% wrong. They have redeeming qualities, they aren't just extra skills to train, and have little effect on CCPs revenue. It's not like you stop paying CCP once you learn all the skills in the game... you'll be paying regardless. (Even that guy who made a fresh character and spent trillions of isk on injectors to max out all the skills is still paying to play the game, he just has nothing left to train)
I disagree with removing choice and depth from the game, which is what you propose by saying boosts should be removed.
for example:
ECM has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. ECM should just be removed!
T2 weapons don't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. T2 weapons should just be removed!
Cloaking has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. Cloaking should just be removed!
Assertions, without evidence, and conclusions about motives, which are pulled out of thin air, are not effective ways to argue your point and effect change.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2658
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:01:22 -
[816] - Quote
What's funny to me is that the Rorqual will still offer better mining boosts than any other ship, even without being in Industrial Core mode. Despite that, people who had to know their "hide in the POS shield" playstyle was on life support for several years are completely freaking out.
It is interesting to see that people will actually have to fly the Rorqual now. They'll have to push buttons more than once and stuff. The Horror! The Horror! The real impact of this is not that the Rorqual will actually be at risk now, but that it will actually require regular player input, making it harder to multibox the ship.
I know I have trained up a Rorqual booster, three Exhumer pilots, and a hauler/scout pilot. In the past, I could easily forget about the Rorqual pilot in his POS, and focus on watching three Exhumers, the hauler or scout, and intel channels. Now I have to pay more attention to another pilot.
As someone who has always relied on multiple characters, I'm noticing the subtle shift CCP has in place to make each pilot matter more and require more player input. I don't have a problem with it, but I am noticing it. It's most evident in the recent Carrier changes. In the past, I could undock three Carriers, drop sentries, assign drones, and establish remote repair chains with ease. Now, that it is all but impossible to multibox Carriers with any degree of efficiency. But flying a single Carrier is a much more fun and engaging play style. I did decide to sell off a few of my Carriers because of these changes, but on the whole it's a good change. As this design philosophy sneaks into more game play aspects, it may eventually cause me to unsubscribe a couple more accounts, but I think in the long run it will make Eve a better, more engaging game.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:06:37 -
[817] - Quote
Arakoinae Veldor wrote:Does this mean we have to actually manually activate the booster every 1 or 2 minutes when mining, It wont be continuous? What a pain that would be.
Have to hope it has auto repeat - but would also like to know for sure.
If we have to hit F1, F2 and F3 every couple of minutes, that would be the type of mindless game play that should be avoided, not embraced.
Those of us who run Orcas/Rorquals do risk assets every day. We put a good amount of valuable squishy targets on the field that aren't designed to defend or fight back against other players.
We are not at AFK while mining. We are attentive and engaged.
When we are not running our mining toons, we might leave the boosting ship active in a POS so that it can serve newer players that have only one account, but this seems to be a good thing as it gives those players access to a more level playing field.
We also boost for solo and small groups of alliance pilots who mine in various belts or anoms. Now we'll have to all huddle up in the same place. Makes much more sense to spread the miners out over the system, unless there's a valid need to encourage more players to invest in Orca or Rorqual pilots.
Rethink treating mining boosters the same as PvP boosters. We risk ships. We do not need more busy work.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
1261
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:09:55 -
[818] - Quote
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie] Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use.
https://youtu.be/Xpugp6DIb3I?t=187
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
674
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:40:40 -
[819] - Quote
Funny how miners think my sieged Dread can hit 24 AU from within the POS shield where I sit AFK blapping stuff. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6380
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:40:57 -
[820] - Quote
Titus Cole Dooley wrote:Titus Cole Dooley wrote:The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options. I mean hell its got a CLONE VAT BAY!!!! Okay, that made me exhale my beverage.
The CVB is the stupidest thing since it doesn't actually work like a station clone facility, and it doesn't hold many clones even at max skill.
Only skill I haven't maxed for my Rorqual. |
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
32
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:42:12 -
[821] - Quote
Let's dedicate a section to Fozzie only. I actually had fun going through all the skills again
CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Why do the higher level range skills give smaller bonuses per level than the lower level skills? A: This is something we do almost everywhere in EVE. Diminishing returns help ensure that players with lower levels of skillpoints can compete against veterans. First, thank you for the responses after going through the entire thread. Second, let me then start with the suggestion of not increasing, but also not diminishing returns. So how about 5% per skill? Because this would be much more in line with the theme of EvE skills. I say this because, thirdly... no, you don't put in diminishing returns "almost everywhere" in the skills area. Take a look at skills building up on previous skills doing the same or something similar and cross reference these to your claim:
It's not as much DR on skills as believed.
TL;DR = Diminishing returns in statistical benefits are not the majority among the skills in eve online. They are in the very minority. I found a total of 4 (four) skills which I would consider a definite and doubtless diminishing return. An extra 3 (three) if I give them the situational benefit of the doubt. If anything, we can see a trend that players benefit from subsequent skills trained equally or more than from their prerequisites, which stands in complete contrast to what Fozzie said.
Thus I repeat my proposition again with a compromise: If you don't want to increase the percentage of skills as suggested then put them equal. 15km + 25% + 25% + 25% nets a total of 29,29km base range from skills, which is very close to your proposed 29,25km base range from 30% + 25% +20%.
I still hope you give Leadership skill ranks another pass. x8 and x12 just for fleet size is ridiculous, especially if you want to remove their requirement for squads and wings. All other leadership skills cap out at x5, and x6 for the specialist one. You said yourself, you want to lower skill entry barriers, and I'm all with you on that. Just unallocate excess SP if you lower skill ranks when people already have them trained. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
120
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:44:34 -
[822] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:GeeBee wrote:
There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.
The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue.
I disagree. I defend the bonuses and I think they add interesting gameplay choices. Removing them is your solution, and while I respect your views, I still think you are 100% wrong. They have redeeming qualities, they aren't just extra skills to train, and have little effect on CCPs revenue. It's not like you stop paying CCP once you learn all the skills in the game... you'll be paying regardless. (Even that guy who made a fresh character and spent trillions of isk on injectors to max out all the skills is still paying to play the game, he just has nothing left to train) I disagree with removing choice and depth from the game, which is what you propose by saying boosts should be removed. for example: ECM has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. ECM should just be removed! T2 weapons don't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. T2 weapons should just be removed! Cloaking has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. Cloaking should just be removed! Assertions, without evidence, and conclusions about motives, which are pulled out of thin air, are not effective ways to argue your point and effect change.
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2933
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:46:45 -
[823] - Quote
This thread is getting ridiculous. Perhaps CCP should just make it so that miners can stay tethered to their citadel and remotely send mining drones to the belts. But even then people would complain because their drones were vulnerable.
Being on grid to do something powerful is not an unreasonable request, people.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Titus Cole Dooley
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 02:58:19 -
[824] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Titus Cole Dooley wrote:Titus Cole Dooley wrote:The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options. I mean hell its got a CLONE VAT BAY!!!! Okay, that made me exhale my beverage. The CVB is the stupidest thing since it doesn't actually work like a station clone facility, and it doesn't hold many clones even at max skill. Only skill I haven't maxed for my Rorqual.
Yeah same here. I was using the CVB and a example of the ships original design intention. Now with citadels they could make it happen. I think it would make the Rorqual more relevant and exciting than what CCP is offering now. |
Rain6637
NulzSec
34161
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 03:17:48 -
[825] - Quote
I mostly like this new concept of fleet boosting. I like how it might put command ships on grid with proper fits, and that the base number of links fits neatly within the utility highs.
My main question is about faster ships like interceptors. I feel like their gameplay will become awkward when bonuses wear off while they are at far range. Between extending the range of command bursts or giving receiving ships a bonus to effect duration, I think it should be a role bonus on the interceptor hull (for example).
I like seeing prerequisites being busted down some more, and I hope you keep going. I think role bonuses could also be distributed in ship skill levels rather than in lump sums. I get the notion of "identity" for different ships but I think it detracts from the diversity of ships more than it contributes. Abstract adjustments like booster duration make sense as role bonuses, far more than 100% bonuses to damage.
The reduction in baseline links to command ships feels like a doube hit to small gangs. Large fleets can toss in more boosters without changing their fleet composition much. In a gang of 10 or so, however, each additional booster is from 9% to 6% of the fleet. Combined with the limited range of bursts in fast gangs, this need for more boosters is hard.
Warfare processors. Seeing them go into rigs seems sucky. I would rather see a bolder move like hard-limiting boosting ships to their base number of links, such as one or two. Actually, if T3 boosters and command destroyer bonuses are weaker, I would agree with their link limits becoming 2.
This way small gangs won't be hit as hard for requiring several command destroyers. You also won't see bastard fits for ships trying to cram four or five links. Go that extra bit to ensure command burst ships get more representative use, and function as proper ships with unique utility highs.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
JuricM
The Church of Awesome Snuffed Out
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 03:19:31 -
[826] - Quote
Question: As a means of penalizing "Head-Shotting" Fleet FCs, and as incentive for FCs to use command ships, can this system also be used to "de-buff" the aggressing fleet for killing boosting ships? It could perhaps give the negative of the boosts most recently applied to its own fleet prior to the kill.
Or maybe this belongs on Rise's bad idea of the day thread... |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
675
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 03:40:38 -
[827] - Quote
Yup. Definitely the Bad Idea oneliners. |
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
32
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 03:42:58 -
[828] - Quote
For anyone not yet understanding why they touch the way mining boosts work as well... imagine the segregation of one sitting in afk safety again while others churn away with the boosts, while in a different constellation, in a different region people decide which command ship to primary. No, that doesn't sound reasonable at all.
Tau Cabalander wrote:1) Please put my post back in context.
2) If Rorqual pilots are being required to operate in a mining op (target asteroids, command drones, tractor cans, compress, pass crystals, take care of NPC spawns, etc), plus keep situationally aware in a hostile environment, via d-scan, intel channels, etc., then having to also press a button repeatedly is extremely annoying inconvenience that just adds to the workload (is it time yet? is it time yet? is it time yet?)
3) If auto-repeat exists, I have no complaints. 1) Done. Sorry, I messed up the formatting. Wanted to consolidate both quotes into one but didn't in the end, just kept writing.
2) Sounds like a normal pilot's worth of interaction to me. You don't sit in a capital industrial ship for no reason if you don't want to be called a F1 monkey Also, following devblog, you only need to reactivate the module once per minute if it doesn't auto-activate. Considering the boosts start out at one minute you have plenty of time to hit those F keys again and don't need to be on the spot with that 60 second mark.
3) Exactly. I really doubt they're going to put a module which has - by CCPs own words - ammo with low cost and small cargo size NOT going to auto-repeat. And in the case of doubt for more control, like all regular cycling modules, auto-repeat can be turned off.
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:I'd love to see that chart, considerign that there are actually high sec incursion based communities overlyspecialising into setting new records of isk/per hour earned. although if said graph was something like overall income from incursion running players per month [and averaged out] I can totally see it "averaging" quite low Precisely, that's where I was going. While they make decent ISK / hour on the bottom end, they are not a big factor compared to the overall economy. They're also limited in numbers due to Incursion site payout limitations and individual spawns of said sites. I also wouldn't wonder if these isk/hour figures from the incursion runners are cherrypicked during a certain window. But It's fine, I'm not bashing them. 100Mill / hour isn't exactly lightyears away from certain other highsec endeavours. Also, anyone saying "screw you incursion runners!" should just suck it up and try it for themselves. If you can't beat the beast and feel bad, then embrace it and become a part. That being said, there are alternatives. But nobody should complain about someone else getting more ISK for a different activity when everything here is choice and preference.
GeeBee wrote:Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago. Typical kneejerk response. Contrary to the bounty system which barely affects anything of the game, even through an iterated process, the boost system is widely used. If you removed it to work on it offline, the outrage and fallout would be much bigger. If you removed Bounty system for it to - eventually? - return, nobody would cry a river. There is nothing lost, the ISK reinstated. Remove fleet boosting, and entire characters become obsolete. No, it's far more important to revamp this design and not scrap it entirely, which would be a tremendous mistake.
Altrue wrote:I'm sorry but that's just not true. For instance, I have fleet command V on this character so that I can be a fleet commander, not a fleet booster. I have an alt for that.
There is a profound misunderstanding of the way links currently work, CCP Fozzie. You seem to think that all the skills in the leadership category fill only one role, but in fact they filled two. Heh, smart. That's a good outlook on the situation, have my appreciative nod for what it is worth.
Tau Cabalander wrote:To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy. I for one wouldn't be happy with a skill refund. I'd skill everything back into leadership, else I wouldn't be able to fly my Command ships into the high water mark. Still, what exactly do you do with an alt you no longer want or need? Oh sure, spend money for skill injectors to sell these points off. Except not, since if this would actually work, I'm sure CCP would totally do it. Looks like it won't, so they don't. Not all players are mindless, wallet throwing lemmings. ... though would they even spend money for Aurum? Might as well use dat Aurum sitting holes in the wallet from years ago, and burn those Aurum tokens. Or just throw ISK at skill extractors, what gives. End of the line remains the same - refund, reskill is not a feasible solution from no point of view. Haven't you realized these are substantial amounts of skillpoints involved and CCP wants to make money with skill injectors in case you really want to respecc?
I still expect the amount of players wanting to swap skillsets from leadership to something else or to become a skill siphon for ISK to be in the minority. If the topic keeps spiraling into trading blows with miners wanting to keep their boosts, nothing will help other than repeating every single page how this is not the final devblog, and the new command industrial might just fit all your needs. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
460
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 04:05:14 -
[829] - Quote
May Arethusa wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:Actually I normally Fly a Griffin/Kitsune, and I'm normally 50km+ from the Furball in the middle, the Siege Skills/Links are normally all that stops me from being 1 Lucky Volleyed off the field, allowing me to warp recharge shields and warp back in from a different area/angle and continue.
Perhaps you need to learn how to fly instead of staying stuck to an anchor :P In case you were wondering, those siege links add roughly 300 EHP to a Griffin, and 500 to a Kitsune. Ships which, if currently available evidence is to be believed, you don't actually fly that often. You wouldn't be posting on an alt making spurious claims would you? Because honestly, trying to make a point of the importance of Siege Links to a Griffin smacks of desperation. The number of times that I've flown out in sub 10% structure, that extra few EHP is all that is needed to be the difference between being popped in 1 shot or 2. |
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
32
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 04:18:05 -
[830] - Quote
Quoted for truth.
Zappity wrote:It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change. Seconded. Mmmmmmmmmmmm... tasty. Not even sarcastic. Tasty for all participants.
Sylvia Kildare wrote:1) Most people using off-grid links in big nullsec fleet engagements where both sides have them didn't have issues with the current system, most people using off-grid links to boost mining, missioning, or incursioning in highsec didn't have issues with the current system.
2) But hell, it's their game, we just pay for it and play in it. If 0% of people wanted a change, they could still make it. :::shrugs::: 1) Only because they didn't have a problem doesn't mean the system was good. It was just convenient. Not good. For the booster sitting behind a forcefield, or bouncing safespots, it was just flat out risk-free, which is never good in a game like this.
2) Touch+Ź. They messed up a good number of things which were not broken or unfair and still degraded the experience for no tangible benefit or reason at all.
Drago Misharie wrote:Blah Blah Blah.....worm holes If you don't give me sufficient information, I can only work with assumptions. Nothing about blah blah on my end, but lots of pulling things out of your nose with barbed wire. So wormholes, eh? That's fantastic actually. So you are in EXTRA hostile space. Because you cannot do recon in local hence the requirement for people checking on the system entrances. If not, your fleet gets jumped and your your ships wrecked before you can blink when you fit for pure yield. So what do you do when your recon signals incoming? Pack your things and run for POS? So what's the difference in having your booster alt in POS or on grid if you just pack up? Oh I know... you don't know. Because this new industrial command ship in the coming devblog might just be right up your alley and everything you complain about might be absolutely irrelevant. Patience.
Akoha Uisen wrote:So, I ask you again, why do you insist on making this harder with no gain to an industrial pilot? Your post was nice, please take this with face value. I don't care if the top half was written for entertainment purposes only, but it was a nice post. Sir, do me the same favour as anyone else who insists to be an Industrialist of calibre; Wait for the mining dev blog before you make a judgement call first. |
|
Kaile Nefertiti
Extra Galactic Expeditions
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 04:28:16 -
[831] - Quote
Do we know if the new mining BC booster will be able to mine also? I really hope so cuz sticking a character that usually mines into a boosting ship just to sit there and give boosts is very boring gameplay.
The combat boosters get guns also to help wth dps or other stuff, please give the mining booster the ability to mine also! |
Gerark
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 04:37:10 -
[832] - Quote
My intention is not to rant, while I don't like the specific changes, I do agree that off-grid boosting is silly. My boosting alt must have orbited stations millions of times in her life.
Full disclosure, I am a Casual High Sec Carebear (Yes, more casual than most), almost 11 years old, coming up on 200M SP, this is my point of view for my play style. Also excuse my english, it isn't what it used to be.
My issue is mainly with the removal of all passive bonuses.
I may have activated a Link maybe once in all my time playing EVE with my boosting alt. Mostly I just made a fleet for the passive bonuses. This character is trained to the classic L5/4/4/4/4 + Mining 5/4, I never got Mining Director 5 because I never got the Mining Mindlink. My point is, I trained them for a passive bonus, if you wanted to be the best miner, you got the mining Leadership skills. You can claim that I trained them for the wrong reason, but I would disagree, the skills had a purpose that fit my play style, so I chose to train them. With the changes I doubt I'll ever use them again since I'm not gonna be flying an Orca any time soon. I don't want a skill refund, it's only 1.6M SP, while they would be nice, I don't actually need them, since I don't see Capitals in my future and have very few skills I want that badly, heck, I have 1.1M SP in my pool right now.
On the matter of skill refunds, I only feel Wing/Fleet Command deviate far enough from current function to deserve consideration for refunds if they are no longer needed for making large fleets. If fleets are allowed to form to max size with no skills then these two skills should be removed and refunded and the Burst range skills should be new skills that you get the skill books free and refunded SP so you can train if you want them, invest in other areas if you don't.
tl,dr: Passive bonuses remaining would be nice. Refund WC/FC if no longer needed for forming large fleets. |
JoAnnaBeth
Just Ore Excavators
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:01:03 -
[833] - Quote
Another thing really not needed but used to correct your gaming style,which is not approved by CCP,cause they didnt make a mining game,they made it to blow up ships,no one really cares where the ships are 'grown' at.....is it time for Tom to be avaiable for purchase,cause whats 2 hours......at this point , really i loved playing EVE, i gave ten years just to get back what. ok yes getting a venture was the best thing since sliced bread... i can give you a few more months just in case you got a bright idea,however ,given your track record (CCP) thats doubtful ,everyone wants you to actually create something useful,you have made updates and that is good to most players. Personally,i would take these last four months of the year and strip everything ,take local away and start brand new and see what they gripe about.your bringing in all this stuff and really like for me ,it all is useless,its like handing ppl broken crutches and telling them to play football and if your by yourself,what are boosts for again....i dont play this game to make friends ,the ones i do have came about the hard and enjoyable way of getting blown up and laughing about it in local.when i started playing the thought of an alt was something those 'fancy' people did so they could sit in station and talk smack all day in local.I took what i could with a grain of salt and drove on,I learned to mine,to build a ship,to shoot legal bad guys for fun as mining got stale on the second rotation,mission for standings so i can get me a JumpClone in high sec.high sec wars were really high lite of high sec.Low sec has always had issues and null sec is where to go to get lost .The game is not the same as it was,improvements are to be expected ,All this new "Content" will do what ? Well ,its not been for the new player experience,which really ends hours later maybe when you found out your suppose to be training a skill all the time but shooting those newbi npc rats was suppose to be doing you some good but really you should have doing those tutorial things which are showing you how to play the game.you start picking up that there people everywhere so lets goooo,umm yeah you decide to look at the stargate a bit,soak up its awesomeness,now you thought you were getting content looking at that gate,no,larry curly and moe,pull up to you lock you up,and your screen goes white and there your corpse is in space with a message saying your got a kill right you can "Act" on and here is 5,000 isk .Time to undock and find another ship. maybe we will try a few more of those tutorials .Rinse repeat,this process should,could,would lead to these great and beautiful things you speak of, other than giving new players somewhat better starting skills than what a number of us have had , these things your bringing to table seem to not let you do as much as a 'group' so what is the drive to get these things , the venture we use to solo mine wouldnt have boosts, are you like reducing range of modules so instead of a normal 10km (roughly) it would be reduced to 5km unless you was in a fleet? these new stuff your bringing ,sorry, revamping, or is it nerfing, really isnt practical to use,to that solo player your just jacking up everyone else's game,making them sweeter for the kill. As for fleets,removing the heirarchy's importance just doesnt seem logical,you want people to understand the importance of a fleet,of a squad commander,and etc to include that of a booster almost sounds like knowing what your fleets about, instead your giving them a Lets be Ignorant Card to understanding the game .Your talking in a good direction just walking the other way. Command bursts,as if you havent used Command enough, uses a type of ammo,script,or light switch or button on our HUD to provide boosts we click this and a sphere of influence provides this boost for a limited time,i think thats the general idea, based around the ship boosting,cause we really want to get out of our ship to switch to a mining ship to be active for the duration of the boosts.I mean why do this ,you want to steal our ships?or you going to add pod locks as well,lol,ok i dont have the common sense to understand that as a good idea. You give us the rope we will hang ourselves right. I thought the introduction of this new stuff would bring tactices into play ,some claimed it did but i got confused ,dragging people off groups to expose them isnt even possible in high sec ,wait for the "bump" unless the person is going after you and you scram and web them down ,now low sec and null different story,kidnap ,scram,and web them down,general tactics wont change,we all can now look at the pretty rays beaming from the ship and figure something other than "Target is in a Ship,Type,looks like the rainbow is loving on him" Im glad you got all these high def graphics,this was as bad as the icon change up recently.The sounds alone are enough to put someone to sleep really,the beat or pitch or something just makes me yawn.....reminds me of the adults in the peanut cartoons. Devs,Why not just announce you want everybody in an orca or this rouqal thingie that is suppose to be helpful and mining in belts cause "you" dont have enough content. dont be changing something because you cant find something to blow up or cant find someone to blow up because now we have to mine MORE to meet quotas for ships ,etc. Fix stuff,stop breaking it,stop trading stuff in for more Broke stuff.If your going to do stuff like this,just clean slate everyone to 0 sp at least we wont worry of wasting skills of this stuff . |
Rutane
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:01:04 -
[834] - Quote
Gerark wrote: ..., it's only 1.6M SP, while they would be nice, I don't actually need them, since I don't see Capitals in my future and have very few skills I want that badly, heck, I have 1.1M SP in my pool right now.
tl,dr: Passive bonuses remaining would be nice. Refund WC/FC if no longer needed for forming large fleets.
Had the same sort of set up formy alt, have bought already 3 skill extractors, will use 2 and sell one filled, skill pooints will go towards drug use skills - there I can decide when where and how to use boosts myself with a decent time frame aye!!! |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
460
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:24:33 -
[835] - Quote
Bo Goodwin wrote:Noxisia Arkana wrote:Bo Goodwin wrote:[ To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I? Very, I couldn't do it. Different strokes. Back to the matter at hand - your thoughts are 1-2 AU boosts for industrial purposes? I would have to look at the positions of all the asteroid belts in all systems. But if the range was close to 2AU, how many belts would that cover in your average system? IIRC In most cases it would cover all Belts around a single Planet, but not much more than that. |
Rutane
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:28:40 -
[836] - Quote
Gulmuk wrote:Well I have to say, I am an industrialist. Why are you screwing with boosts for the miners when the VERY small portion of the population wants COMBAT boosters to be on grid... Makes no sense to me.
I HAVE NEVER IN 7 YEARS OF EVE HEARD ANYONE SAY MINERS SHOULD HAVE TO BOOST FROM ON GRID. NEVER...
With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with several of the commenters about Rorquals being mothballed. The owners won't even bother to sell them because NOBODY will want them. They will be POINTLESS once these changes are made. I don't currently own a rorq, but I have owned 2 in the past. With the invent of citadels, and now the booster changes. I can very much see someone boosting from on grid with a BC or something similiar. Sure the boosts won't be as big, but you're NOT going to see a rorqual in a belt or anomaly. Unless someone gets really brave or REALLY stupid.
I can also agree you are going to see subs drop because of these proposed changes. Like one person already said. Once you kill the off-grid booster, the people with the mulitple accounts are going to stop using them. OR they might continue to use them, but now the amount of minerals they produce just went down substantially. So the prices of stuff all across EVE is going to sky rocket. It's bad enough that things in eve are already expensive enough. Perfect example is the T2 capital armor rep. 300M just build one of them. That's insane! SO they have to sell for about 350 just to make a decent profit, and then heaven forbid you want to make a faction armor rep. You get almost zero profit from manufacturing those.
Seems to me the devs are very keen on killing industry in eve. They have it out for the miners and they are the foundation EVE is built on. With the boost changes and Exhumer changes coming up. We're screwed good...
I agree you nailed it, why massing with mining boosts just the combat boosts would have been fine to wipe out that passives since mining linkes always had a sepcial use on special ships no issue to mix all up to a green slime.
Actually personally I feel Orcas will be the big massive trouble . with Rorquals you stil have option, eg. it has a Jump drive. |
JoAnnaBeth
Just Ore Excavators
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:34:30 -
[837] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:Moraguth wrote:GeeBee wrote:
There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.
The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue.
I disagree. I defend the bonuses and I think they add interesting gameplay choices. Removing them is your solution, and while I respect your views, I still think you are 100% wrong. They have redeeming qualities, they aren't just extra skills to train, and have little effect on CCPs revenue. It's not like you stop paying CCP once you learn all the skills in the game... you'll be paying regardless. (Even that guy who made a fresh character and spent trillions of isk on injectors to max out all the skills is still paying to play the game, he just has nothing left to train) I disagree with removing choice and depth from the game, which is what you propose by saying boosts should be removed. for example: ECM has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. ECM should just be removed! T2 weapons don't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. T2 weapons should just be removed! Cloaking has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. Cloaking should just be removed! Assertions, without evidence, and conclusions about motives, which are pulled out of thin air, are not effective ways to argue your point and effect change. ECM is a lot of skillpoints but isn't broken per say, cloaking is 1 skill and its the afk cloaking that makes it silly, T2 weapons have a purpose of progression and shooting at each other and almost everyone will train them eventually. Boosting skills are trained by few characters for a specialty purpose that is overly important. As a fleet member I don't want my ship to be dependent on another characters affecting my ships stats. As a pilot being a booster is more of a chore than gameplay. The only logical reason to keeping boosts is so you can keep using them to dunk newbies in highsec / lowsec that don't even knows what boosts are. In large nullsec fights its pretty much a mandate. Most of anyone that knows anything is over boosts, the best solution is to remove them. The prime driver for keeping boosts is injector bait, something that *needs to be done on an alt account that you need to be able to compete* I'm sure there is a definite revenue factor for that, to deny that is silly. Skill injectors as a whole in the short term have given CCP some major revenue but in the long run it will reduce the number of players willing to play the game because it makes the game even more pay to win, on a small scale / multiboxing boosts are pay to win. CCP is addressing the power creep of skillpoints in ways to monetize them rather than properly addressing them. there's a year's worth of skill training for *core skills* that everyone ends up training just to fly a subcap and be competitive. in the age of free to play games this marketing scheme is so non-competitive we should expect our playerbase to dwindle because nobody wants to drop that much cash or time in order to catch up.
plenty of good points,its good to see people voicing their opinions. how is cloaking broken....SImple purpose to avoid detection, you cant see them? Clearly this skill is one that works.,are they in your system and you cant what....see them? Cloaking isnt broken you just dont like how it was used against you. whats the use of stealth bombers without cloak? just another special ship.so lets take away cloak,now you made more ships become useless. oh wait there is another skill your making useless. Look it was bad when people were griping about interceptors using entosis link,people just got tired of messages saying they might want to check out their systems,which is just lazy but CCP listened (well they got tired of getting these notifications for themselves),looked at what was happening and said well that size ship is just too much of a threat to have a entosis ,since they are fast and small,and even those with that homefield server tick had a time just trying to kill one and since they were having a time just getting a lock ,it was something that had to be fixed...that also implies there was a state to where it was Fixed.can we get there first without breaking anything else...Beegee i think your on track about the skill injectors,i think of it as just a waste when there really so much more to be done with Eve. |
Deep Space Cowboy
Crisis Gate Viral Society
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:45:22 -
[838] - Quote
To all the non miners that keep arguging that sieging a rorqual in a belt will be fine this: https://zkillboard.com/character/92270154/ is what happens currently to pilots who choose to siege their rorqual in a belt while they mine. This pilot has lost FOURTEEN rorquals in the past 10 months (and has been inactive for 2) since he was able to fly them.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/54477377/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/53986096/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/53709338/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/53559334/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/52598055/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/52124294/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/51171154/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/49756154/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/50570650/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/50524666/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/49897155/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/49756154/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/49505233/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/49417270/
This is what CCP is asking miners to do with these changes. There's no risk vs reward only suicide. |
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:50:57 -
[839] - Quote
Kenneth Fritz wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:(...) * "super weapon" that only postpones destruction Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Or would that be too much work and you just want to have a risk free reward (like possed mining boosts)? Depending on the skills they have your beloved corp mates my simply add to the kill mails by reshipping and coming to help. Only thing they accomplished is to further delay the inevitable destruction of said Rorqual by being a distraction.
Hit PANIC button, have one of the mining ships light there 'this has all gone FUBAR' cyno modual (could be your drone trigger with target painter for rats or whatever) and laugh as 4+ FAXs and a few carriers drop on the gankers, or if your close to the Rorq with your mining ships, store the expensive ones, do your best to warp the pod and then wait for the PANIC to expire and mash that 'jump to friendly cyno' thing
Everyone has a laugh, high fives all round, someone deploys salvage drones and you go back to mining.
I don't see a problem. Sure lighting the cyno should take you out of the invulnerability effect, but if you have that ship specifically built for that purpose you should have it pretty well tanked and able to live long enough for atleast 1 ship to jump through that can light a secondary cyno if/when your mining ship dies.
Sure not everyone has this sort of back-up on demand, however if you have the infrastructure to hold space in null and be out mining in a belt with a Rorqual, then they should be present.
Also for those saying 'but having a standing fleet doing nothing whilst people mine is boring as hell'. I have a suggestion: ratting. Carrier ratting makes you a pretty decent sum, as does super and titan ratting. Normal ratting in sub-caps is also good and if your mining in null it's usually in a safe-ish pocket so ratters are also naturally going to be there so they can keep getting their ticks.
If your corp/alliance is too small for this sort of thing then yes this change sucks for you and for that i'm sorry, however there is nothing stopping you from searching out somewhere else, well nothing besides yourself anyways.
Saying all that I do not like the idea of having to siege in a belt with my Rorqual, however with sufficient cover I will. If not enough cover present the Rorqual pilot will hop into the new mining boosting BC and be with my miners and I'll just make do with less yield but zero risk to 2.4 bill+ hull. You just have to learn to adapt and be flexible.
Also Rorqual boost should be auto-repeat. I would want to kill myself if I have to go back every 2 minutes to reapply the boost whilst also micromanaging 7+ miners and hauler, it can be done but mining is already boring and annoying enough, adding another annoyance is just frigging stupid
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
143
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 06:58:02 -
[840] - Quote
Who in their mother loving right mind would ever siege their Rorqual in a belt no matter what boosts it gave? Now if they removed the 5 minute siege effect from the industrial array then a case could be made because they you could hope to align or jump out to save your investment leaving the barges behind, similar to every ratting carrier in existence who would sooner jump than wait for their fighters to return.
You cannot equivalent the risk of flying a command ship/carrier/super/titan into a fleet fight with links active to that of a Rorqual providing bonuses to a near defenseless mining fleet. Closest to any is a triaged FAX, but even they dont need to be in triage to provide links.
You want risk, you accomplish that by having them in the belt at all. No need to spoon feed expensive killmails to the mindless masses who cant even think to set up a log off trap half the time by forcing such an investment to stay on grid in 5 minute intervals just to provide boosts. |
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
676
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:04:56 -
[841] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Now if they removed the 5 minute siege effect from the industrial array then a case could be made because they you could hope to align or jump out to save your investment leaving the barges behind, similar to every ratting carrier in existence who would sooner jump than wait for their fighters to return.
Nah, they'd ALL be in warp before anything could possibly happen to them. Seen it too many times before. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
143
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:08:21 -
[842] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote: Now if they removed the 5 minute siege effect from the industrial array then a case could be made because they you could hope to align or jump out to save your investment leaving the barges behind, similar to every ratting carrier in existence who would sooner jump than wait for their fighters to return.
Nah, they'd ALL be in warp before anything could possibly happen to them. Seen it too many times before.
Where's the problem with that? You missed on your first try. Jump a few gates out to the system their eyes are in, pause and crash gate and return. Don't catch him again? Leave a ship behind and log it out in the mining anom/belt you scanned it in. Rest of the fleet leaves and goes 1 jump past eyes. Wait a few minutes, log that toon in, tackle them then your fleet rushes back.
Don't expect everything to go your way easily, or go your way on your first attempt. EDIT: or go your way at all TBQH
Nothing in this game should be easy, and that includes catching and slaughtering a mining fleet and it's boosts. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
678
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:18:26 -
[843] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Don't catch him again? Leave a ship behind and log it out in the mining anom/belt you scanned it in. Rest of the fleet leaves and goes 1 jump past eyes. Wait a few minutes, log that toon in, tackle them then your fleet rushes back.
... or park an AFK cloaker in system... I know.
Battlerorqs are a thing you know? Not "any roaming fleet" can even take one on and live to tell the tale. |
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
347
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:32:26 -
[844] - Quote
I am thinking about the role of capitals here.
Basically everything except for Dreads can have Links with huge ranges. So a fleet with capital support can have links nearly for free - they don't have to worry about taking special ships with them (ok, the bonus is a bit weaker than on Command Ships, but I think the difference is not relevant). Eliminating Command Ships or everything with Links as a tactic could be nearly impossible due to great redundancy. Also this reminds me of the "swiss-army-knife"-issues with carriers.
What are the considerations here? I know that carriers could always carry links, but could this not be a chance to somewhat restrict their availability in the capital class?
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6381
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:48:50 -
[845] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Battlerorqs are a thing you know? Not "any roaming fleet" can even take one on and live to tell the tale. Tip: Kill the drones. The Rorqual has a small drone bay, and less DPS than a solo Rattlesnake. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
679
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:51:43 -
[846] - Quote
and none of the surrounding ships have drones, nor is anyone on comms or withing jump range? If that's the case, downship and don't deploy a capital ship. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5896
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:51:55 -
[847] - Quote
Deep Space Cowboy wrote:To all the non miners that keep arguging that sieging a rorqual in a belt will be fine this: https://zkillboard.com/character/92270154/ is what happens currently to pilots who choose to siege their rorqual in a belt while they mine. This pilot has lost FOURTEEN rorquals in the past 10 months (and has been inactive for 2) since he was able to fly them. (Killmails redacted b/c forum rules) This is what CCP is asking miners to do with these changes. There's no risk vs reward only suicide.
I could link a killmail of someone being extremely stupid too.
Does a killmail of someone getting a Navy Megathron CONCORDED prove that the Navythron is a bad ship? No, of course not. It does, however, provide evidence that it is not a suitable ship for illegal highsec aggression.
Does a killmail of a Charon ganked in Uedama prove that the Charon is a bad ship? No. It provides evidence that the Charon should not fly full of loot through dangerous systems without adequate scouting and a combat escort if the scouts detect threats.
The Rorqual will not be a ship to field in contested territory, nor to field without a combat escort on standby (perhaps a BLOPS gang your alliance is using to harrass ratters nearby). Simple, really.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1210
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 07:59:50 -
[848] - Quote
good bye all the good fights I had, which were provided by ogb. |
Deep Space Cowboy
Crisis Gate Viral Society
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 08:08:25 -
[849] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Deep Space Cowboy wrote:To all the non miners that keep arguging that sieging a rorqual in a belt will be fine this: https://zkillboard.com/character/92270154/ is what happens currently to pilots who choose to siege their rorqual in a belt while they mine. This pilot has lost FOURTEEN rorquals in the past 10 months (and has been inactive for 2) since he was able to fly them. (Killmails redacted b/c forum rules) This is what CCP is asking miners to do with these changes. There's no risk vs reward only suicide. The Rorqual will not be a ship to field in contested territory, nor to field without a combat escort on standby (perhaps a BLOPS gang your alliance is using to harrass ratters nearby). Simple, really. But if you have a serious fleet mining op and the ability to mobilize nearby friendly ratters to defend it if hostiles show up - then you have an excellent situation to field a Rorqual and to reap the rewards that come with taking wisely considered risks.
The fact that you think a blops gang is a good counter drop to the standard roaming nano gang shows how completely out of touch you are with the nulsec meta. Stick to ganking in hisec like the pleb you are and let those of us that actually live in nulsec talk about these changes. |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 09:55:15 -
[850] - Quote
Considering that Phoebe and Aegis combined kind of ruined my gameplay by making me wait and do sth else than playing EVE, i was very afraid this would be next step towards me quitting EVE, but I have to say, I am very positively surprised. I like the new set ideas I just read, first it will make "solo" pvp less of a pain to deal with, you could ofc still just activate a boost and then warp to the people you want to attack, but, they will immediately see that you have a boost active and if they leave system you you may be forced to fight on normal odds. Second it will finally be worthwhile boosting form a commandship on grid, for me they have only filled the role of being kickass pvp ships so far. (Pleas don't change that^^). As a small time FC, i very much apprechiate the removal of fleet hierarchy in the boosting role, because you clearly have better things to do mid fight than checking if your squad commanders are still alive.
So i calculated the Ranges based on the base range of 15km Dessies and Porpoise - 26.25km BC, T3, Orca and Qual - 33.75km Command Ships - 41.25km Caps - 56.25km
Correct me if any of those are wrong or if i might have missed something in the calculation.
Especially for bigger fleets and other certain roles in a fleet like logis and tackle it might become hard to get boosts as the fight exetnds in length.
The porpoise still bothers me a bit, im not much into mining, but how can we imagine the new hull compared to existing ones? |
|
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
180
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:21:03 -
[851] - Quote
Not having the Rorq devblog already available already three questions about the core come to mind:
Will it effect the drones of the miningships? Will it effect other Rorqs next to you too, so you can go invul several time in a row?
Will it be one cycle with one charge? Or could it be something like 3 charges of 2 minute cycles? So the miners have a chance to sneak out. One cycle leaves the attackers with just setting a timer and going afk for it.
About the numbers:
This change will make boosters way more common, so wouldn-Śt it be a good time to tune them down a bit? There should be an actual choice wether to try to bring the full 6 must haves ( 3 skirmish, 2 tank hp/resis, eccm) even for a small gang or if fewer are sufficient.
The tank ones and Evasive Maneuvers, esp all 4 comined, just are so strong they are mandatory. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
105
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:24:00 -
[852] - Quote
One thing that was forgotten by a previous post regarding carrier ratters is that if you leave your fighters behind you can recall them and they'll warp to you equivalent to where they were ongrid with you when they were left behind. |
Hetty Lang
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:36:17 -
[853] - Quote
Greetings
Yes these changes are a wholesale shake up and breaking of a lot of gameplay and mechanics and yes lot's of people are upset, as too how justified their complaints are is a matter of perspective
One point I would like some clarity on though is on implants, are the proposed changes are only affecting command implants?
I ask as there are implants that are used that dont strictly come under the heading of command / fleet implants but give effects that are being changed by these changes
For instance implants that alter a pilots ship speed, maneuvering, weapons, etc basically I'd love to hear from fozzie that implants that affect a pilot's ships or it's modules at a personal level are going to be altered
Cheers |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
180
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:40:42 -
[854] - Quote
lord xavier wrote:Quote:Amarr Effect Generator: +Capacitor, -Speed, -EM Resistances, +Kinetic Resistances Minmatar Effect Generator: -Signature Radius, -Turret Optimal Range, -Explosive Resistances, +Thermal Resistances This has to be the best part of the entire blog. The minmatar effect is so terrible people will be self-destructing ragnaroks in protest.
Yeah, that Amarr one would be the most OP thing I have seen in a long time. |
Johnno Ormand
Discipuli Diaboli Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:51:24 -
[855] - Quote
Looks like I'm selling my Orca & extracting mining boosting skills. No way I'm going to put a big expensive target on grid for others to gank. |
Jalen Mynar
Kestrel Security Company
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:55:47 -
[856] - Quote
Why not make the rorq a capital mining ship. Rework slot layouts, drone buffs etc. Give us some fighter size mining drones and the ability to compress without being stuck for 5 mins.
It would be no different to carrier ratting, thats a reasonably high risk/reward pastime.
|
Zifrian
Distortion. Amplified.
1757
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 10:56:28 -
[857] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Funny how miners think my sieged Dread can hit 24 AU from within the POS shield where I sit AFK blapping stuff. Funny how non-miners engaged in combat activities with a siege dred in a combat fleet can think there is any comparison to a rorqual in a belt with some mining barges.
GÇŁAny fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.GÇĽ - Dale Carnegie
Industry guy, third-party developer, jack-of-all-trades - master of none
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Lando Tarsadan
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 11:00:06 -
[858] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote: I don't think the Rorqual's reconfiguration animation is compatible with a 1 minute siege, though I'm all for that, even at the expense of removing the reconfiguration.
I do belive the animation takes around 30-40 sec so im guessing it would be doable. |
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
503
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 11:24:02 -
[859] - Quote
so the command processor I Modules are being replaced by Rigs
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2663
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 11:48:03 -
[860] - Quote
All I see is someone who doesn't have enough support losing his capital ships to hot drops.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
|
Memphis Baas
1967
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 11:50:58 -
[861] - Quote
Why does everyone imagine Rorquals deployed with pure mining fleets, all frozen in panic?
If the panic button doesn't disable high slots, I'd put a combat fleet in the belt with the mining fleet. Let the combat fleet be frozen in place, invulnerable, but still fully able to apply its DPS to any attackers coming into the belt.
Hell, I'd include Rorquals with fleet-to-fleet battles. Invulnerability while still being able to shoot, should be lovely. Forget mining. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2663
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 11:53:27 -
[862] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Why does everyone imagine Rorquals deployed with pure mining fleets, all frozen in panic?
If the panic button doesn't disable high slots, I'd put a combat fleet in the belt with the mining fleet. Let the combat fleet be frozen in place, invulnerable, but still fully able to apply its DPS to any attackers coming into the belt.
Hell, I'd include Rorquals with fleet-to-fleet battles. Invulnerability while still being able to shoot, should be lovely. Forget mining.
It only affects industrial ships.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
33
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:03:19 -
[863] - Quote
To all the industrialists posting here with their apocalyptic views, the message came in clear, you are concerned. Like we all are. The answer is, wait for devblog 2 before you lose your minds now.
But to anyone deliberately painting situations in the worst possible light while disregarding other, completely viable gameplay options and outcomes (of which some are currently deployed and likely will continue) I ask to rethink and remain objective about your claims and reasonable about your opinions.
I will not ask you to "Man up and adapt", I will not ask you to "cry some more or biomass" and I will not ask you for your stuff. All I ask is to see beyond your nose and consider new possibilities for your future gameplay, once the other devblog arrived.
Look at the last pages, where supposed killmail digging and narrow mindsets are annihilated by articulated and well formed counter points. Don't come with the sandbox argument. Sometimes you have to step out of your sandbox, clean yourself, clean the toys then see what you're dealing with again. Only because it seems you're put out of your comfort zone doesn't mean everything will be bad. Who knows, you might have even more fun afterwards?
Wait for the second devblog before you rampage. I bet the changes aren't even on sisi yet. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2663
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:04:26 -
[864] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts.
This right here is sufficient justification to refund leadership SP. I would probably put it back into my characters, but you are removing a ton of flexibility from these skills.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:17:28 -
[865] - Quote
----deleted
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
14530
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:39:34 -
[866] - Quote
So command burst work on the bursting ship even when no other ships are around?
Hmm, solo ratting brick tanked Tengus and Nighthawks incoming! Bonus, you boost anyone who comes to save you from a roaming gang. |
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix Amplified.
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:45:29 -
[867] - Quote
Lots of text here, only have one question and one suggestion, if someone could assist.
As currently mainly a solo pilot, how do I know when another toon is under the influence of bonuses? In local like a criminal or only when i see the ship and effects?
Would suggest bonuses removed when ship enters warp is my only comment.
Thanks. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:56:54 -
[868] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Why does everyone imagine Rorquals deployed with pure mining fleets, all frozen in panic?
If the panic button doesn't disable high slots, I'd put a combat fleet in the belt with the mining fleet. Let the combat fleet be frozen in place, invulnerable, but still fully able to apply its DPS to any attackers coming into the belt.
Hell, I'd include Rorquals with fleet-to-fleet battles. Invulnerability while still being able to shoot, should be lovely. Forget mining.
they have stated the only thing a ship can do when invul is mine
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lonan O'Labhradha
Dystopian Heaven Circle-Of-Two
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:56:58 -
[869] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:... If you pounce on a mining fleet, what's the first thing you are going to do?
Especially knowing that everyone you let go will potentially re-ship into combat ships?
Prevent everyone from warping away.
If they're not AFK miners (which is a big if, mind you) the ships will be gone before you get there. Capital ships in the belt will usually have all entrances to the constellation monitored and be at least 2-3 jumps in. Of course, you can catch the stupid ones, but you already can catch those and always will be able to... 2-3 jumps? Ever heard of cepter fleets? You have 10-15 secs before tackled
Mining ships don't take 10 seconds to warp... 10 seconds is MWD "Warp Folding" time. Like I said, they have to be on the ball, but they'll be aligning as soon as their perimeter scouts see your fleet. They can keep mining and be aligned for quite a while, too, so they probably won't click "Warp" until you spike local.
You can also mitigate the "paying attention" part by setting up your Fleet Warp hierarchy so that the people who are paying the most attention are in Squad/Wing/Fleet commander positions.
Also, I will point out that I think it's stupid to drop a Rorqual in a warpable anomaly or fixed belt. The only place I would put one would be in a scannable anomaly or Deadspace mining complex. |
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:49:31 -
[870] - Quote
Honestly this is pretty harsh for those who invested in fleet boosting for its passive effects. I have no intention of joining a large corp or having any major interaction with one, I however do maintain a large number of alts for hi sec mining which were assisted by a dedicated alt providing passive on grid boosts. I don't ever use crystals as I'm dedicated ice mining. Now it appears that to do the same thing that I have always done (and with a decent number of miners one cannot mine efficiently via AFK, one must pay attention to be effective), I have to spend money for ammo, click more and move more without any improvement in gameplay. I'm supposed to think that this is OK? An improvement? A bonus to gameplay? You just made it harder and more costly for me to play my chosen method of gameplay and have offered me no alternatives (refund SP, give time, refund implants, refund rigs, refund ships). Do you really want new(er) players at all that are not blob PVP oriented?
I'm not sure why combat boost issues are impacting non-combat boosts. Passive boosts are just that, passive. Choosing to eliminate all passive boosts is probably not the way to go. Micromanaging active boosters adds nothing to gameplay, particularly for miners. Adding additional complexity <> improved gameplay but is = to adding barriers to entry. I can somewhat see making combat boosters an ammo field (but then you have to remove the capacitor effects to be fair and then this changes LOTS of ships since now boosters would no longer drain cap).
Nearing 3 years into eve with 7 PAID accounts since I don't play that much and have no interest in PVP at all. I'll wait and see how this rolls out but from my initial look this is a fairly huge negative to hi sec miners that have utterly no interest in other portions of space. This may be a good time to examine other games to consume my cash... |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
444
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:54:10 -
[871] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:What's funny to me is that the Rorqual will still offer better mining boosts than any other ship, even without being in Industrial Core mode. Despite that, people who had to know their "hide in the POS shield" playstyle was on life support for several years are completely freaking out.
It is interesting to see that people will actually have to fly the Rorqual now. They'll have to push buttons more than once and stuff. The Horror! The Horror! The real impact of this is not that the Rorqual will actually be at risk now, but that it will actually require regular player input, making it harder to multibox the ship.
I know I have trained up a Rorqual booster, three Exhumer pilots, and a hauler/scout pilot. In the past, I could easily forget about the Rorqual pilot in his POS, and focus on watching three Exhumers, the hauler or scout, and intel channels. Now I have to pay more attention to another pilot.
As someone who has always relied on multiple characters, I'm noticing the subtle shift CCP has in place to make each pilot matter more and require more player input. I don't have a problem with it, but I am noticing it. It's most evident in the recent Carrier changes. In the past, I could undock three Carriers, drop sentries, assign drones, and establish remote repair chains with ease. Now, that it is all but impossible to multibox Carriers with any degree of efficiency. But flying a single Carrier is a much more fun and engaging play style. I did decide to sell off a few of my Carriers because of these changes, but on the whole it's a good change. As this design philosophy sneaks into more game play aspects, it may eventually cause me to unsubscribe a couple more accounts, but I think in the long run it will make Eve a better, more engaging game.
It certainly would be nice to lay it out in a nice graphic for the hard of thought. Boost level : Porpoise < Orca < Rorqual (no core) < Rorqual (core)
Each carries a bigger risk and bigger reward. I agree, those rewards should be distinctly balanced for the additional risk. Dropping an industrial core should be 100% worth doing and not just a small marginal increase (again, seeing the numbers charted out would help a lot of people).
All this hand-wringing that this is killing mining is nothing more than pain at losing income and efficiency. *Nothing* about these changes fundamentally changes how mining works, how you enjoy it, or anything of that nature. It changes your profitability plain and simple. Base mining should be worth something. But people willing to climb up the risk ladder should be the ones getting the reward, not that the base is the highest reward level because anyone can stick a Rorqual in a POS and boost to the max without risk.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:54:59 -
[872] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:Honestly this is pretty harsh for those who invested in fleet boosting for its passive effects. I have no intention of joining a large corp or having any major interaction with one, I however do maintain a large number of alts for hi sec mining which were assisted by a dedicated alt providing passive on grid boosts. I don't ever use crystals as I'm dedicated ice mining. Now it appears that to do the same thing that I have always done (and with a decent number of miners one cannot mine efficiently via AFK, one must pay attention to be effective), I have to spend money for ammo, click more and move more without any improvement in gameplay. I'm supposed to think that this is OK? An improvement? A bonus to gameplay? You just made it harder and more costly for me to play my chosen method of gameplay and have offered me no alternatives (refund SP, give time, refund implants, refund rigs, refund ships). Do you really want new(er) players at all that are not blob PVP oriented?
I'm not sure why combat boost issues are impacting non-combat boosts. Passive boosts are just that, passive. Choosing to eliminate all passive boosts is probably not the way to go. Micromanaging active boosters adds nothing to gameplay, particularly for miners. Adding additional complexity <> improved gameplay but is = to adding barriers to entry. I can somewhat see making combat boosters an ammo field (but then you have to remove the capacitor effects to be fair and then this changes LOTS of ships since now boosters would no longer drain cap).
Nearing 3 years into eve with 7 PAID accounts since I don't play that much and have no interest in PVP at all. I'll wait and see how this rolls out but from my initial look this is a fairly huge negative to hi sec miners that have utterly no interest in other portions of space. This may be a good time to examine other games to consume my cash...
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:58:27 -
[873] - Quote
GsyBoy wrote:Lots of text here, only have one question and one suggestion, if someone could assist.
As currently mainly a solo pilot, how do I know when another toon is under the influence of bonuses? In local like a criminal or only when i see the ship and effects?
Would suggest bonuses removed when ship enters warp is my only comment.
Thanks.
with the revamp there will be visuals showing that ship is affected by command boosts - there is a vid in a blog showing them
here grab a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py-LZv_tGjs |
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:00:19 -
[874] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
So please explain why mining needs to have active boosts to improve mining gameplay. It does not improve gameplay, it negatively impacts gameplay. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:01:20 -
[875] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
So please explain why mining needs to have active boosts to improve mining gameplay?
because working together should be rewarding. boosts are just one way to do that
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:43:17 -
[876] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
because working together should be rewarding. boosts are just one way to do that
So now you are defending a major change in the game to materially negatively impact mining as a form of gameplay to encourage more blobing and less solo. So you and CCP are advocating making it harder and less effective to play for smaller mining groups or individuals because you want to change playstyles of existing paying players.
As an existing paying player, I will just choose to either not play or play a lot less vs changing playstyles. Changing playstyles is a big deal, it is not like real life where there is no choice when things like tax or law changes happen, with that you have to adapt. In a game there are always other choices and the choice of not playing (and therefore not paying) is not one that CCP should encourage...
I fail to see how hi sec mining will have any improved gameplay from this change. It will only have negative impacts. CCP is choosing to negatively impact hi sec mining in particular for zero positives for such players. If I am a small representative of such players, this carries no benefits and no ability to recover from relatively massive investments in time, SP, and ISK. And to continue to use said investments, such players will have to spend more money, click more, and this is <> better but = worse for players. |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:51:49 -
[877] - Quote
I have to say not having to play musical boosters will be a great treat! Let's hope BIAB doesn't object to this great upcoming change! Now onto my Q&A portion of this post:
- During combat, when the fleet's collective remaining HP drops below 25% will you be able to swap charges from say... Shield Extension & Harmonizing to Armor Reinforcement & Energizing like you can with ammo and other charges or will it follow the "Run what you brung" mantra you've adopted? This module to charge change is slightly confusing aspect if you cannot change during combat timer.
- Likewise bursts cannot be stacked, will this include say a Leadership + Information specialist at 5 having Superiority & Hardening but NOT the Optimization prevent a Leadership 5/Information specialist 3 WITH said Optimization from boosting the fleet? -- If so, will there be a 'flag' (such as free-move or the command positions) preventing such abuse? -- If not, how will BIAB choose?
- The implants will be changed from a certain bonus to AoE radius, will CCP be reimbursing the focused implants?
- What will the result be of Player A bringing all 3 Shield bursts, Player B bringing all Armor bursts, etc etc for the fleet? Besides an over-shiny fleet?
- Will exploits such as boost-swap-boost (Wait till cycle hits, swap ship, "Oh look! five new boosts!")be prevented?
- Last but not important, will fighter squadrons/drones and other space-oriented goodies be affected by the burster? I only ask because even though you won't affect a tethered ship, the citadels have shield, armor, resistances as do drones and fighters.
Thanks for listening, and don't forget to tip your waitresses and busboys. |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:53:04 -
[878] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Zorn Cosby wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
SURPRISE!!
you are playing an MMO so it will be balanced on the side of ppl working together rather than solo
So please explain why mining needs to have active boosts to improve mining gameplay? because working together should be rewarding. boosts are just one way to do that
Because if we can't hide our Nyx inside a POS shield why should a Rorqual be able to? |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:02:17 -
[879] - Quote
Now, you can use / fly the Orca into the belt, boost everybody and fly back, or even better use the Orca as hauler as well. Not beeing forced to stay, where you are, cause Mindlinks would turn of, if you are start warping.
Your Command Ship or your T3 can fly arround, help the miners ratting, light a cyno, what ever you want - cause you are not forced to live on your safespot / close to POS / close to Citadel anymore.
This reminds me of the Battle-Orders-Barbarians in Diablo 2 ... |
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:02:43 -
[880] - Quote
Warlord Balrog wrote:
Because if we can't hide our Nyx inside a POS shield why should a Rorqual be able to?
And I'm not defending the 'bug' that permits industrials from providing boosts in a POS, IMHO this has been a longtime issue that could be resolved without going to an active boost state with ammo costs (OK CCP comment on the cap issues cause if you are using ammo then cap costs disappear). I'm just commenting that the changes have a relatively large impact upon miners, and it will impact hi sec miners in a negative way that makes gameplay more costly, less beneficial, and more clicky in return for nothing. And to add insult to injury, CCP has no communicated plan to ameliorate this impact by returning SP or ISK or gametime. |
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:07:26 -
[881] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:Now, you can use / fly the Orca into the belt, boost everybody and fly back, or even better use the Orca as hauler as well. Not beeing forced to stay, where you are, cause Mindlinks would turn of, if you are start warping.
Your Command Ship or your T3 can fly arround, help the miners ratting, light a cyno, what ever you want - cause you are not forced to live on your safespot / close to POS / close to Citadel anymore.
This reminds me of the Battle-Orders-Barbarians in Diablo 2 ...
Why make Big Bertha exercise? She'll collapse if she moves too far or fast, that's more of a job for Transport/Freighters. |
Always Shi
t Posting
50
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:09:35 -
[882] - Quote
Is anyone able to activate an Improved Forum Posting command burst in this thread? |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:18:10 -
[883] - Quote
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?
If you read closely, two mining boosts had their powers combined to form captain planet! |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:30:48 -
[884] - Quote
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.
There is plenty of stuff on the market that can be defined by 'waste'. I guess CCP figured that a "200% bonus to mining crystal bonus would be too powerful, I sort of agree with that assessment, however, I do completely agree there is no point in having crystals become less volatile via link. Either: A) Remove their damage mechanic all together (Let's face it, most charges don't get damaged); or B) Directly link their mining bonus % to the crystal's EHP (NO! No repair paste mumbo-jumbo here!) from 100% at 0% damage to say 5% just before it explodes. Thus making the third M.F. charge worth more than a placeholder for something more..... creative in the future.
One of the hillarious things is most people don't realize you can get your moneys worth out of the crystals if they're "too expensive" for you by unloading them at 95-98% and recycling them at base for nocxium |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:44:02 -
[885] - Quote
Warlord Balrog 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? If you read closely, two mining boosts had their powers combined to form captain planet!
no the yield boost has been removed
the cycle time and cap have been combined
the yield boost was passive given by skill and implant
for the other links the passive skill became a script for the module shield hp armor hp ect mining had the yield one removed and replaced with the crystal bonus
i don't care either way just clarifying
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix Amplified.
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:55:11 -
[886] - Quote
Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also. |
Grimulfr Meinfertr
CAS Traitors CAStabouts
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:58:15 -
[887] - Quote
This essentially kills the free fleet boost for mining in high sec. I guess thanks for making bumping a bit less effective.... that was minor. Making mining fleet boosts only work in a small area will kill the free mining fleet. This is a massive nerf for anybody who mines with fewer than five accounts and a very major boost to the "locust fleet" where a single person manages multiple (over five) clients to vacuum up ores and ice. I guess we can easily see where CCP wants mining to go. They want miners with ten accounts buying plex with isk from players who only have one or two accounts, who sell plex for isk because it's not economically viable to mine for isk as a newer player. BUY PLEX!
Other posters: The yield boost was not a link. The yield boost was from mining foreman. |
Tavari Minrathos
PC Load Letter
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:10:22 -
[888] - Quote
Questions:
1: Will the new mining battle cruiser use an existing skill or new one?
2: Are you considering a 3rd rig slot as part of the command ship rebalance?
3: I know its coming in the 3rd blog, but can you give an idea of how extensive the changes to combat boosting ships (command ships in particular) are going to be? Are we talking minor grid/CPU adjustments, major overhauls, or just rebalancing within the ship class?
4: Has the design team planned for players twisting links. By twisting, I mean giving 2 buffs from 1 module by changing ammo types every cycle after max duration skills? Is this the designed intent for high skill play or do you see boosting modules more as utility high slot.
5: Will there be options for players to turn the graphics off/down client side to prevent mass d/c or lag issues with undock/jumping system and massive number of players spamming these visual effects? (Fleet of 70-100 players all spamming links on the Jita undock for example)
6: Roughly in which blog will we hear more about the ammo for boosts? Or will that info only be available on the test server?
Thanks for the blog and info, changes look potentially very impactful. |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:19:00 -
[889] - Quote
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.
Off the top of my head, I can think of a very good reason for opening a low slot up, TANK! (AKA Anti-gank AKA lamer-be-gone) If having an on-grid booster frees up two more low slots, you best believe those Skiff pilots will be very tankful.
On a side note, it'll be nice not having to be one of the very few boosters who fit more than one type of boost category, IE: Shield Harmonizer instead of MF cap reduction link. Face it, barges/exhumers don't need it anyway. :)
Lastly, I don't think you'll be seeing many Orcas, and unless they're very secure and/or rich, Rorq pilots boosting on field very often after the change. Hell, I bet skill injector prices will burst because of the leadership changes, many Orca pilots will repurpose or quit (probably ragequit after spending a few billion on skills and the now useless MF implant).
Not that anyone cares, but I'll be extracting all leadership skills and hold a candlelight vigil for anything relying on it (*cough* Fighters *cough*). Oh, and probably Cybernetics 5, as there'll be no implants requiring it of use anymore |
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:33:36 -
[890] - Quote
Yeah, I agree with you on Cybernetics V now basically being worthless and the big increase in extractors, this is a strong money grab from an entire class of players.
This could have been done so much more thoughtfully.
Just take current tanking as examples. Passive protective modules yield lower results for less fiddling. Active protective modules often yield better results but cost more in other areas (fit, skills, ISK or other issues). Now apply that thought process to fleet boosters. If you want a passive boost with longer range, then you can get it but with less effect. If you want an active, more effective boost with shorter range, you could get that too, but with harder fitting or other costs. This current proposal is just a ram the sucker down the throat of everyone as a cookie cutter and pray you don't screw too many of the player base.
The whole sit in a POS with your booster, was always BS, so doing away with that is OK as far as I am concerned.
But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:56:43 -
[891] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:.
But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away.
Now watch CCP just ignore input/comments/etc and just ram this sucker
how is putting another ship in belt that now needs a pilot (not someone with their pc on at work) taking away gameplay
it may take away profits but that is not the same
and even in combat why should you be able to provide passive boosts?
i cant give passive RR i cant do passive DPS i cant do passive e-war
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 17:13:36 -
[892] - Quote
What are the possibilities of making OGB work like RR, in that, the further from the booster you are, the less effective his boosts are? This will not have such a negative inpact on the change amoungst veterans AND as an added bonus will keep Rorqual and capital boosting pilots in the game a little longer because they can sit further out and at least have a chance at redemption after after it hits the fan. On a side note, it adds more tactical gameplay to develop. Should I bump that booster this way or that is only one aspect of the grid. Instead it becomes, will booshing or bumping him be worth my while? FCs will have more work, the bursting ships will require some more coordination, and the leadership skills can be put to use rather than cannon fodder in our resumes. Last but not least, Orca and Rorq pilots will not hold their mining frigates up (it will be up to a transport to keep up instead) :)
-2 cents |
Decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 17:22:48 -
[893] - Quote
Raido Kudonen wrote:
Only if you forgot to be 2-3 jumps in. It might be 15 seconds between when ceptors spike a system and shotgun anoms and when they land on you, if it's a small system. But it takes around 30 seconds to warp gate to gate in a typical nullsec system, so if you are watching the entrance to your bearing constellation and you're 2-3 jumps in you have at least 75-90 seconds to work with.
In short, don't be afk and bear while aligned.
So what you going to be doing while the core is active? cause last time i looked that's 300 seconds of not going anywhere.
|
Brodit
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 18:02:35 -
[894] - Quote
So if I read this right, farewell to passive boosts.
Okay now answer why?
Poor gameplay? Because leadership can be remotely applied. Leadership is remotely applied all the time in real life. Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea? Of course not. Furthermore I don't remember Her Maj head of the armed forces of Britain popping across to Helmand to give on grid pep talk. Unlikely any high level command ever see combat zones.
Lack of counter? Sort the mining boosts then, no combat boosts can be applied from a pos/cit.
If CCP don't like leadership skills - remove them, refund the sps, move on.
Better yet, suck it up. Modify the passive skill boosts and introduce the on grid leadership skills as a completely different set of skills within leadership skill tree. You could then have fleets with passive AND active leadership skills plus a whole host of new skills to be trained within that skill group.
When CCP said they were going to improve leadership and make it meaningful I was expecting more, not less gameplay.
I suppose any hope for a command Fortizar is shot to hull now as well.
Carry on, your going to anyway.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1905
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 18:34:36 -
[895] - Quote
Brodit wrote:Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea?
No, followers make leadership in real life a bad idea. |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 18:52:58 -
[896] - Quote
This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback:
GsyBoy wrote:Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2932
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:02:00 -
[897] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback: GsyBoy wrote:Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.
Lol you are asking CCP to split a thread like that????
they always do this kind of thing go back and look at the thread where they changed hull resists
it was swamped with ppl talking about freighters and almost nothing else could be talked about. If ccp didn't split that one no way they split this one
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:19:09 -
[898] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
how is putting another ship in belt that now needs a pilot (not someone with their pc on at work) taking away gameplay
it may take away profits but that is not the same
and even in combat why should you be able to provide passive boosts?
i cant give passive RR i cant do passive DPS i cant do passive e-war
Gotta admit you are looking a bit like a CCP tool...
Another ship was ALWAYS needed for boosts. It ALWAYS needed to be piloted. So unless you are talking about those who sit on a POS, nothing has changed in terms of ships or pilots. Now I agree that POS sitters were an issue, no risk whatsoever for pretty big gains. If this is a main beef, then this could and should have been resolved long ago via a simple patch. That is a mechanic that was always skewed by big gains for zero risk.
System-wide bonuses have been around a long, long time. Now there is a proposal to NOT do something that has pretty much always been a part of the game. People have built characters and corps around the passive effects that boosters have. The cheapening of these skills and their effects do alter the basic building blocks of the game and characters built over years in the game.
Let's see. I'm particularly interested in mining, not combat, and many of those with major concerns are surrounding the effects upon mining fleets (my example was hi sec). To have to run multiple Orcas in a single system to service a fleet, when the entire premise of that group or corp or whatever was built to just run a single Orca, is a massive issue. This is not a single small gang, or a single fleet, it is more than possible to have 60+km between ships in a single field and to have over 20 fields in a single system. + making me expend ammo to support a function that NEVER had that expense and was never planned to have that expense is yet another negative. Refilling ammo for a mining fleet, yet more clicking and expense for no gameplay advantages.
This is just more and more clicks and expense and removing SP and time spent by players for no gains. Make whatever you want of the combat issues, but this is a HUGE shift and it is a take away vs a bonus. Combat players can take different things away as I am not as sure of the impacts there (although the Strategic Cruisers seem yet again to gain more out of this than the already gimped Command Ships), miners are losing substantially in this proposal. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2937
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:23:32 -
[899] - Quote
so now you need more orcas so there is MORE reason to train the skills as corps no longer just need one pilot why is that a bad thing
i can think of a lot of players who trained orca and were never able to use it because some one just left there orca alt on all day with an open fleet even w/o a pos
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
423
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:46:30 -
[900] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so now you need more orcas so there is MORE reason to train the skills as corps no longer just need one pilot why is that a bad thing
i can think of a lot of players who trained orca and were never able to use it because some one just left there orca alt on all day with an open fleet even w/o a pos
I don't think your understanding the issue:
Firstly CCP is doing away with the orca alt on all day afk thing - the links run on fuel/ammo now so there will be limited time before having to refill. Secondly you have to be on grid so people will be much less inclned to leave an orca sitting in a belt - even in high sec all day.
I think the main issue for most miners is that there are a limited number of rocks in any belt, now we currently can have a fleet in a system with a booster mining over several belts. Anyone who has mined and has experience in doing it knows that once you get 3 or 4 skiff/mack/hulks in any single belt that you have reached a maximum. So we often split up to different belts. This change basically means that we now need to have multiple boosters for the same number of miners. And orcas are not cheap they are 700-800 million isk plus fittings and require significant investment of skills. This is a large barrier to new corps, new bros wanting to learn and grow. It effectively KILLs amazing groups like CASMA from providing a good new player experience.
I am hopefull that CCP can find a way to tie the on grid to the belt/anom beacon and give the booster the system wide or at least an AU wide boost. It still forces the booster on field which is what the main issue that most people have, and I fully agree, the days of sitting in a POS behind a shield and fleet boosting are over. Or parking at a station and boosting.
I have already in this thread said I agree with on grid, I agree with some of the simplification, and I am 100% in agreement of the use of fuel/ammo to run the boosts - its great for indy folks and miners since they will build/provide all of this new material. (Don;t forget CCP to add this to cloaks! - cloaking should use a tremendous amount of power and yes fuel)
So basically im good with these changes - it is the range issue that I am having the most diffculty with as there are belts 100s of KMs across and only the Rorq comes close to that range, and it prevents you from mining in a system, it localizes everything to one belt which for anyone who has played the game knows is just not the way it works.
I have also seen a suggestion that the hidden anoms come back, I have never liked that change to begin with I think scanning down ore sites should never have been removed, it should always be required, particularly with these changes. CCP is going to destroy wormhole mining with this change and I have never liked that high sec anoms just show up - make people actually have to work for it.
Cheers ~R~
|
|
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:48:51 -
[901] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so now you need more orcas so there is MORE reason to train the skills as corps no longer just need one pilot why is that a bad thing
i can think of a lot of players who trained orca and were never able to use it because some one just left there orca alt on all day with an open fleet even w/o a pos
And now I cannot play as I have designed my 7 PAID accounts to play. So I need to kiss CCP's *ss and be happy? Oh, I get it, you want me to ADD accounts to continue to play as I always have because 7 accounts is not enough and I need to pay for more. Don't think so, be leaving permanently before that happens.
Man, you are a tool... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2937
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:48:56 -
[902] - Quote
the links run on scripts not ammo
as for orcas costing to much to field more than one use the porpus for aux belts than orca(s) for your main group
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2937
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:50:23 -
[903] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so now you need more orcas so there is MORE reason to train the skills as corps no longer just need one pilot why is that a bad thing
i can think of a lot of players who trained orca and were never able to use it because some one just left there orca alt on all day with an open fleet even w/o a pos And now I cannot play as I have designed my 7 PAID accounts to play. So I need to kiss CCP's *ss and be happy? Oh, I get it, you want me to ADD accounts to continue to play as I always have because 7 accounts is not enough and I need to pay for more. Don't think so, be leaving permanently before that happens. Man, you are a tool...
... what?
if this is hurting multi boxing then yeah thats not a bad thing
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 20:06:22 -
[904] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:the links run on scripts not ammo
as for orcas costing to much to field more than one use the porpus for aux belts than orca(s) for your main group
From the Dev Blog
Command Bursts are high-slot modules that can be fit on the same classes of ships that can currently fit Warfare Links. There will be five types of Command Burst modules at launch, one for each of the existing fleet boost groups: Armor, Shield (formerly known as Siege), Information, Skirmish, and Mining.
These modules must be loaded with ammo in order to activate, and the ammo choices determine which bonus the module will provide to nearby fleetmates. Ammo can be swapped in the field to change bonuses as the situation changes, although a reload time of between thirty seconds and one minute means that choosing the right time to swap bonuses is important.
The ammunition for Command Bursts will be compact, inexpensive and manufactured by players primarily from ice product raw materials. We are planning for very large ammo capacities on the Burst modules themselves, so boosting characters will not need to reload often unless they are changing boost types. Command Burst modules will also require a moderate amount of capacitor to activate.
I would suggest you re read the dev blog for a better understanding of the mechanic they are implementing. |
Johnno Ormand
Discipuli Diaboli Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 21:06:44 -
[905] - Quote
If these changes go ahead I won't be boosting any longer. I have 3 accounts 1 for PvP and he 2 others are boost/mining but will not put an orca or rorq in a belt. These changes will effectively kill mining for small players like myself. CCp you will loose 2 subscriptions from me over this. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 21:27:37 -
[906] - Quote
Johnno Ormand wrote:If these changes go ahead I won't be boosting any longer. I have 3 accounts 1 for PvP and he 2 others are boost/mining but will not put an orca or rorq in a belt. These changes will effectively kill mining for small players like myself. CCp you will loose 2 subscriptions from me over this.
and you are forgetting brand new shiny industrial command with t1 battlecruiser pricetag that will come to the game on same day
you won't have to deploy orca on belt if you can afford it - porpoise is for those people
as a player who mostly does mining "for a living" I do not feel anyhow like my mining is beng "killed" by a change
EDIT: PS. and within all definition I fit into "small miner" |
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 22:57:43 -
[907] - Quote
HOLY WALL OF TEXT BATMAN
JoAnnaBeth wrote:Another thing really not needed but used to correct your gaming style,which is not approved by CCP,cause they didnt make a mining game,they made it to blow up ships,no one really cares where the ships are 'grown' at.....is it time for Tom to be avaiable for purchase,cause whats 2 hours......at this point , really i loved playing EVE, i gave ten years just to get back what. ok yes getting a venture was the best thing since sliced bread... i can give you a few more months just in case you got a bright idea,however ,given your track record (CCP) thats doubtful ,everyone wants you to actually create something useful,you have made updates and that is good to most players. Personally,i would take these last four months of the year and strip everything ,take local away and start brand new and see what they gripe about.your bringing in all this stuff and really like for me ,it all is useless,its like handing ppl broken crutches and telling them to play football and if your by yourself,what are boosts for again....i dont play this game to make friends ,the ones i do have came about the hard and enjoyable way of getting blown up and laughing about it in local.when i started playing the thought of an alt was something those 'fancy' people did so they could sit in station and talk smack all day in local.I took what i could with a grain of salt and drove on,I learned to mine,to build a ship,to shoot legal bad guys for fun as mining got stale on the second rotation,mission for standings so i can get me a JumpClone in high sec.high sec wars were really high lite of high sec.Low sec has always had issues and null sec is where to go to get lost .The game is not the same as it was,improvements are to be expected ,All this new "Content" will do what ? Well ,its not been for the new player experience,which really ends hours later maybe when you found out your suppose to be training a skill all the time but shooting those newbi npc rats was suppose to be doing you some good but really you should have doing those tutorial things which are showing you how to play the game.you start picking up that there people everywhere so lets goooo,umm yeah you decide to look at the stargate a bit,soak up its awesomeness,now you thought you were getting content looking at that gate,no,larry curly and moe,pull up to you lock you up,and your screen goes white and there your corpse is in space with a message saying your got a kill right you can "Act" on and here is 5,000 isk .Time to undock and find another ship. maybe we will try a few more of those tutorials .Rinse repeat,this process should,could,would lead to these great and beautiful things you speak of, other than giving new players somewhat better starting skills than what a number of us have had , these things your bringing to table seem to not let you do as much as a 'group' so what is the drive to get these things , the venture we use to solo mine wouldnt have boosts, are you like reducing range of modules so instead of a normal 10km (roughly) it would be reduced to 5km unless you was in a fleet? these new stuff your bringing ,sorry, revamping, or is it nerfing, really isnt practical to use,to that solo player your just jacking up everyone else's game,making them sweeter for the kill. As for fleets,removing the heirarchy's importance just doesnt seem logical,you want people to understand the importance of a fleet,of a squad commander,and etc to include that of a booster almost sounds like knowing what your fleets about, instead your giving them a Lets be Ignorant Card to understanding the game .Your talking in a good direction just walking the other way. Command bursts,as if you havent used Command enough, uses a type of ammo,script,or light switch or button on our HUD to provide boosts we click this and a sphere of influence provides this boost for a limited time,i think thats the general idea, based around the ship boosting,cause we really want to get out of our ship to switch to a mining ship to be active for the duration of the boosts.I mean why do this ,you want to steal our ships?or you going to add pod locks as well,lol,ok i dont have the common sense to understand that as a good idea. You give us the rope we will hang ourselves right. I thought the introduction of this new stuff would bring tactices into play ,some claimed it did but i got confused ,dragging people off groups to expose them isnt even possible in high sec ,wait for the "bump" unless the person is going after you and you scram and web them down ,now low sec and null different story,kidnap ,scram,and web them down,general tactics wont change,we all can now look at the pretty rays beaming from the ship and figure something other than "Target is in a Ship,Type,looks like the rainbow is loving on him" Im glad you got all these high def graphics,this was as bad as the icon change up recently.The sounds alone are enough to put someone to sleep really,the beat or pitch or something just makes me yawn.....reminds me of the adults in the peanut cartoons. Devs,Why not just announce you want everybody in an orca or this rouqal thingie that is suppose to be helpful and mining in belts cause "you" dont have enough content. dont be changing something because you cant find something to blow up or cant find someone to blow up because now we have to mine MORE to meet quotas for ships ,etc. Fix stuff,stop breaking it,stop trading stuff in for more Broke stuff.If your going to do stuff like this,just clean slate everyone to 0 sp at least we wont worry of wasting skills of this stuff .
|
Cearain
Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis
1471
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 23:09:49 -
[908] - Quote
Best dev blog ever.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Boughi
The Knights Templars System Wide Adaptive Roam Massacres
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 23:24:36 -
[909] - Quote
I am a little confused. If you are talking about command boosting why should my LvL 5 nighthawk pilot with mind link be different to my Lvl 5 orca/rorqual pilot. I believe with the command bonuses/boosting should be done with the same modules. I hope that the command module for the mining will not prevent the ships from moving (ie. industrial core for rorqual). What are you planning for the industrial core now that the compression arrays have taken over that function?
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
148
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 23:53:24 -
[910] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Funny how miners think my sieged Dread can hit 24 AU from within the POS shield where I sit AFK blapping stuff. Funny how non-miners engaged in combat activities with a siege dred in a combat fleet can think there is any comparison to a rorqual in a belt with some mining barges.
Let me get this straight.
You have a number of pilots already in your fleet benefiting from your boosts. These pilots are more than capable of docking in a citadel and reshipping before the hostiles even get in system, let alone on grid. You are sitting in a ship with north of three million EHP and passive shield recharge to the tune of 800 dps. You have an invulnerability button that lasts longer than what is left on your siege cycle, a jump drive to bail when tackle is cleared and bonused capital remote reps and drones to support your defense fleet that is literally around you the entire time.
But hey, lets link more killmails of terribly fit and or unrigged rorquals killed by a couple of cruisers to show just how unreasonable it is to put them in the field. More chance to notice an important point on zkill. Scroll to the bottom.
"waaah I'm going to lose 3bil"
TypeCostPayout None0.00904,271,769.00 Platinum678,203,827.002,260,679,424.00
There are currently rorqs on sale for 2bil flat. Three billion isk is a fully fitted and platinum insured Rorqual. Which is a net loss of 750mil. Or are you all referring to the compressed ore in cargo that will be lost because you are choosing not to haul it / warp it out in the ore bays of the barges on the way to reship?
What you are really trying to say is you want to keep mining with your 10 alts and fleet warp everything to perfect safety. You still can! You will just have to use less than perfect boosts to retain perfect safety. Reward for effort and risk.
The real discussion here is a question of "is putting the rorq in the belt enough of a bonus over the safe option to justify the risk?" Then a further discussion of whether sieging is enough of a boost over not sieging to justify that risk.
Unfortunately, that is not a discussion we can have without the concrete specifics of the rorqual changes themselves. So lets focus on "are the safe options that will be generally used good enough for general mineral supply in the game".
What the rorqual itself will be capable of doing in addition to boosts will sway the debate dramatically for smaller fleets. And by fleets, I mean actual groups of people. Not you and your group of miner alts that you skill extract any and all additional training from every month. Those individuals will not be fielding a sieged Rorqual. That's kind of the entire point. |
|
Khelar Udan
Wormbro The Society For Unethical Treatment Of Sleepers
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 00:00:38 -
[911] - Quote
Girdinus wrote:Janet McJewstein wrote: How many people will unsub their booster accounts?
I have an account just to run boosts. Once this new patch hits, I'm pulling the SP from that toon and closing the account. How many other people are in the same boat?
I dedicated an account with years of training so i can provide boost for my PVE and PVP activities because of the passive skill. Some newbies unwilling to commit to such investment whines and CCP nerfs fleet boosting? I do not know how such changes are going to affect others but i am definitely going to extract my SP and unsub my booster account when such changes are applied because I did not train my character for this kind of gameplay. (Also, refund my SP please) Such changes are not only killing PVE and it's also killing solo and small gang PVP. Finally, I would hope CCP to consider are such changes going to increase or decrease subscriptions? Because we as players, would love to see more subscriptions in Eve Online so we can have a larger community and more content. Personally, i think AFK cloaking is a bigger issue and should be resolved as soon as possible. Thank you CCP.
Just because you trained for a while to get something doesn't make it balanced. Forcing people to have links characters to even compete half the time in a lot of pvp situations is stupid. There is so little risk involved and so much reward and that's not balanced. I don't really see how this is killing solo or small gang pvp at all and it's definitely not killing pve so idk what that's about.
Also afk cloaking is not an issue get over it
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2943
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 00:02:10 -
[912] - Quote
Vald Tegor
reasoning doesn't work on them. They don't want balance they want isk with no risk
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ron Utia
II MEF
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 00:14:30 -
[913] - Quote
Trained passive links on JF alt, little extra ehp and agility |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
149
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 00:16:57 -
[914] - Quote
PANIC button question: Does it make the ship unable to be locked, unable to activate modules upon, or simply give 100% resists?
The former would give the Rorqual pilot a potential chance to jump out at the end of the invulnerability before they could be pointed. The latter might have interesting interactions with Titan effect generators and wormholes. |
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 00:42:26 -
[915] - Quote
I find it amusing that PVP'ers with no experience in mining commenting on how Miners should adapt to PVP as the answer to these changes.
First of all, no, the bulk of miners in EVE are massively terrible at PVP and won't get better because you want shiney Rorq killmails. Your suggestion that they lose PVP ships to you as well is a bait or a troll, and in no way genuine.
Second, the "defenses" of the proposed Panic Rorq are anything but. Siege imobilizes the Rorq for 5 minutes, meaning it's dead. The Panic button immobilizes it and its fleet for a short time but does not make the Rorq invulnerable, so it's dead. Once dead, the bubbled/scrammed Exhumers are now dead. Invulnerable does not preclude caught, it just means it's it is waiting to die.
I guess at that point the miner can reship and die to your gang in extra ships. At no point in this cluster of a proposed solutions can a Rorq warp off or give its fleet the ability to fend your gang off better.
So thus, a miner gang which is used to running away like good little prey, has to sacrifice its biggest asset to the hunters and our only suggestion is to die slower and fight them after they've been caught... what a disengenuous and brilliant suggestion =˙Ł
Let's put those Rorqs on the field boys. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
149
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 01:36:14 -
[916] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:I find it amusing that PVP'ers with no experience in mining false premise
Damocles Orindus wrote: the bulk of miners in EVE are massively terrible at PVP and won't get better because you want shiney Rorq killmails Who said I want shiny rorq killmails? I want those who can't handle deploying them to use a weaker booster, giving an edge to those of us who can.
Damocles Orindus wrote:Second, the "defenses" of the proposed Panic Rorq are anything but. Siege imobilizes the Rorq for 5 minutes, meaning it's dead. The Panic button immobilizes it and its fleet for a short time
No, just because you are immobile does not mean you are dead. You are not going to die because a single interceptor came into your system.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6615635#post6615635 The first loss he linked died to a hound, a curse and a stratios. That should not happen, even if it's just you and your alts. |
Vraygan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 01:40:08 -
[917] - Quote
CCP, is there a minimum wait time before the Rorqual can use or be affected by PANIC? If there isn't then a few Rorquals could chain PANIC.
On Rorqual, make Industrial core module prevent cyno fields from being activated nearby. If that can be abused, then it can be solved by changing the Industrial Core module so that it has to be activated on an asteroid. And/or it could create a large warp disruption bubble for ships not in the fleet?
To prevent the Rorqual pinnatta situation, I think that PANIC should allow the miners/industrials to attack while invulnerable. Forcing the PANIC to target an asteroid would also prevent abuse, that way there wouldn't be roaming invulnerable industrial PVP gangs ;) |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
149
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 02:13:11 -
[918] - Quote
Vraygan wrote:On Rorqual, make Industrial core module prevent cyno fields from being activated nearby. Please elaborate on why you would like your Rorqual to lose the ability to Cyno in support ships to defend it.
Vraygan wrote:If nd/or it could create a large warp disruption bubble for ships not in the fleet? In other words, passively bubble all the other miners around who do not wish to be subjected to you hitting your PANIC button at a terrible time?
Vraygan wrote:To prevent the Rorqual pinnatta situation, I think that PANIC should allow the miners/industrials to attack while invulnerable. Forcing the PANIC to target an asteroid would also prevent abuse, that way there wouldn't be roaming invulnerable industrial PVP gangs ;) A fleet of invulnerable skiffs doing 300+ dps each, man you're on a roll. Are you sure that's safe enough for you? Why don't we just make the Rorqual an invulnerable Citadel while sieged and tether all the barges while they mine. |
Vraygan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 03:05:56 -
[919] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Vraygan wrote:On Rorqual, make Industrial core module prevent cyno fields from being activated nearby. Please elaborate on why you would like your Rorqual to lose the ability to Cyno in support ships to defend it. Gladly. Shorten Industrial Core cycle time. Then you can deter unwelcome BLOPS and allow help by turning it off.
Vald Tegor wrote:Vraygan wrote:If and/or it could create a large warp disruption bubble for ships not in the fleet? In other words, passively bubble all the other miners around who do not wish to be subjected to you hitting your PANIC button at a terrible time? Good point. Only interdicts non-Industrials. Haulers and miners warp unhindered, but others stop at edge to give miners extra time to warp away. Turn it off to let help warp right to you.
Vald Tegor wrote: A fleet of invulnerable skiffs doing 300+ dps each, man you're on a roll. Are you sure that's safe enough for you? Why don't we just make the Rorqual an invulnerable Citadel while sieged and tether all the barges while they mine.
Make the Rorqual an invulnerable Citadel? You're the one on a roll. ;) You don't seem to realize that you are accidentally agreeing with me by saying a Rorqual Skiff fleet would not be scary for you. #TrollFail |
Vraygan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 03:27:16 -
[920] - Quote
Johnno Ormand wrote:If these changes go ahead I won't be boosting any longer. I have 3 accounts 1 for PvP and he 2 others are boost/mining but will not put an orca or rorq in a belt. These changes will effectively kill mining for small players like myself. CCp you will loose 2 subscriptions from me over this. Your two miners mine to PLEX your accounts, right? If so , you dropping them saves CCP because it is less bandwidth used and marginally increases PLEX's worth due to it being connected to mineral cost/supply. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 03:41:58 -
[921] - Quote
So, unless my math is wrong, the boosts from the orca have been nerfed by roughly 16%? |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
149
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 04:01:19 -
[922] - Quote
Vraygan wrote:Gladly. Shorten Industrial Core cycle time. Then you can deter unwelcome BLOPS and allow help by turning it off. So you want it to inhibit Covert Cynos as well. Something no other cyno inhibiting mechanic in the game affects and for good reason. To what range exactly? Might as well be system wide so they can't cyno off grid and warp to you before you cycle down, right?
Then you want to cut the cycle time down to 1 minute. A mining link burst from a Rorq lasts 2min 20s. So in addition to a free cyno jammer, since you didn't think there might be a downside, you want to be able to siege for 60s, burst, siege off and coast the bonused effect for a minute and a half, effectively being out of siege ready to jump out more than half the time.
For those paying attention, that means you can cycle down your siege for over a minute every five as it is. You just have to actually do things with the rorqual pilot other than restock heavy water in a tower every so often.
Vraygan wrote:Good point. Only interdicts non-Industrials. Haulers and miners warp unhindered, but others stop at edge to give miners extra time to warp away. Turn it off to let help warp right to you. So code special magic bubbles that work nothing like other bubbles in the game, so they only screw over ratters that come help with rats outside drone control range and other friendly pvp ships coming to help. Because anchoring a bubble yourself if when and where you want it is so hard in the first place. Also, we all want to see something as game changing as bubbles in low security space right? That's the right way to go, because you want to deploy a capital ship without adequate support safely.
Vald Tegor wrote:
[quote=Vraygan]You don't seem to realize that you are accidentally agreeing with me by saying a Rorqual Skiff fleet would not be scary for you. #TrollFail
You are literally asking for the equivalent of sitting in a POS shield and shooting the attackers while invulnerable, and you say I am the one trolling...
The skiffs dps is a deterrent to someone who sees what is on grid and knows they don't have enough for a favorable trade. They go away, unless they're dumb. The ones who light a cyno anyway obviously brought enough. It's the support you have available to counter drop that takes care of that. But you can't plan that far ahead (or you wouldn't have the cyno inhibitor idea problem above) and instead want sweeping changes to game mechanics all so you can deploy a capital ship safely. Yeah, I am totally agreeing with you |
jumama
Underemployed INC
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 04:02:27 -
[923] - Quote
This dumbs down ganking quite a bit.
Say I'm in an orca, boosting a mining fleet.
With the current range limitations, I have to be dead center in order to boost my fleet that is spread through the asteroid field. Dead center is next to the default warp in spot. 7ish years ago, we used to mark an asteroid on the end. Warp to it and travel at extreme low speed across the field, skimming some, gobbling others... True Strip Mining may see its' return.
Now, lets move to wormhole space. Oh... I can only boost 2 asteroids at a time with the current range limitations, if I'm lucky and the 2 asteroids are close to each other. Commonly, asteroids in WH fields are 30 to 50, or more apart. It amounts to a lot of tedious moving for slow ships, that will be even more clumsy without the passive command agility bonus.
Given that it is more efficient/productive for me to hop in a barge/exhumer and simply mine, rather than boost, if there is less than 4 to boost... And also given that 4+ miners and a boost ship... all within Smartbomb range will breed a new style of ganking... the AE Smartbomb gank maneuver, where a handful of gankers pack their resists to their own smartbombs (which they have loaded in every high slot available) in order to survive for as many pulses as they can before blowing each other, and the entire mining fleet like a cheerleader on prom night.
If the passive Mining Yield boost poofs... I'm going to take my ships off the markets, learn to fly them, and then just blow stuff up for a year.
/retire boost ship ... eat 2 million SP loss from Extractor/Injector inefficiencies... train combat stuff... blow stuff up, instead of producing anything, like everyone else. Then the marketing experts run out of stuff to sell... then pilots have to start making their own ships... then the system rebalances itself... = See ya next year when the balance has been restored to the force.
In short, the range thing blows monkey balls.
Also... the burst thing seems like it's going to cause major lag issues. Zillions of extra Timers counting down... Especially if ALL bursts trigger timers... i.e. getting hit with a max skill level boost, then getting hit with a lower skill level boost gives you 2 separate timers... one for the max boost and one for the low skill boost.
1,000,000 isk says that places like Jita trigger crashes that lead to a series of emergency rollbacks/downtime days. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
149
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 04:36:41 -
[924] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
- Will command ships receive a bay bonus or get a special bay for the ammunition?
No, the ammo volume will be low enough that such a bay wouldn't really be worthwhile.
I think people don't expect it to be needed the way a fuel bay on a black ops is. But I think you have people worried with the ice product bit in the blog. I know it made me instantly think of running two to three T2 Entosis links and having 200+m3 of rainbow flavored stront in my cargo.
When looking at the volume of the scripts, please keep in mind these ships are likely to be carrying a lot of things in cargo as is. Cap charges instantly come to mind. Mobile depot and alternate link modules (60m3 + ammo each) in case a particular kind of booster is eliminated and a surviving redundancy needs to refit to fill the hole. These are likely to be the individuals who bring bubbles to anchor. It would need to be near zero volume, which I am not entirely sure is a good thing either.
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
149
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 04:59:39 -
[925] - Quote
jumama wrote: Oh... I can only boost 2 asteroids at a time with the current range limitations, if I'm lucky and the 2 asteroids are close to each other. Commonly, asteroids in WH fields are 30 to 50, or more apart.
You are boosting the mining ships, not the asteroids...
A wing command 4 Orca will provide bonuses to Mining Ships out to 35km. That's 35km <- that way AND -> that way. A 70 km diameter. You will further boost the mining range of those barges by 80.86%, allowing them to reach out to 27 km.
Your orca allows for mining of anything within 62 km. Across a 124km span. And that's with WC4, not even perfect boosts.
|
Vraygan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 06:24:52 -
[926] - Quote
Vald Tegor, I'm sorry you're unable to tell the difference between a suggestion and a detailed proposal. My statements were suggestions. In case you don't know, suggestions are proposed to address part of a problem (independently), while detailed proposals are logical constructs where all parts of it are linked and can be picked apart in the way you have naively done. Well, that or you're willingly constructing a fallacious straw-man argument. Either way, it shows why your posts shouldn't be taken seriously.
Vald Tegor wrote: So you want it to inhibit Covert Cynos as well. Something no other cyno inhibiting mechanic in the game affects and for good reason. To what range exactly? Might as well be system wide so they can't cyno off grid and warp to you before you cycle down, right? Then you want to cut the cycle time down to 1 minute. A mining link burst from a Rorq lasts 2min 20s. So in addition to a free cyno jammer, since you didn't think there might be a downside, you want to be able to siege for 60s, burst, siege off and coast the bonused effect for a minute and a half, effectively being out of siege ready to jump out more than half the time.
For those paying attention, that means you can cycle down your siege for over a minute every five as it is. You just have to actually do things with the rorqual pilot other than restock heavy water in a tower every so often.
Actually I said "and/or". So you ignored the "or" in so that you could attack me for asking for "GodMode" miners. Again, it is a suggestion where the developers can choose. On the plus side, Vald, you did succeed in making one non-fallacious argument there. I should have said "or". Oh, about the siege cycle time... I never said that Industrial Core cycle time should be different than its siege time. You made that part up, or you're lacking in reading comprehension skills. Unlike you, I've committed some brainpower to figuring out the core point you're trying to make, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You're right, that would be a bad idea. Good job arguing against a bad idea you came up with! Way to go! You deserve a Gold Star! No, the Siege time (debuff effect) could actually be different and longer than the cycle (module timer) and Industrial Core (buff effect) time. You see, those are 3 separate mechanics that I'm suggesting for developers to consider individually...
Vald Tegor wrote: So code special magic bubbles that work nothing like other bubbles in the game, so they only screw over ratters that come help with rats outside drone control range and other friendly pvp ships coming to help. Because anchoring a bubble yourself if when and where you want it is so hard in the first place. Also, we all want to see something as game changing as bubbles in low security space right? That's the right way to go, because you want to deploy a capital ship without adequate support safely.
It wouldn't be often that a Rorqual's fighters and flights of drones from maybe 5 exhumers would need help taking down rats, especially in low-sec. But, let's think further on what you said. If you think that would be a "special magic bubble", then to you ALL bubbles are "special magic bubbles" because interceptors can warp right through them. Oops, LOL! But lets look at what you say after that. Please tell me how "game changing" it would be if a 2Bil ISK Rorqual could place a bubble ONLY in the belt mining anomalies it is in? You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I originally said the Rorqual modules should have to target an asteroid to prevent that specific thing from happening... That or you think that bubbles in low-sec belts can be used offensively. Well, I guess someone could use the Rorqual as risky bait.
Vald Tegor wrote:You are literally asking for the equivalent of sitting in a POS shield and shooting the attackers while invulnerable, and you say I am the one trolling... The skiffs dps is a deterrent to someone who sees what is on grid and knows they don't have enough for a favorable trade. They go away, unless they're dumb. The ones who light a cyno anyway obviously brought enough. It's the support you have available to counter drop that takes care of that. But you can't plan that far ahead (or you wouldn't have the cyno inhibitor idea problem above) and instead want sweeping changes to game mechanics all so you can deploy a capital ship safely. Yeah, I am totally agreeing with you Wait, you keep going back and forth on whether miners are formidable in combat... So we can agree that attackers would judge the situation and make sure they brought enough firepower. The miners are invulnerable for a time, but the drones attacking the enemies are not. The attackers can easily judge that how many drones a mining fleet could put out and bring enough support to tank and kill the drones. You've just disproven yourself again. It just raises the commitment required of invaders when trying to take out a 2Bil capital ship. No cyno would mean the attackers would have to enter system via gate or WH. 2B ship gives more time to escape. Bubble would mean the attackers would have to MWD before lighting a cyno. 2B ship gives more time to escape.
FYI: Khan Academy offers free classes on critical thinking. I think you could get a lot of of that. |
Nevim Otazky
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 08:07:31 -
[927] - Quote
Way to go CCP! It's a new mechanic I'm really looking forward to.
Sir Constantin wrote:For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted".
This is a good question. Any thoughts on this? Would you consider it part of the emergent gameplay?
No time for this
|
Nevim Otazky
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 08:24:31 -
[928] - Quote
About the range:
Johnny Galnetty wrote:If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.
This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW.
It says the base is 15km + (30% from Leadership 5 + 25% from WC + 20% FC) = 26.6km
If it sounds short, I think the intent is for multiple command ships / command dessies to be on field instead of the current single booster for the entire fleet.
You can have your tackle/EW get a quick boost from a command dessie before going of.
I'd imagine there will be a command ship boosting DPS and then a dedicated one for Logi (with a long range whore gun for the KMs :P)
Command ships and command dessies will be micro-jumping all over the field to give boosts.
I like the idea. Looking forward!
No time for this
|
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 08:59:09 -
[929] - Quote
Is the mining bonus from mining links being increased? Something written in the OP suggested it will be, but it was not clear to me.
Currently the orca gets a max mining cycle time reduction of around 32% with mining mindlink and max skills. Is this max being increased, and to what? |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
687
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 09:33:28 -
[930] - Quote
I have questions concerning recloaking after boosting. Any word on that? |
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
150
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 10:00:19 -
[931] - Quote
Vraygan wrote: Actually I said "and/or". So you ignored the "or" in so that you could attack me for asking for "GodMode" miners.
You suggested: "make Industrial core module prevent cyno fields from being activated nearby. And/or it could create a large warp disruption bubble"
To which I replied "why you would like your Rorqual to lose the ability to Cyno in support ships to defend it"
You replied with "Shorten Industrial Core cycle time. Then you can deter unwelcome BLOPS and allow help by turning it off."
You suggested it Cyno Jam AND affect covert cyno AND reduce cycle time.
I do apologize for quantifying the cycle time to one minute. I must have mixed your post up with another i read at the time on that matter.
I don't need to "Build strawmen to attack you for wanting god mode miners". I'm not attacking you, merely leading you into realizing why your suggestions are ill conceived. You did that to yourself when you unironically "suggested" that invincible ships should be allowed to apply damage. Perhaps you don't remember the days when drones used to be able to attack while the ships that launched them were sitting safely in a POS bubble. I do. That was actually a thing!
Vraygan wrote:Oh, about the siege cycle time... I never said that Industrial Core cycle time should be different than its siege time. You made that part up, or you're lacking in reading comprehension skills. Unlike you, I've committed some brainpower to figuring out the core point you're trying to make, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You're right, that would be a bad idea. Good job arguing against a bad idea you came up with! Way to go! You deserve a Gold Star! No, the Siege time (debuff effect) could actually be different and longer than the cycle (module timer) and Industrial Core (buff effect) time. You see, those are 3 separate mechanics that I'm suggesting for developers to consider individually... All siege/triage/bastion modules go on and off, with duration of positive and negative effects tied to that cycle. You suggest shorter cycle. I assume it affects the entire siege mechanic in my reply. You then
- Say I came up with the idea of them being separate things - Agree it's a BAD IDEA! - Suggest the devs actually make it 3 separate things in the next sentence
And I'm the one building strawmen...
Vraygan wrote: It wouldn't be often that a Rorqual's fighters and flights of drones from maybe 5 exhumers would need help taking down rats, especially in low-sec. But, let's think further on what you said. If you think that would be a "special magic bubble", then to you ALL bubbles are "special magic bubbles" because interceptors can warp right through them. Oops, LOL! But lets look at what you say after that. Please tell me how "game changing" it would be if a 2Bil ISK Rorqual could place a bubble ONLY in the belt mining anomalies it is in? You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I originally said the Rorqual modules should have to target an asteroid to prevent that specific thing from happening... That or you think that bubbles in low-sec belts can be used offensively. Well, I guess someone could use the Rorqual as risky bait.
It is not at all uncommon, especially for Gurista rats (and sleepers if i recall, been out of W-space a while), to have battleships orbit as far as 90km. Your drones have a 60km (if you maxed the skills) control range. Or do you plan on fitting two drone link augmentors instead of strip miners on those barges? No, you call one of the ratters in the standing fleet to clear them out.
Bubbles are bubbles. They all function the same way! What we have are ships that are immune to the effects of bubbles, which is a very different thing from a bubble that specifically affects some ship types and not others. You can say I put words in your mouth again, but I don't believe you were honestly suggesting that all mining and hauling ships should be completely immune to all bubbles like interceptors are.
Low sec is a very special place. It is hard to lose a pod there if you know what you are doing. As a result, some people run around with implants that cost far more than your Rorq. Would someone troll bait with a rorq bubble? Yeah. Bet on it.
Vraygan wrote:Wait, you keep going back and forth on whether miners are formidable in combat... So we can agree that attackers would judge the situation and make sure they brought enough firepower. No cyno would mean the attackers would have to enter system via gate or WH. Bubble would mean the attackers would have to MWD before lighting a cyno.
No I'm not. I thought I was pretty clear. Should a mining fleet be afraid of three guys roaming in cruisers? Lol no. Should they be afraid of getting bubble f'd and having capitals dropped on them? Lol yes. Thank you for re-iterating what I said.
You do not want them to drop right on top of your fleet? There are mechanics in the game for that already! In null, you can install a cyno inhibitor that affects the entire system! With your own (super)capitals in system to dunk people that come in. Otherwise, there is a deployable you can anchor that disables the ability to light cynos within 100 km of it! They do not stop covert cynos as I mentioned previously. See the your own capitals in system to dunk part. You want bubbles to protect you? Anchor them!
So why is your suggestion bad? Because these mechanics already exist, it just takes effort and resources to use them. You want it passive and for free - the opposite of the design ideals of these changes.
You know what else we do? Scout enemy systems within jump range. When they form up for a drop, we put away things we can't protect from what they have (that we care about losing)
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
150
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 10:30:07 -
[932] - Quote
Nevim Otazky wrote:About the range:
It says the base is 15km + (30% from Leadership 5 + 25% from WC + 20% FC) = 26.6km
15 * 1.3 * 1.25 * 1.2 = 29.25km for the base (command destroyer) 29.25 * 1.5 = 43.875km for Combat Battlecruisers and T3's 29.25 * 2.0 = 58.5km for Command Ships 29.25 * 3.0 = 87.75km for Capitals
So capitals can still boost for a fleet spread over a 170km diameter. However, Command Ships will provide the strongest bonuses and having multiple CS providing the same bonus for redundancy will probably be the standard. In large engagements, I can see CS pilots reshipping and coming back into the fight or hopping from fleet to fleet depending on where they are most needed as well.
The one issue I have with it, is the ship that is most likely to be with a small gang of fast ships that tend to spread out will have the lowest boosting range. Though forcing such gangs to run with inconsistent boosts over a drawn out engagement might be a good thing in terms of balancing the haves fighting the have nots. |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
37
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 12:21:21 -
[933] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Jalen Mynar wrote:yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links? Triple battleship NPC spawns with their escorts.
...or 6 BC/C with high RoF and TP. damn, a hulk can't tank it without shield links, and they know ut, that's why they are giving us also that "upgrade". |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
446
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 12:51:36 -
[934] - Quote
Johnno Ormand wrote:If these changes go ahead I won't be boosting any longer. I have 3 accounts 1 for PvP and he 2 others are boost/mining but will not put an orca or rorq in a belt. These changes will effectively kill mining for small players like myself. CCp you will loose 2 subscriptions from me over this.
Does your booster mine? Are your mining ships suddenly unable to mine without boosts?
|
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 12:55:20 -
[935] - Quote
As of ammunition/fuel for Command Burts modules
Like some other pointed, blog proposed fuel mechanics can create some unpleasant logistics problems with cargo space consumed, stockpiling effort etc.
- Best solution IMO would be to use not consumed scripts.
- If you really want to have some resource sink for boosting then crystal mechanics like for lasers or mining seems appropriate to me. In this case you can even update Command Burst Specialist skill effect to lower crystal damage.
Both changes would limit logistic hassle and possible cargo space issues |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
21
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 13:18:46 -
[936] - Quote
Nevim Otazky wrote:Sir Constantin wrote:For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted". This is a good question. Any thoughts on this? Would you consider it part of the emergent gameplay?
it still requires booster ship to be present "on-grid" of the acceleration gate which grid has unlimited access by any ship
sure if someone is inside and is about to be attacked by such squadron the enemy fleet will have that minute and half of free boosts from outside of that grid
for which ppl inside the deep speace pocket should be prepared because if they are anyhow serious in what they are doing they would see boosting ship alongside the others on d-scan |
Vraygan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 14:41:56 -
[937] - Quote
Just to state my position, I made my suggestions because I know that Rorquals will rarely be used unless they are given more safety. My suggestions are meant to suggest additional safety mechanics to partially mitigate that. What is your position on that?
Vald Tegor wrote:I don't need to "Build strawmen to attack you for wanting god mode miners". I'm not attacking you, merely leading you into realizing why your suggestions are ill conceived. No, that would be Ad Hominem. A Straw-Man argument sets up a false version of the opponentGÇÖs position (the Straw-Man) and tries to score points by attacking the Straw-Man.
Vald Tegor wrote:Low sec is a very special place. It is hard to lose a pod there if you know what you are doing. As a result, some people run around with implants that cost far more than your Rorq. Would someone troll bait with a rorq bubble? Yeah. Bet on it. I never said that the bubble should be usable in low sec. It would be prevented the same way low-sec prevents HICs from bubbling there. However if the dev's want Rorquals to still be used in low-sec, devs choosing to allow a defensive bubble that is limited to places where ore is found could help. Obvious bait is obvious.
Vald Tegor wrote:Because these mechanics already exist, it just takes effort and resources to use them. You want it passive and for free - the opposite of the design ideals of these changes. Yep, the things I'm suggesting are already in the game as deployables. Yet for some reason you think that adding any of my suggestions to the Rorqual hull (like bubbles given to HICS) are ill conceived? |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
22
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 15:02:54 -
[938] - Quote
Vraygan wrote:Vald Tegor wrote:Because these mechanics already exist, it just takes effort and resources to use them. You want it passive and for free - the opposite of the design ideals of these changes. Yep, the things I'm suggesting are already in the game as deployables. Yet for some reason you think that adding any of my suggestions to the Rorqual hull (like bubbles given to HICS) are ill conceived?
redundant I'd say
and then apart from all your suggestions - maybe instead of throwing wars on what changes rorqual needs now, better way would to to actually wait for promised devblog going in details about changes given in november to industrial ships - namely rorqual and orca changes + that new smaller industrial command vessel?
You claim that rorqual to be ever again deployed after november patch will need much more defensive tools at hand - but we do not know yet what CCP have planned for it apart from that "superweapon" and huge mining drones - so maybe instead of wasting nerves on silly arguments now, better wait a moment calmly and see what exacly is he going to receive? |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1714
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 16:33:24 -
[939] - Quote
I think there isn't enough counterplay still. I would like the links to be a Hic style bubble with a short cycle (5 seconds maybe) so that neuting can be a possibility. Use scripts instead of fuel
Maybe sensor damps could have a script that reduces boost range also |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
23
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:15:29 -
[940] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:I think there isn't enough counterplay still. I would like the links to be a Hic style bubble with a short cycle (5 seconds maybe) so that neuting can be a possibility. Use scripts instead of fuel
Maybe sensor damps could have a script that reduces boost range also
welp killing the booster first seems be the most straight counterplay that comes to mind
as with making it short cycle HIC style buble it would practically kill at least one possibility for miners I can see with current proposal of command burst mechanics.... |
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
280
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:17:08 -
[941] - Quote
Using a quote from the Dev Blog:
Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its power
And this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations.
Generally in a mining fleet you have:
- One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.
- One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.
- At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.
Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca.
Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles.
Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals.
I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost.
At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1714
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:17:30 -
[942] - Quote
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 |
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:20:02 -
[943] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Using a quote from the Dev Blog: Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its powerAnd this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations. Generally in a mining fleet you have:
- One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.
- One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.
- At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.
Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca. Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles. Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals. I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost. At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.
You forget how easy it will be to bump the booster away too. At leasty if they're using a big slow Orca anyway. |
Oobleck Yokian
The three Rabbi Commercial Artel Ethnosis Link
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:36:07 -
[944] - Quote
OK CCP, u are making smth wrong
(sry for all mistakes, mein English is so so) This post will consist of 2 parts, first - brief history of our corp, second - my list of troubles and offers to/of currently supposed future mechanics.
PART1 My corporation lives in wh, doing so for ... over 4 years at least. Main fun thing - roam nulls or wh`s. Not so far ago we was forced to moove out of c5-c5 (not cause of lost POS, but because of lack isk/h and isk/danger changes due to wh drifters announcement), with this one went another trouble - we literally lost SP`s that was in capital ships (i know it`s not direct CCP fault, but still) cause drifters are no match to what it was. So. We left c5 and now are living in c2-c5, farming c5 and still - roaming nulls and whs. Not so far ago we decided to buy Link Alt (cost 16b), so that we can participate in more pvp (cause as usual, people are too afraid of pvp`ing while there is still a chance to die). After this announcment, its clear like a day that with currents stats Smaaall scale (1-3 people + bonus) pvp gonna have a bad day. It will NOT be(this one is for CCP Fozzie statement about not returning SP) the same thing we payed 16b for, it will be just flying hull with no skills to do the work right. For the same price we could bought gay-cloack-falcon alt or smth, so that we could be in-grid, as CCP wants.
PART2 - list of what is wrong and list of suggestion
What is basicly not ok, to my mind (yes, i understand that ccp wanna give players some options against bonus, BUT)
- FW warriors still can boost themself`s near station to gain some advantage, so can do null home camping ppl as well
- Solo and small gangs (1-3 ppl) will be greatly nerfed (while mid-large scale ones arent), entire solo based pvp against blob will be ripped of. blobs-blobs-blobs, the game will be about blobes.
- In grid full shield sleipnir will cause brave pvp`s not to undock 2-4 ships on 1, as now, but 8-10 (blobs!) (cyno that ***er)
- warp-in/warp-out tactis - best way to implement new mechanics! why not to make then so that scan ships cant scan in cloack? more in grid mechanics!
- God tier anchor based strategy for fleets - the skill, THE SKILL!
- i bet thousands of links alts will be -üut in skill injectors (got u, this is ur real plan), so that mains can sit on bonuses while they still can be usefull (like rly)
- another super tactic - be full tanked turtle, so if turtle cant tank, neither ship in gang can - (with LEEEEROYY JENKINS voice) "REWAAAAAAARP"
so my offers are
- fleet sized based range on links - the smaller gang, the further links are working (so that there still be a space to solo pilots to operate with almost usless links, while still being kind`a in safe position)
- system based range of link - the more safer is system (hs-low-null-wh), the closer links should work
- rethink ur system (yep, all of it), do the opposite, make modules that TURNS OFF links on shipts in some area
- make links like tether mechanics, if u are near them - u got links, if not - u`re not. it will at least solve 1st problem.
- make people decide, whether to rellocate SP on the same char or not (it changes A LOT, Fozzie, like A LOT)
The most disheartening thing of this patch is that it only gives opportunities to the mid sized groupes, so that they can easily kill other bonuses, while having theirs safe with logi/self tank/just over blobbing. The entire small scale/solo pvp will suffer from it, as now u need to fly 1-2 hours to get some fair pvp (where u can die, and ur opponents as well), after the patch it`ll be x2. U can simply detect those links if u got hands, if u`ll say - "poor known space ppl cant into d`scan" i say - "its their fault, why cant u click d`scan or simply watch what goes in ur system? there is A LOCAL maaaan~, there is no such a thing in wh and we are ok with that. System should encourage ppl to use all possible sorces of information, and not help them, when they are simply too lazy to do so".
Aaaand thats it.
Thanks for ur time :-* |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
23
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:39:40 -
[945] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Using a quote from the Dev Blog: Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its powerAnd this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations. Generally in a mining fleet you have:
- One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.
- One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.
- At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.
Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca. Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles. Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals. I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost. At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.
firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command
secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog
thirdly - some math:
sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk
for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]
with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts
also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it.... |
Beta Maoye
134
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:54:55 -
[946] - Quote
Booster parked at safe spot. Buffed up attackers. Tackler bumps/scrambles target. Buffed attackers warp to kill and then warp back to booster for buff. Wait for another target to appear.
Same as before that targets are neutralized without the booster on-grid. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
280
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:57:56 -
[947] - Quote
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command
secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog
thirdly - some math:
sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk
for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]
with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts
also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....
Let's start with what we know, since nothing about the Porpoise has been released, along with any updates for the Orca or the Rorqual.
The Orca, when fit properly for boosting, eats up almost all the CPU/PG. This is using all three T2 links, large ACR/CCC and large fuel nozzle rigs.
Once you look at the CPU/PG used, it means that even with rigs you cannot fit it for a MWD pulse for a fast align and warp out because it lacks PG. This forces you into a tank fit where you lose space in the main cargohold and gain an incredibly slow warp out. Running the tank fit, you'll need at least 2 cycles with an overloaded AB, or three cycles on the AB when not overloaded.
Factor in a suspect flag and there is no balance to risk versus reward ... it's all risk.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2956
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:19:17 -
[948] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command
secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog
thirdly - some math:
sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk
for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]
with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts
also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....
Let's start with what we know, since nothing about the Porpoise has been released, along with any updates for the Orca or the Rorqual. The Orca, when fit properly for boosting, eats up almost all the CPU/PG. This is using all three T2 links, large ACR/CCC and large fuel nozzle rigs. Once you look at the CPU/PG used, it means that even with rigs you cannot fit it for a MWD pulse for a fast align and warp out because it lacks PG. This forces you into a tank fit where you lose space in the main cargohold and gain an incredibly slow warp out. Running the tank fit, you'll need at least 2 cycles with an overloaded AB, or three cycles on the AB when not overloaded. Factor in a suspect flag and there is no balance to risk versus reward ... it's all risk.
... or instead of an mwd you could oh idk fit a web or two to the miners?
but i may just be crazy
Citadel worm hole tax
|
leyo690
Asocial Club
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:22:00 -
[949] - Quote
so , Here is the end of a teen-years generation of players, accused to use links to boost the power of their ships. A good part of them abused of it, i totally agree. Another part of them intended to maintain a rumour... "the few against the many"... and they will now leave the game. We loose those who was giving their best to spread and keep up the necessary hope in all eve players for them to renew their sub, since years ago.
Obviously, we're facing no more than someone who needs kind of a revenge. rage. a very old rage. It comes along with a free-to-play eve model, bringing up alienation at its best. We can see that players who are opposed to this link suppression, tell it with calm. That's because they have already forgot the game. For the best pleasure of Fozzie " i don't mind loosing a part of players if i can earn many others". From where i come we have an expression that could be translated by "you only know what you are loosing, not what you will earn".
CCP ignores all the deceptions here, supported by players who never opened themselves to indivudal skills and creativity.
I feel pretty lucky to have lost interest for Eve and gaming a year ago, and i keep the best memories of gaming experience i could have with this game and the guys i met in it.. Eve is another place that have been corrupted now, which is the sad part we'll have to remember now when we'll be thinking about good old times in Eve.
Long life to this brilliant CCP 2016 team.. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:38:53 -
[950] - 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. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2956
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:45:09 -
[951] - Quote
Rowells wrote: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.
not only that it isn't even that they are "unkillable" but rather there are better targets where you will get more out of your dps
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
23
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 19:43:14 -
[952] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command
secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog
thirdly - some math:
sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk
for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]
with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts
also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....
Let's start with what we know, since nothing about the Porpoise has been released, along with any updates for the Orca or the Rorqual. The Orca, when fit properly for boosting, eats up almost all the CPU/PG. This is using all three T2 links, large ACR/CCC and large fuel nozzle rigs. Once you look at the CPU/PG used, it means that even with rigs you cannot fit it for a MWD pulse for a fast align and warp out because it lacks PG. This forces you into a tank fit where you lose space in the main cargohold and gain an incredibly slow warp out. Running the tank fit, you'll need at least 2 cycles with an overloaded AB, or three cycles on the AB when not overloaded. Factor in a suspect flag and there is no balance to risk versus reward ... it's all risk.
The point you are constantly missing that for what we KNOW now, there WILL be changed to orca AND rorqual and ontop of that there will be new cheap ship for miner boosting [about which we already know that is named porpoise, we know from command bursts blog what bonuses regardning command bursts it will have and that it will have pricetag of t1 battleruiser] which will be covered in one of next devblogs.
so point is, that because we know there WILL be changes, let us wait patiently to see what changes they have up their mind AND THEN only start considering crying on how they are killing mining m'kay? |
Tanner Marqual
Non Igitur Obicere
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 19:58:03 -
[953] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts.
I think the loss of passive skill boosts pulls an enjoyable and beneficial feature away from newer / more casual players. With the passive boosts no special ships or modules are needed and a small group of new players can all jump in their ventures or rifters or whatever and see a tangible benefit from fleeting up with a small amount of training. I fully agree OGB needs to go away but the loss of passive skills boosts seems to be overkill.
Bah, I don't sign anything...
|
Tanner Marqual
Non Igitur Obicere
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 20:00:41 -
[954] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. 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. [snip]...
Skill point refunds most definitely need to be an option, especially if the passive buffs go. The proposed changes create a significantly different dynamic, one in which no benefit can be realized until your boosting character is sitting in a ship with at least one of the new modules fitted.
Also, what happened to the mining yield boost from the Mining Foreman skill and the agility boost from the skirmish warefare skill? It doesn't appear to have been integrated into the new modules. In the current system those passive boosts are always available regardless of which links are used. Now you only get them when you are using the link associated with them, providing their buff was actually carried over to one of the new links.
This is the second time I've been caught up in CCP making a sweeping change to game dynamics that alters my game experience. I had researched setting up a POS and spent time working towards that and was just about to pull the trigger when Citadels came out and the bar was significantly raised. Now 10 months into training a leadership alt everything changes again. I want to learn a system once, incorporate it into my gameplay, then just play. My poor tired old brain isn't up to learning a new set of rules every few months. I really wish CCP had just modified the scope of all boosts and changed them from being system wide to grid wide. That would have resolved the main OGB issue.
Bah, I don't sign anything...
|
Lunarstorm95
Iron Star Industries
38
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:25:49 -
[955] - Quote
Considering only high sec carebears are mad about these changes this is a really good step for pvp in all aspects.
Im not a fan of the possible t3 cloaky nulli drive-by boosts, but that requires 100% attentiveness form the pilot so it may not be that bad.
+1 for SP refund. Its a whole new mechanic. On that isn't usable by many. Having WC 5 FC 4 id like to actually be able to make use of the SP i spent months training
GÇŁYou can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.GÇĽ
GÇň Robert A. Heinlein
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
GÇň Confucius-á
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2960
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:50:47 -
[956] - Quote
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?
some have a higher base value yet lower max? even though ships skills and plants are giving the same bonus and there is a new rig that gives a 25%
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:52:50 -
[957] - 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? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2960
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:56:47 -
[958] - Quote
Rowells wrote: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?
just use passive defense as an example
it now gets 2% more to its base
t2 bc still give 3% plant still gives 25% skill still gives 10% now there is a new rig/mod that gives 25% yet the max value is lower than on tq
EDIT
21.56dev blog vs 25.9old
the e-war is even further off with a 1% more to the base but with over a 10% lower than on tq 24.26devblog vs 34.5old
Citadel worm hole tax
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
296
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 00:12:12 -
[959] - Quote
Are there going to be new ships that will be able to reduce the effective area of the Command Bursts?
Not being a Slowy Muldune here but if a Anti-Command Burst Ship simply wanted too see fleets run in all directions as the bonuses flicker on and off shouldn't an attacking fleet have the option to ECM the Command Bursts with the Command Burst being able to effective counter the ECM attack? |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
814
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 00:43:24 -
[960] - Quote
Lunarstorm95 wrote: Im not a fan of the possible t3 cloaky nulli drive-by boosts, but that requires 100% attentiveness form the pilot so it may not be that bad.
It will weed out the baddies...but still leaves the good ones to do this. the mechanisms won't be extremely hard for this. If the player(s) skill is above f1 spam monkey levels.
TBH, crews looking to do this would just need to find the good ARPG gamers in their crew. Skillsets from that genre will apply well here. Most break down to getting timings down, build up your effects for the big attack (usually AOE based, odd coincidence there lol) release of doom....then set it all up again as you do this throughout the whole level.
Mess this up you don't push the levels worth a damn. Mess this up on hardcore on higher levels (greater rifts in diablo 3 as an example)...you may be dying real soon, permanently. |
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
672
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 01:03:11 -
[961] - 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?
some have a higher base value yet lower max? even though ships skills and plants are giving the same bonus and there is a new rig that gives a 25% We already discussed the rig. The rig is only slated to give +1 command burst processor. The "25%" is a notation for tech II command processors.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
672
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 01:06:19 -
[962] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Lunarstorm95 wrote: Im not a fan of the possible t3 cloaky nulli drive-by boosts, but that requires 100% attentiveness form the pilot so it may not be that bad.
It will weed out the baddies...but still leaves the good ones to do this. the mechanisms won't be extremely hard for this. If the player(s) skill is above f1 spam monkey levels. It's also worth noting that Tech III cruisers carry fewer boosts, those boosts are weaker, and those boosts have a shorter range. Overall I feel that's great balance for the versatility of putting your boosts on the T3cruiser.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2964
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 04:30:43 -
[963] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: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?
some have a higher base value yet lower max? even though ships skills and plants are giving the same bonus and there is a new rig that gives a 25% We already discussed the rig. The rig is only slated to give +1 command burst processor. The "25%" is a notation for tech II command processors.
yeah meant mod either way why do they have a higher base yet lower max?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Defentora Thentax
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 07:08:25 -
[964] - Quote
pve is never taken into consideration when making changes like this, pve is what keeps feeding eve, isk, ships, everything, so we force boosters on grid of all types, mining links should stay off grid so we can continue to fill the markets without blowing up the prices, i can understand warfare links coming on grid, but when i run missions i do like to off grid boost or for ratting in null.
BUT AFK CLOAKING ISNT EVEN BEING ADDRESSED WHEN BRINING OFF GRID BOOSTERS ON GRID?! why not bring cloaky campers right on top of the closest ship in system after 10mins in hopes they die in a fire. this is an issue that has been around for a LONG time and there IS NO COUNTER, unlike scanning down a links ship. my links toon will be bio massed, he was trained to OGB for pve reasons/ system defense. im not giving ccp anymore money than i already do paying subs to extract, and im not wasting isk on them either seeing as isk/hr will diminish weather its mining, incursions, or other pve and production will slow.
IMHO more negative things will come of this as a whole than good. more accounts WILL cancel. the more casual player like myself doesn't log on to have the task load of a 2nd job, log on throw some links up and rat or mine, maybe start a couple jobs go to bed, now its gonna be, micro managing another toon, more so than even ratting in a carrier or anything else for that matter.
bringing links on grid could have been done better in a different way. getting rid of cloaky campers should be priority
end of rant, Eve is life and i care about what ive built in eve i have many friends here, hopefully someone at ccp gets it right one a these days |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2964
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 07:25:52 -
[965] - Quote
some one who is cloaked can't hurt you
some one who is afk really can't hurt you
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1944
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 08:42:25 -
[966] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:some one who is cloaked can't hurt you
Spoken like someone who's never been scouted for a pipebomb. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2965
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 09:31:36 -
[967] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:some one who is cloaked can't hurt you
Spoken like someone who's never been scouted for a pipebomb.
they can't hurt you
they can help some one else hurt you or they can decloak and hurt you but while cloaked they cant touch you
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 13:23:44 -
[968] - Quote
Akoha Uisen wrote:3. Remove industrial boosts from the game. Turn the porpoise, orca and rorqual into battlecruiser hull size, battleship hull size and capital hull size mining barges. Go big or go home.
It would be nice if you could do more in an on-grid Orca (mining-wise) than deploy 5 t2 mining drones, for sure. And I do hope the Porpoise will be more of a hybrid boost/mining ship itself.
Kaile Nefertiti wrote:Do we know if the new mining BC booster will be able to mine also? I really hope so cuz sticking a character that usually mines into a boosting ship just to sit there and give boosts is very boring gameplay.
The combat boosters get guns also to help wth dps or other stuff, please give the mining booster the ability to mine also!
Exactly like that. I really hope so, too. I think that would be much more rewarding gameplay for the Porpoise pilot than just boosting.
Gerark wrote:On the matter of skill refunds, I only feel Wing/Fleet Command deviate far enough from current function to deserve consideration for refunds if they are no longer needed for making large fleets. If fleets are allowed to form to max size with no skills then these two skills should be removed and refunded and the Burst range skills should be new skills that you get the skill books free and refunded SP so you can train if you want them, invest in other areas if you don't.
tl,dr: Passive bonuses remaining would be nice. Refund WC/FC if no longer needed for forming large fleets.
Indeed. Leadership skill itself isn't such a time sink, but WC/FC are such epic time sinks that either a full refund of them (so that only people interested in flying actual boosting ships can reinvest the SP back into them, but people who had them just to pass down boosts while flying non-boosting ships don't need to retrain them), or else they should reduce the multipliers on them to something more like x4 or x5 or x6 at most, and refund the difference in SP to all proportionally. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 13:32:22 -
[969] - Quote
Warlord Balrog wrote:- During combat, when the fleet's collective remaining HP drops below 25% will you be able to swap charges from say... Shield Extension & Harmonizing to Armor Reinforcement & Energizing like you can with ammo and other charges or will it follow the "Run what you brung" mantra you've adopted? This module to charge change is slightly confusing aspect if you cannot change during combat timer.
- Likewise bursts cannot be stacked, will this include say a Leadership + Information specialist at 5 having Superiority & Hardening but NOT the Optimization prevent a Leadership 5/Information specialist 3 WITH said Optimization from boosting the fleet? -- If so, will there be a 'flag' (such as free-move or the command positions) preventing such abuse? -- If not, how will BIAB choose?
- The implants will be changed from a certain bonus to AoE radius, will CCP be reimbursing the focused implants?
I thought there was going to be one command burst highslot module per boost category. Meaning a separate module for shield, armor, info, skirmish, and mining. Although some have said why not just further condense to just 1 module and then provide the ammo/scripts to select the boost you want to boost.
But anyway, assuming it's the former system (5 types of command burst modules), then you wouldn't be able to rescript a shield module to give armor boosts. You'd have to use a separate boost module you have fitted at the same time or else use a mobile depot to swap out modules. the ammo types will only swap between the 3 subtypes of each main type, or so it appears is the plan for now.
Tavari Minrathos wrote:2: Are you considering a 3rd rig slot as part of the command ship rebalance?
3: I know its coming in the 3rd blog, but can you give an idea of how extensive the changes to combat boosting ships (command ships in particular) are going to be? Are we talking minor grid/CPU adjustments, major overhauls, or just rebalancing within the ship class?
4: Has the design team planned for players twisting links. By twisting, I mean giving 2 buffs from 1 module by changing ammo types every cycle after max duration skills? Is this the designed intent for high skill play or do you see boosting modules more as utility high slot.
Re: #2: that'd be nice, as I think 5 maximum boosts would be a lot better for command ships than 4 maximum boosts... but seeing as how t2 ships are limited to 2 rig slots, I doubt they're going to make an exception for command ships, when they only have 2 rig slots now, same as the other t2 ships. I think instead they should raise the proposed "default/base 2 boosts" limit back up to the current 3 base boost modules that command ships currently have access to without using command processors.
Re: #3: I think they're going to be pretty extensive. Not only PG/CPU changes but also slot layout changes, bonuses, base amounts of shield/armor/hull HP, etc. Maybe resists, too.
and re: #4: Based on the current durations, though, if you try to boost both "A" and "B" effects from a single module by reloading ammo/changing scripts, you will not be able to start a 2nd cycle of the "A" effect boost at the moment the 1st cycle ends. Which means if it's something really important to the fleet around the command ship, the fleet might be screwed. A bit dangerous. Would only be good for less vital boosts, like some of the info ones/the MWD/AB skirmish one. Can't see doing that with the shield/armor tank ones and the sig radius/web range skirmish ones. Too crucial to keep those going constantly in many situations.
Warlord Balrog wrote:Lastly, I don't think you'll be seeing many Orcas, and unless they're very secure and/or rich, Rorq pilots boosting on field very often after the change. Hell, I bet skill injector prices will burst because of the leadership changes, many Orca pilots will repurpose or quit (probably ragequit after spending a few billion on skills and the now useless MF implant). Not that anyone cares, but I'll be extracting all leadership skills and hold a candlelight vigil for anything relying on it (*cough* Fighters *cough*). Oh, and probably Cybernetics 5, as there'll be no implants requiring it of use anymore
Isn't the MF implant like 50 mil ISK?
Anyway, Cybernetics 5 will still be useful for +5s and for +6% combat hardwiring implants, so... still plenty of reasons to have it besides mindlinks. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
281
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 13:34:00 -
[970] - Quote
Defentora Thentax wrote:pve is never taken into consideration when making changes like this, pve is what keeps feeding eve, isk, ships, everything, so we force boosters on grid of all types, mining links should stay off grid so we can continue to fill the markets without blowing up the prices, i can understand warfare links coming on grid, but when i run missions i do like to off grid boost or for ratting in null.
BUT AFK CLOAKING ISNT EVEN BEING ADDRESSED WHEN BRINING OFF GRID BOOSTERS ON GRID?! why not bring cloaky campers right on top of the closest ship in system after 10mins in hopes they die in a fire. this is an issue that has been around for a LONG time and there IS NO COUNTER, unlike scanning down a links ship. my links toon will be bio massed, he was trained to OGB for pve reasons/ system defense. im not giving ccp anymore money than i already do paying subs to extract, and im not wasting isk on them either seeing as isk/hr will diminish weather its mining, incursions, or other pve and production will slow.
IMHO more negative things will come of this as a whole than good. more accounts WILL cancel. the more casual player like myself doesn't log on to have the task load of a 2nd job, log on throw some links up and rat or mine, maybe start a couple jobs go to bed, now its gonna be, micro managing another toon, more so than even ratting in a carrier or anything else for that matter.
bringing links on grid could have been done better in a different way. getting rid of cloaky campers should be priority
end of rant, Eve is life and i care about what ive built in eve i have many friends here, hopefully someone at ccp gets it right one a these days
I have to agree .... on grid combat links are quite different than off grid mining boosts, but CCP apparently doesn't see it that way.
Now if CCP actually sat down with miners to find out how they do mining ops .....
Oh wait, nevermind. They don't do that.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 13:40:34 -
[971] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:pve is never taken into consideration when making changes like this, pve is what keeps feeding eve, isk, ships, everything, so we force boosters on grid of all types, mining links should stay off grid so we can continue to fill the markets without blowing up the prices, i can understand warfare links coming on grid, but when i run missions i do like to off grid boost or for ratting in null.
BUT AFK CLOAKING ISNT EVEN BEING ADDRESSED WHEN BRINING OFF GRID BOOSTERS ON GRID?! why not bring cloaky campers right on top of the closest ship in system after 10mins in hopes they die in a fire. this is an issue that has been around for a LONG time and there IS NO COUNTER, unlike scanning down a links ship. my links toon will be bio massed, he was trained to OGB for pve reasons/ system defense. im not giving ccp anymore money than i already do paying subs to extract, and im not wasting isk on them either seeing as isk/hr will diminish weather its mining, incursions, or other pve and production will slow.
IMHO more negative things will come of this as a whole than good. more accounts WILL cancel. the more casual player like myself doesn't log on to have the task load of a 2nd job, log on throw some links up and rat or mine, maybe start a couple jobs go to bed, now its gonna be, micro managing another toon, more so than even ratting in a carrier or anything else for that matter.
bringing links on grid could have been done better in a different way. getting rid of cloaky campers should be priority
end of rant, Eve is life and i care about what ive built in eve i have many friends here, hopefully someone at ccp gets it right one a these days I have to agree .... on grid combat links are quite different than off grid mining boosts, but CCP apparently doesn't see it that way. Now if CCP actually sat down with miners to find out how they do mining ops ..... Oh wait, nevermind. They don't do that.
I don't see the issue with needing to put an asset on grid in order to reap the benefits. When you can just keep an orca safely tucked on the undock what is the downside to using it? Why would anyone with access to an orca not use one?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 14:09:55 -
[972] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:(...) I have to agree .... on grid combat links are quite different than off grid mining boosts, but CCP apparently doesn't see it that way. Now if CCP actually sat down with miners to find out how they do mining ops ..... Oh wait, nevermind. They don't do that. I don't see the issue with needing to put an asset on grid in order to reap the benefits. When you can just keep an orca safely tucked on the undock what is the downside to using it? Why would anyone with access to an orca not use one?
This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3101
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 14:25:18 -
[973] - Quote
Well I geuss I am a super-minority here then. Anybody else use their Rorq for hauling/surveying/faction dread ratting? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 14:26:35 -
[974] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Well I geuss I am a super-minority here then. Anybody else use their Rorq for hauling/surveying/faction dread ratting?
i used one for running relic/data sites once
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Celina Atari
Clan Atari M1NER CONFL1CT
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 16:40:27 -
[975] - Quote
Thank you for removing every reason I trained these skills. They are now useless to me. |
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 17:30:11 -
[976] - Quote
You do know your destroying Mining Fleets right. I just reading everything and I have to ask are you out of your minds. First it's hard enough to live in null as it is but now you moving into a constant death strike every time we are working a system. Now your making boosters get on grid with you miners and your showing the enemy your entire fleet setup. Placing 1.2Bn booster ships in dangerous space. In effect you changing the tables to favor even more pvp side not the people building there ships and fits. If you look at the current trends pvpers have dismembered most large mining corps and are now feeding on everything else. To empower them even more is a massive blow to the core builders in eve. I was wondering why that trade hubs are dieing and member counts are way down. I love eve but there won't be any boosting from me anytime soon.
I believe the best idea CCP could have is fix all the broken not working stuff first and complete there dev in fixing up the orca and the rorqual like we heard they would do first before turning a blind eye to what they haven't done to bring in a bad idea for miners. Distance is a huge problem for me my asteroids are from about 20km - 400km apart from each other that's not even close to the boosts they are bringing in 500km would cover the belt that is fair. Also no m3 gain come on what is going on over there really. Last thing is markings come on now that's the worst idea ever who thought of that we as miners need to be alert at our boosts not open for any random person to look at.
Like mad is one thing wondering who brought the drugs to work is something else wake up CCP. |
VicturusTeSaluto
Metafarmers
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 17:36:12 -
[977] - Quote
I do not like this change as I see it following CCP's consistent theme of only making changes to the game to make combat less likely to occur.
For me, when gang links are used it is almost exclusively for tackling. Usually that would mean the Interdiction Maneuvers link, but some others help a little as well. Removing the point range bonus already applied to your tackler as soon as the land on grid will be another huge nerf to tackling. These point bonuses are needed because CCP has already gone out of their way to give every advantage in the book to your intended target. Not only are at baseline they likely to be 100km off your warp in and algined, but MWD's now more or less accelerate at afterburner speeds following the old, over-zealous "nano-nerfs" affecting every ship that fits a MWD. You probably need a long range scram with your long range point as well because they gave them the escape tool of the MJD as well. Good lucky keeping them there with your webs that are not as effective as they were originally intended to be. And of course how will you even know when to look for your target or if they unsubbed a year ago now that CCP apparently removed the watchlist to make eve once again a less risky place. I could keep going forever.
On top of everything, in typical CCP fashion they go one step further from what was intended in the first place of their redesign and remove all bonuses from the gang skills themselves? |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
267
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 17:36:53 -
[978] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:[quote=Balder Verdandi]
... or instead of an mwd you could oh idk fit a web or two to the miners?
but i may just be crazy
You are crazy. The only barges that could realistically fit a web are procurers/skiffs.
And 3 Tech 3 Destroyers with 1 logi frig can wipe out an entire mining fleets even of procurers and then if they brought enough ammo they kill the orca too.
So its virtual suicide for orca/rorquals to be in belts. High sec Orcas are the exception here.
Only rorqual I've ever seen in a belt. https://zkillboard.com/kill/46142133/
Only Orca I've ever seen in Nullsec outside of a POS. https://zkillboard.com/kill/48186533/ |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
267
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 17:39:52 -
[979] - Quote
VicturusTeSaluto wrote:I do not like this change as I see it following CCP's consistent theme of only making changes to the game to make combat less likely to occur.
For me, when gang links are used it is almost exclusively for tackling. Usually that would mean the Interdiction Maneuvers link, but some others help a little as well. Removing the point range bonus already applied to your tackler as soon as the land on grid will be another huge nerf to tackling. These point bonuses are needed because CCP has already gone out of their way to give every advantage in the book to your intended target. Not only are at baseline they likely to be 100km off your warp in and algined, but MWD's now more or less accelerate at afterburner speeds following the old, over-zealous "nano-nerfs" affecting every ship that fits a MWD. You probably need a long range scram with your long range point as well because they gave them the escape tool of the MJD as well. Good lucky keeping them there with your webs that are not as effective as they were originally intended to be. And of course how will you even know when to look for your target or if they unsubbed a year ago now that CCP apparently removed the watchlist to make eve once again a less risky place. I could keep going forever.
On top of everything, in typical CCP fashion they go one step further from what was intended in the first place of their redesign and remove all bonuses from the gang skills themselves?
I totally agree on the watchlist. I had a whole bunch of enemy super pilots etc and the random tengu who I ran out of PLEX who logged off in space and I'm waiting for him to come back online so I can try to kill him...
And I know that other people did the same to me so it was perfectly balanced that way. |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
17
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 17:48:29 -
[980] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
283
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 18:02:14 -
[981] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote: This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
I don't think anyone considers it as an entitlement since it's within the mechanics of game play. What CCP wants is to change the mechanics of game play under a "risk versus reward" idea but after reading the dev blog there is no reward for boosting miners. With the November update mining boosts will need to be on grid, right?
What it means:
- "Shooting" boosts to fleet mates will make you go suspect and/or get an aggression timer. CCP has yet to address this per their published information.
- "Shooting" boosts could make you vulnerable to neutrals outside your fleet since it flags you with a suspect/aggression timer since "shooting" is considered combat.
- No word on whether or not high-sec boosters could end up getting CONCORD'ed if fleet members are outside the organization that's providing boosts; for example "Corp 1" is providing boosts to that corp, but now that character "shoots" someone in an NPC corporation to provide fleet boosts to them.
- Information is inaccurate or incomplete about what the attributes are for the new boosts compared to the current boosts.
Resa Moon wrote:
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.
This is exactly the issue in a nutshell. Putting a ship on the field that cannot defend itself has no reward and is 100% risk, and I ask that someone show me where the reward is for doing this.
What I would like to see done with boosts and how to handle them going forward.
Mining boosts are not combat boost, and combat boosts are not logi boosts. If CCP wants to update boosts that's fine, but what I'm arguing for is a definite separation of boosts and treat them accordingly:
- Logi boosts should fall under Logistics.
- Mining boosts should fall under either Mining or Industrial skills
- Combat boosts should fall under a combat oriented skill set, or let them remain where they are under the current skill tree and separate Logi/Mining from Combat.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 18:55:47 -
[982] - Quote
or do something CCP like the miner drones that can do high DPS to even the playing field it sounds to me CCP just wants pvpers to drain the tradehubs and go into a bare market where no one can find supplies and then lose members to other games that's whats happening right this second in eve and this idea is gonna tip the scales for sure into non payers and non players for that matter. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 19:13:38 -
[983] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:And 3 Tech 3 Destroyers with 1 logi frig can wipe out an entire mining fleets even of procurers and then if they brought enough ammo they kill the orca too.
'an entire mining fleet'?
I've seen upwards of 50-60 procurers in the same bunch of rocks. No, 3 T3Ds and a Logifrig can't even hope to kill that before the drones eat the logifrig alive, and then start on the T3Ds.
|
Antheria
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 20:29:55 -
[984] - Quote
Without going into detail, I feel the proposed changes (insofar as they apply to PvE & especially mining) are ill considered & badly thought through.
I agree with the general thrust of the proposed changes (to have boosters on grid), but the effect on miners especially is drastic.
After all this is a game & we are supposed to be playing for fun & enjoyment. The way these changes (& some of the other recent changes) are structured CCP is turning this game into one which requires micro-management. I disagree completely with people playing this game AFK but these changes are turning this game into a job & sucking the enjoyment out of it.
There is a tipping point where people will simply say WTF & unsub - is that what CCP really wants? |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
148
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 22:29:49 -
[985] - Quote
Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.
Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.
With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.
FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained. |
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
593
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 00:50:57 -
[986] - Quote
So now my command ships will be priests and have area of effect buff potions... can my arty machariels now be sorcerers and their guns converted to giant wands please...
Also would like citadels to now have draw bridges and bats circling around the top. and shuttles now be broomsticks..
"...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave." | zoonr-Korsairs |
Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" | Rafeau |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 01:38:08 -
[987] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.
considering it went from 0 risk to having risk
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 01:40:23 -
[988] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.
Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.
With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.
FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained.
the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Jaina Valencia
SUNDER.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:34:47 -
[989] - Quote
This will make for some interesting gameplay as far as combat is concerned, however, claiming it "effects the same type of gameplay" as a reason for a lack of SP refund for fleet skills is a bit of a stretch. You can't honestly say with a straight face that offgrid boosting and ongrid boosting are even in the same ballpark. This idea completely devastates the average eve player using an alt to boost the typical fleet.
I think an SP refund would be prudent, otherwise this whole idea seems to come across as a $$ making gimmick meant to suck funds through skill extractor purchases from the offgrid orca pilots that are extremely prevalent in-game and makes booster alts utterly useless to someone who isn't running multiple monitors. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
148
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:47:35 -
[990] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk
Quote:T1 Industrial Core (while active)
+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
T2 Industrial Core (while active)
+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+200% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Say what?
You would be better off using an orca for the risk/reward if you didn't use the core... an extra 10% from level 5 between the two doesn't warrant fielding it in the slightest for base bonuses. Should we see all command ships/carriers/FAX/supers/titans siege to provide their boosts? Of course not, why are we even discussing this? These aren't even combat bonuses being given. Yet you want it to carry more risk than to those boosting in active combat. |
|
Defentora Thentax
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:50:29 -
[991] - Quote
HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.
this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.
indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:52:09 -
[992] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk
Quote:T1 Industrial Core (while active)
+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
T2 Industrial Core (while active)
+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+200% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range Say what? You would be better off using an orca for the risk/reward if you didn't use the core... an extra 10% from level 5 between the two doesn't warrant fielding it in the slightest for base bonuses. Should we see all command ships/carriers/FAX/supers/titans siege to provide their boosts? Of course not, why are we even discussing this? These aren't even combat bonuses being given. Yet you want it to carry more risk than to those boosting in active combat.
considering you can make yourself invuln until your support show up i wouldn't say its more risk.... that is unless you have no intention of defending yourself then i can see your issue. but if that is the case go ahead and use the porpus
as for "but but the mean combat guys dun have to" the combat boosts don't give a huge increase to the amount of isk you are getting the mining one does
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:54:02 -
[993] - Quote
Defentora Thentax wrote:HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.
this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.
indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to.
I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
148
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:02:12 -
[994] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: considering you can make yourself invuln until your support show up i wouldn't say its more risk.... that is unless you have no intention of defending yourself then i can see your issue. but if that is the case go ahead and use the porpus
as for "but but the mean combat guys dun have to" the combat boosts don't give a huge increase to the amount of isk you are getting the mining one does
I honestly ask myself every time I read something from you if we even play the same game. The invulnerability, which is likely 1 cycle burnout like the EDC, is 5 minutes. Unless you have a standing fleet, that's not going to save anyone, it just delays the inevitable. And in what day and age we play this game in are people willing to stand around waiting for you to possibly be jumped? Even if they will respond unless they are flying nano-faggotry ships already close by they will not be able to respond without cyno and titan bridge within 5 minutes.
Now I ask myself, do I know anyone willing to stay on standby with a titan to save a mining fleet. Do I know enough people who are willing to stay logged in and fly my location or the titans (which is likely in blue space, so not much to hunt) just to save me from being caught by people jumping in via a WH which eluded my eyes to prevent the situation. The answer to all is no.
This is not the game we play or have ever played. This is a grand image of what this game could be like if EVE was life and not a game. We must deal with the reality within the game we play, which is Invulnerability is a gimmicky joke which doesn't even belong in EVE. And the idea of having to put a PvE booster at more risk than those which are combat oriented is outrageous. |
Defentora Thentax
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:03:55 -
[995] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.
this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.
indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to. I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels
ur right, but that doesnt mean were not at risk, were always at risk regaurdless of intel channels dont be a fool |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:04:39 -
[996] - Quote
yet regularly when i attack mining fleets in provie they have support show up in under 60 seconds. sorry if the people you fly with can't be bothered sounds like you need to find some one better to mine for
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:05:26 -
[997] - Quote
Defentora Thentax wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.
this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.
indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to. I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels
ur right, but that doesnt mean were not at risk, were always at risk regaurdless of intel channels dont be a fool
not currently where your rorq is tucked under the shield of a POS
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
148
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:11:26 -
[998] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yet regularly when i attack mining fleets in provie they have support show up in under 60 seconds. sorry if the people you fly with can't be bothered sounds like you need to find some one better to mine for
You expect all of null to be like Provi... How very cute. Remember how I said about a grand image of what the game could be like? You are kinda flying in an area most resembling that, a microcosm if you would, which does not in any way represent the rest of null.
I'm going to end this here tho with you before it derails. |
Defentora Thentax
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:11:36 -
[999] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.
this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.
indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to. I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels
ur right, but that doesnt mean were not at risk, were always at risk regaurdless of intel channels dont be a fool not currently where your rorq is tucked under the shield of a POS
who cares about the rorq, why worry about a rorq when u can kill shiny ratting bs's and carriers? ohhhh i see, those propose a RISK lets not shoot those then because its a RISK so you want to kill shiny indy ships instead i see |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
701
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:21:20 -
[1000] - Quote
BWAHAHAHA nope- they just warp off before our scout's grid loads. That's why. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:33:19 -
[1001] - Quote
Defentora Thentax wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Defentora Thentax wrote:HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.
this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.
indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to. I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels
ur right, but that doesnt mean were not at risk, were always at risk regaurdless of intel channels dont be a fool not currently where your rorq is tucked under the shield of a POS who cares about the rorq, why worry about a rorq when u can kill shiny ratting bs's and carriers? ohhhh i see, those propose a RISK lets not shoot those then because its a RISK so you want to kill shiny indy ships instead i see
... beacause no one ever goes to shoot ratters..... killing ratting carriers sure is not a thing
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 05:49:51 -
[1002] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward. considering it went from 0 risk to having risk
"Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 06:03:15 -
[1003] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward. considering it went from 0 risk to having risk "Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit.
.... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 06:14:32 -
[1004] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward. considering it went from 0 risk to having risk "Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit. .... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change
Yes, that's obvious and you claiming to know "several" that will use it is an anecdotal troll.
For real miners who understand risk management, putting the Rorq in an anom or belt as proposed is ludicrous.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 06:23:28 -
[1005] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
.... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change
Yes, that's obvious and you claiming to know "several" that will use it is an anecdotal troll. For real miners who understand risk management, putting the Rorq in an anom or belt as proposed is ludicrous.
then why do i find them there so often.... wishing desperately i had dps online.
and i do know quit a few people excited over this change on this character i have some how wound up helping a bunch of miners and none of them can wait to get their hands on the extra mining buff. only thing they are not happy about is the 10% yield buff that went poof.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
panosp
X-M.MagnetS Wings Wanderers
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 09:49:47 -
[1006] - Quote
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.
please don't say again that the SP extracting is an oprion.
Meybe is an option to you but to the old players is not, because can extract 500K Sp and inject 150K
Me personally have max trained leadreship skills, was a rorqual boost pilot the old days but today all those skills are useless because i don't use them at all. So i don't care if the CCP change this
I only care that with the changes they bring in game last years and the upcoming ones, lead the old pleyters to leave the game
And the reason for this is that don't want them in game because they help the new players and this is not good for they income
They need new players that can spend money and play for few months pay for plex to get the stuff they need and leave.
Old players for CCP is just an oveload for the servers
the only reason i still play EVE last years are the friends i made in this game and not the game
Fozzie keep the good work |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2976
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 09:54:28 -
[1007] - Quote
panosp 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. please don't say again that the SP extracting is an oprion. Meybe is an option to you but to the old players is not, because can extract 500K Sp and inject 150K
good thing he said extract and sell not extract and inject
the skill has not been changed enough to warrant a refund even if some people will no longer use it.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Miss Jestz
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 10:35:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Will the passive boosting be disabled at the same time the new mods are available or will we have some sort of transition period for us to adapt and search for the best on-grid booster fit ? |
Kilostream
Wingrove Weapons Systems
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 11:09:57 -
[1009] - Quote
Morwen Lagann wrote:Let the neutral boosting alt salt flow.
This doesn't look like a nerf to be gloated over to me - it looks more like Eve's SWG moment. And you're so, so wrong if you think OGB alts are all it will affect.
I was expecting the command modules to be nerfed so they worked only on grid, but taking away the skill bonuses changes the game colossally because now those SP only work in ships that can also fit command modules. I won't say I feel I wasted time training those skills, because I've used them on a daily basis for over a decade, but the fact that they (and the mind link implants) are now useless when they were a bread-and-butter essential before seems too drastic a club to batter everyone with, when the perceived 'problem' was the cloaky t3 alt.
I guess it'll be just as **** for everyone, but that doesn't mean ****** changes are okay! Couldn't you have 'fixed' ewar drones or kitsuney/falcony things instead, since they are actually broken?! |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 12:48:29 -
[1010] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:panosp 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. please don't say again that the SP extracting is an oprion. Meybe is an option to you but to the old players is not, because can extract 500K Sp and inject 150K good thing he said extract and sell not extract and inject the skill has not been changed enough to warrant a refund even if some people will no longer use it.
You're saying that changing Wing Commander and Fleet Commander from skills that allow you to pass boosts to up to 51 pilots and 255 pilots (including yourself) while flying ANY sort of ship, including non-boosting ships...
... to skills that require you to be in a boosting ship to work and only slightly increase your boost range any further than leadership 5 allows... isn't much of a change?
I dunno, seem like apples and oranges to me. Pretty big changes for pretty long-ass skills to train. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2978
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 12:53:21 -
[1011] - Quote
I said it was not enough of a change. the change to carriers was far more drastic and not a refund to be found
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 13:09:07 -
[1012] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I said it was not enough of a change. the change to carriers was far more drastic and not a refund to be found
You mean the removal of their ability to triage and remote rep well?
But that ability was added to another ship that is unlocked and flown using the very same skill that carrier pilots already had to know to be in carriers, and they also allowed people to convert their carrier(s) to that new ship by leaving a triage module fitted to it/them...
... whereas there is nothing, no utility at all, from the WC and FC skills that people who don't fly booster ships are going to have in the future. At least with how the November changes are planned at present. At present, WC/FC are useful skills without ever training cmd DDs, cmd ships, indy boosters, and capitals... but in the future, they will ONLY be useful skills if you train into those specific classes of ships.
I have 3 accts I play with on a daily basis and their leadership/WC/FC levels are presently 5/3/0, 3/0/0, and 5/5/3 (booster pilot)... and I do plan on training the first two into command ships eventually, so even with the new uses for WC/FC, I'll likely want to at least train WC 5 and maybe FC 3 to match up with the 3rd acct (the booster).... and yet I personally support at least WC/FC reimbursement (if not leadership as well), b/c I can put myself into the shoes of those people who aren't flying boosting ships and never want to or at least think they never want to (people are always free to change their minds, ofc). |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2981
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 13:17:34 -
[1013] - Quote
no i mean the entire use of dps carriers was changed to the point that they no longer fly the same way. if i meant the change to triage i would have maid not of it
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17959
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 13:59:31 -
[1014] - Quote
Kilostream wrote:Morwen Lagann wrote:Let the neutral boosting alt salt flow. This doesn't look like a nerf to be gloated over to me - it looks more like Eve's SWG moment...
Every major gameplay change since the nanonerf in 2006 has been EVE's "SWG moment..."
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2982
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 14:02:05 -
[1015] - Quote
im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG"
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17960
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 16:16:16 -
[1016] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
248
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 16:19:01 -
[1017] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG" SWG = Star Wars Galaxies, an MMO started in 2003. SOE Management wasn't satisfied with the sub numbers and wanted to make the game more "starwarsy" to attract a lot more customers. What Kilostream is referring to were actually 2 big changes, only a few months apart, with the second one being the actual neckbreaker for SWG:
1. the Combat Upgrade which completely revamped how combat worked, including changing from the indirect control of weapons (very much like in EVE) to a direct one (manual targeting). This was already disliked by many players
2. the so called NGE - New Game Enhancements:
Wikipedia wrote:One week after this release the entire character development process was changed in the so-called New Game Enhancements (NGE). Major changes included the reduction and simplification of professions, simplification of gameplay mechanics, and Jedi becoming a starting profession. This led to a number of players demanding their money back for the expansion. After a week or two of protests Sony offered refunds to anyone who asked for it. Many player towns became ghost towns due to the reaction of long term players who decided to depart en masse. Needless to say that the droves of new customers never came. All in all a very sad story as the game was amazing prior to the Combat Upgrade.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2983
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 16:22:39 -
[1018] - Quote
how does that compute to a change the community has been asking for for nearly a decade?
if ever a hyperbolic example has been used this would be it
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Nevim Otazky
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 17:38:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Nevim Otazky wrote:About the range:
It says the base is 15km + (30% from Leadership 5 + 25% from WC + 20% FC) = 26.6km
15 * 1.3 * 1.25 * 1.2 = 29.25km for the base (command destroyer) 29.25 * 1.5 = 43.875km for Combat Battlecruisers and T3's 29.25 * 2.0 = 58.5km for Command Ships 29.25 * 3.0 = 87.75km for Capitals So capitals can still boost for a fleet spread over a 170km diameter. However, Command Ships will provide the strongest bonuses and having multiple CS providing the same bonus for redundancy will probably be the standard. In large engagements, I can see CS pilots reshipping and coming back into the fight or hopping from fleet to fleet depending on where they are most needed as well. The one issue I have with it, is the ship that is most likely to be with a small gang of fast ships that tend to spread out will have the lowest boosting range. Though forcing such gangs to run with inconsistent boosts over a drawn out engagement might be a good thing in terms of balancing the haves fighting the have nots.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. I didn't count on ship bonuses for my calculation. :)
About small gangs, I think that even now it's not unusual to encounter small gangs with 1-2 CDs. I think with two boosting ships, plus the timer on the boost, you could cover your entire gang for the duration of most engagements. Anyway it's just speculation. I can't wait to see it implemented and play with the system
No time for this
|
Harold Mach
Akimamur Industries The Revenant Order
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 19:24:11 -
[1020] - Quote
Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.
I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.
Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.
I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2985
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 20:17:10 -
[1021] - Quote
Harold Mach wrote:Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.
I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.
Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.
I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill.
well considering most smart people got around this risk just by using an alt i'm not sure it is all that great an example. besides why should just anyone be able to give buffs like that?? why shouldn't you need a ship for the role?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1128
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 22:00:04 -
[1022] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.
Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.
With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.
FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained. the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk That is a way more thoughtless (uninformed) response than I would expect from you.
A boosting Rorqual without industrial core - Is worse than Orca boosts and nearly 5X the cost. A Rorqual on grid without industrial core is useless - Unless Devs are removing the need of the Industrial core for ore compression.
As for taking the "added risk" of using the ships only useful ability - Don't use it, an Orca does a better job. Do use it your Rorqual is a sitting duck for any small gang passing by.
Being able to use some gimmick shield isn't going to help, if the Rorqual has no way to forcefully repel attackers.
All Devs are doing is making Rorquals and Orcas easy killmails.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Dread Red
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 22:03:53 -
[1023] - Quote
No refunds for nerfed leadership skills, jokingly small area of effect for industrial use, putting rorqs or orcas in the belt for p*ss poor returns and extreme risk?
Yep good job CCP, now if all us industrialist would be compliant and just bunch up in our expensive ships so your beloved whiny favored play style players don't even have to work to explode our ships! Yes the bomber fleets are going to love this new regime, everyone in nice tightly grouped target balls. Yes it is not all about high sec. Bombing runs do happen people.
Ammo for running boosts instead of scripts? Oh I see this is how we will pay for those "FREE" Alpha accounts, everything that use to be a one time purchase will now become a consumable!
Amazing you boys at CCP you just never stop developing new ways to squeeze your paying subscribers do you? Great job by the way.
Guess I'll just chalk the leadership training to boost up to lessons learned, lust like POS defender skills, paid for with isk and my precious time, then scheduled for erasure by whim without any decent defined compensation.
Unless of course you mean after I invest more time and isk into training for Citadel skills that won't let me directly target attacking ships you might one day allow me to use those skills for that. That way I might be able to salvage something out of the skills I've already paid for with isk and my time, maybe.
So after you make my Orca and Rorqual skills worthless I'll have to train for new industrial ships, buy the new ships, and take them on grid to get exploded. Thank you CCP, but to be brutally honest anytime I want to go boom I just challenge a bigger ship to a duel, so you really did not have to go to such lengths.
At some point you will reach the tipping point, where it is not worth the constant screwing you hand out to enjoy what is left of a formerly truly enjoyable game, I am sure you will develop ways to accelerate that process, because your developers seem to be really skilled in that area.
CCP refund us for the skills trained for Rorqual, Orca, and POS with non-allocated skill training points, buy back the ships you have neutered, and be responsive to your subscribers just once at a cost to you. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 22:20:32 -
[1024] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.
Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.
With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.
FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained. the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk That is a way more thoughtless (uninformed) response than I would expect from you. A boosting Rorqual without industrial core - Is worse than Orca boosts and nearly 5X the cost. A Rorqual on grid without industrial core is useless - Unless Devs are removing the need of the Industrial core for ore compression. As for taking the "added risk" of using the ships only useful ability - Don't use it, an Orca does a better job. Do use it your Rorqual is a sitting duck for any small gang passing by. Being able to use some gimmick shield isn't going to help, if the Rorqual has no way to forcefully repel attackers. All Devs are doing is making Rorquals and Orcas easy killmails.
have you not read the blog? the rorqual has been buffed so that w/o the core it still does better than the orca
you have porpus>orca>rorqual>rorqual w/core that is in order of risk and of boost amount
why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers? (from my understanding its fighters are getting buffed further anyway)
why should the ones who were mining not go re-ship and defend it or god forbid you get friends who were ratting in the area to come assist
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 22:30:18 -
[1025] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"
Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.
Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward. considering it went from 0 risk to having risk "Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit. .... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change
I don't think so lol my boosters are all changing games and pulling out of jita are not watching whats going on lol. |
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 22:41:13 -
[1026] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:No refunds for nerfed leadership skills, jokingly small area of effect for industrial use, putting rorqs or orcas in the belt for p*ss poor returns and extreme risk?
Yep good job CCP, now if all us industrialist would be compliant and just bunch up in our expensive ships so your beloved whiny favored play style players don't even have to work to explode our ships! Yes the bomber fleets are going to love this new regime, everyone in nice tightly grouped target balls. Yes it is not all about high sec. Bombing runs do happen people.
Ammo for running boosts instead of scripts? Oh I see this is how we will pay for those "FREE" Alpha accounts, everything that use to be a one time purchase will now become a consumable!
Amazing you boys at CCP you just never stop developing new ways to squeeze your paying subscribers do you? Great job by the way.
Guess I'll just chalk the leadership training to boost up to lessons learned, lust like POS defender skills, paid for with isk and my precious time, then scheduled for erasure by whim without any decent defined compensation.
Unless of course you mean after I invest more time and isk into training for Citadel skills that won't let me directly target attacking ships you might one day allow me to use those skills for that. That way I might be able to salvage something out of the skills I've already paid for with isk and my time, maybe.
So after you make my Orca and Rorqual skills worthless I'll have to train for new industrial ships, buy the new ships, and take them on grid to get exploded. Thank you CCP, but to be brutally honest anytime I want to go boom I just challenge a bigger ship to a duel, so you really did not have to go to such lengths.
At some point you will reach the tipping point, where it is not worth the constant screwing you hand out to enjoy what is left of a formerly truly enjoyable game, I am sure you will develop ways to accelerate that process, because your developers seem to be really skilled in that area.
CCP refund us for the skills trained for Rorqual, Orca, and POS with non-allocated skill training points, buy back the ships you have neutered, and be responsive to your subscribers just once at a cost to you.
This guys see's the value we have all put in and can understand how royolly hooped we are by CCP in this matter. One of the most easyist ways to kill a game is to kill the builders and sellers that make you content. I really do hope CCP DEV team is readiing all the comments. |
Dread Red
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 23:01:30 -
[1027] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.
Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.
With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.
FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained. the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk That is a way more thoughtless (uninformed) response than I would expect from you. A boosting Rorqual without industrial core - Is worse than Orca boosts and nearly 5X the cost. A Rorqual on grid without industrial core is useless - Unless Devs are removing the need of the Industrial core for ore compression. As for taking the "added risk" of using the ships only useful ability - Don't use it, an Orca does a better job. Do use it your Rorqual is a sitting duck for any small gang passing by. Being able to use some gimmick shield isn't going to help, if the Rorqual has no way to forcefully repel attackers. All Devs are doing is making Rorquals and Orcas easy killmails. have you not read the blog? the rorqual has been buffed so that w/o the core it still does better than the orca you have porpus>orca>rorqual>rorqual w/core that is in order of risk and of boost amount why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers? (from my understanding its fighters are getting buffed further anyway) why should the ones who were mining not go re-ship and defend it or god forbid you get friends who were ratting in the area to come assist I am going to go out on a limb here and say you are obviously not a Rorqual pilot. "Why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers?" Asking the question proves your lack of awareness, nonetheless, postulate for a moment how well the drones of a "rorq" would fair against just five destroyers? Bet you 2 billion isk who wins every time, not most times, but every time.
Please don't troll CCP wants legit feedback, before they implement what they want, guess they like forum tears also, lol.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 23:06:59 -
[1028] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:lugh crow-slave wrote:
have you not read the blog? the rorqual has been buffed so that w/o the core it still does better than the orca
you have porpus>orca>rorqual>rorqual w/core that is in order of risk and of boost amount
why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers? (from my understanding its fighters are getting buffed further anyway)
why should the ones who were mining not go re-ship and defend it or god forbid you get friends who were ratting in the area to come assist
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you are obviously not a Rorqual pilot. "Why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers?" Asking the question proves your lack of awareness, nonetheless, postulate for a moment how well the drones of a "rorq" would fair against just five destroyers? Bet you 2 billion isk who wins every time, not most times, but every time. Please don't troll CCP wants legit feedback, before they implement what they want, guess they like forum tears also, lol.
no really why should a rorqual be able to be perfectly capable of defending itself rather than needing support? this game is built on cooperation the more you have the better benefits you reap it only makes sense that the highest level of mining boosts should require high level cooperation. Believe it or not you can mine w/o any boosts at all if you don't like the risk and if like so many seem to think no one will be willing to use the boosts then your profits wont suffer because the price of ore will rise to compensate. ofc if you think enough ppl will be willing to use these boosts then i can understand your worry
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
702
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 23:08:50 -
[1029] - Quote
Was assuming it went without saying the DPS will be supplied by other ships ... was once again proven wrong. Against 5 dessies, your Skiffs can easily blow them up. 2-3000+ DPS from miners alone -which applies very well I might add- is usually enough one would think. |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1723
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 00:19:28 -
[1030] - Quote
I love this vocal minority of enraged miners.
CCP have devised a way for some ships to actually be a valid target when being used for their intended purpose THE HORROR. |
|
Harold Mach
Akimamur Industries The Revenant Order
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 00:47:41 -
[1031] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Harold Mach wrote:Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.
I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.
Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.
I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill. well considering most smart people got around this risk just by using an alt i'm not sure it is all that great an example. besides why should just anyone be able to give buffs like that?? why shouldn't you need a ship for the role?
I just pointed out that it is a player interaction issue and not one of who is smart or if a specialized ship should be used. The proposed change will result in LESS positive player interaction. Seven years of play on just one account, either another player or my corp provided boosts, I did not wish to spend the real world money for a 2nd account OR to play to grind isk to buy plex. I do whatever I feel like doing at any given day, always am active and at the keyboard. |
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
146
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 01:09:15 -
[1032] - Quote
The issue here isn't the rorqual needing support to get out of a tight spot, it's the risk versus reward of fielding one. |
Dread Red
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 01:10:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Harold Mach wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Harold Mach wrote:Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.
I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.
Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.
I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill. well considering most smart people got around this risk just by using an alt i'm not sure it is all that great an example. besides why should just anyone be able to give buffs like that?? why shouldn't you need a ship for the role? I just pointed out that it is a player interaction issue and not one of who is smart or if a specialized ship should be used. The proposed change will result in LESS positive player interaction. Seven years of play on just one account, either another player or my corp provided boosts, I did not wish to spend the real world money for a 2nd account OR to play to grind isk to buy plex. I do whatever I feel like doing at any given day, always am active and at the keyboard. Harold player interaction is just a buzzword they hide behind. Fleet bonus sharing for industrialists is how we spread our influence and make friends in EVE, so naturally the wannabe pew pew crowd is against it. They don't want another ship to hot drop them from another belt to help save your Orca or Rorqual that is why they are excited about the laughable 15k range. It is okay for boosting during an attack but sucks for defense, that is what CCP calls balance. Sixty seconds of boost won't get you from one belt to another, so this effectively disrupts positive interaction between industrialists. Recruiting new industrialists with boosts is a thing of the past unless you all want to bunch up and try to operate in a nice little ball of killmails.
CCP could care less, if they had anyone on staff who gave two sh*ts about industrialists they would have known how toxic this idea would be, clearly they don't mind because to them industrialists don't matter, except as targets. Sad thing is now they want us to continue to pay to be targets while they bring in a new crop of shooters in free accounts!
Wonder if anyone on the CSM will stand up?
This will continue until industrialists stand up and stand together, time for another riot, and more effective activism that makes CCP listen, in my humble opinion.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 02:00:48 -
[1034] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:Recruiting new industrialists with boosts is a thing of the past unless you all want to bunch up and try to operate in a nice little ball of killmails.
or you could idk... recruit more boosters
the number of people who are disapointed when i tell them that "we don't need another orca we have on 23.5/7" is remarkable so i doubt it will be hard to find one. We generally get 1-2 a weak in the recruitment chat with either "i have an orca" or "i'm just about trained into one"
and this idea that people just want the shiny km of a rorq in belt is just naive. your kill mail doesn't mean much. The reason you see pilots shooting high value ships is less for the kill mail and more in hopes that it is worth enough for friends to try and defend it. but you all don't seem to understand the mentality of defending yourself
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Dread Red
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 02:32:19 -
[1035] - Quote
CCP i get what you are going for with the "Command Boost Concept" but putting industrial commands in the same category of combat commands is just plain wrong.
Unless you are going to make major changes like fitting combat modules on industrial ships. It always seemed foolish that a freighter has no room for weapons or a cloak but a frigate does, just saying. Pirates can build and modify war ships up to Titans but no one in all of New Eden could modify a freighter to even have a rocket launcher welded to the hull.
CCP it seems you just want defenseless targets so pew pew types have to face no risk of losing the fight as long as they are willing to lose their ship to Concord as a so called "punishment" after the fact.
CCP buff the Orca like you plan to buff the Rorqual including the super defense weapon, make sure the industrial boosts are system wide but don't operate within a certain distance of stations or POS and you've reached a good middle ground where fielding an Orca will not feel like pressing self destruct. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 02:42:22 -
[1036] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:CCP i get what you are going for with the "Command Boost Concept" but putting industrial commands in the same category of combat commands is just plain wrong.
Unless you are going to make major changes like fitting combat modules on industrial ships. It always seemed foolish that a freighter has no room for weapons or a cloak but a frigate does, just saying. Pirates can build and modify war ships up to Titans but no one in all of New Eden could modify a freighter to even have a rocket launcher welded to the hull.
because they stripped everything out to give it cargo expecting the support fleet to give it defense(i know other ships out side of alts is a scary idea for some of you)
Quote: CCP it seems you just want defenseless targets so pew pew types have to face no risk of losing the fight as long as they are willing to lose their ship to Concord as a so called "punishment" after the fact.
again there are sooo many ways to defend yourself and even more with the help of others. it is not just industrial pilots that need to haul things through HS/LS/NS most of us do. yet i have never lost a freighter in HS outside of a war
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Dread Red
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 02:57:53 -
[1037] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Dread Red wrote:CCP i get what you are going for with the "Command Boost Concept" but putting industrial commands in the same category of combat commands is just plain wrong.
Unless you are going to make major changes like fitting combat modules on industrial ships. It always seemed foolish that a freighter has no room for weapons or a cloak but a frigate does, just saying. Pirates can build and modify war ships up to Titans but no one in all of New Eden could modify a freighter to even have a rocket launcher welded to the hull.
because they stripped everything out to give it cargo expecting the support fleet to give it defense(i know other ships out side of alts is a scary idea for some of you) Quote: CCP it seems you just want defenseless targets so pew pew types have to face no risk of losing the fight as long as they are willing to lose their ship to Concord as a so called "punishment" after the fact.
again there are sooo many ways to defend yourself and even more with the help of others. it is not just industrial pilots that need to haul things through HS/LS/NS most of us do. yet i have never lost a freighter in HS outside of a war. and when it comes to miners the smallest amount of paying attention and tank goes a long way Gosh I've never lost a freighter in high sec, low sec, or null sec even during wars on any of my accounts. Glad we could clear up who the actual better pilot is.
Been both smart and lucky because I never even had a cyno killed and goodness knows your butt is hanging out in the breeze when you are part of a cyno chain for carriers and freighters.
So because someone does not share your opinion does not mean they have no experience, or as the facts prove in this case they may well just be a better pilot, well versed in team play fulfilling roles you, by self admission, at times failed at. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 03:28:49 -
[1038] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:
So because someone does not share your opinion does not mean they have no experience, or as the facts prove in this case they may well just be a better pilot, well versed in team play fulfilling roles you, by self admission, at times failed at.
it was to show that you are not as you put it "defenseless". and yeah ofc i have failed at staying alive. you are always going to have bad days and there will always be some one who can outplay you even on you best days. I don't how ever get upset with the game and curse ccp for it. I know there are ways to avoid being shot I know i have tools i can use to achieve my goals and most importantly I know at its heart eve is a game built on player interaction. Not just positive interaction but negative where the game truly shines where the objectives of two groups of players can not coexist and conflict erupts as a result. This can be as obvious and simple as a gate camp, or as subtle and complex as market traders manipulating prices.
this idea that some how industrial ships are at a higher risk doing their day to day activities than a widow jumping into a fight is just ludicrous. The only difference is the widow pilot has accepted he may blow up where the industrial ship believes he should be safe
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Dread Red
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 04:07:09 -
[1039] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Dread Red wrote:
So because someone does not share your opinion does not mean they have no experience, or as the facts prove in this case they may well just be a better pilot, well versed in team play fulfilling roles you, by self admission, at times failed at.
it was to show that you are not as you put it "defenseless". and yeah ofc i have failed at staying alive. you are always going to have bad days and there will always be some one who can outplay you even on you best days. I don't how ever get upset with the game and curse ccp for it. I know there are ways to avoid being shot I know i have tools i can use to achieve my goals and most importantly I know at its heart eve is a game built on player interaction. Not just positive interaction but negative where the game truly shines where the objectives of two groups of players can not coexist and conflict erupts as a result. This can be as obvious and simple as a gate camp, or as subtle and complex as market traders manipulating prices. this idea that some how industrial ships are at a higher risk doing their day to day activities than a widow jumping into a fight is just ludicrous. The only difference is the widow pilot has accepted he may blow up where the industrial ship believes he should be safe I was just getting ready to think I could agree with you, and then this.
You lose credibility when you say a widow pilot jumping into a fight and an industrial pilot share the same risk, if we are looking for chuckles why not say the rookie ship will fare as well as the widow while you are at it. Everyone who plays the game knows you are full of what falls out of the south end of a north bound bull.
Every pilot in EVE should know that whenever they undock they could go pop, nature of the game. However people train and go to great lengths to have a chance to make someone else go pop first , again nature of the game. CCP needs to respect the realistic expectations and yes, hopes of all their subscribers, not just the ones who want everything going pop all the time.
I personally have very little sympathy for players who afk mine, travel, or anything else in space. Why play the game if you are not playing the game, or have time to play the game, in my humble opinion.
That being said it is again that falling stuff from the north bound bull to say high sec gankers face risk for their rewards, simply not true. Should miners have their heads on a swivel and pay attention to who jumps into their high sec system? I do. Should haulers use warp stabs, a scout, a cloak when possible, and an escort when travelling through risky pipelines? I do. Should CCP say that ganking an afk miner is in any way a risk for the ganker flying a cheap dessie? No.
Some simple honesty goes a long way, CCP makes money when we have to replace ships by plex exchange because they print the plex and get the cash. Good for them it is an honest business model.
CCP needs to practice better customer service to all it's paying customers, even the boring high sec industrialists. Because if they leave in great numbers the game will perish.
Fact is most players reside and play predominately in high sec.
The CCP model of disrespecting most of the player base to cowtow to the most vocal and organized minority will eventually end poorly. If high sec folds low sec and null will cease to exist, the economics prove that without doubt.
Unless CCP is ready to cut back substantially how they staff losing the majority of players is something that would be better avoided.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2987
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 04:22:17 -
[1040] - Quote
you are going to sit there and tell me your miner sitting in a HS belt is at a greater risk than a pilot going into combat?
as for HS ganking yes the in game risk reward is pretty good. it will cost you more in cats to kill a well tanked proc than the proc costs and it will certainly cost you more than the loot that drops. with freighters you run the risk of losing a good deal of isk and have it turn out empty. Why does it seem so imbalanced? because what the gankers are looking for isn't some in game reward they just want to see you pop. so even if they have to spend 25-30 mill killing a proc that drops 3mill it was still worth it. You can't balance the risk/reward when the reward is something they get outside of the in game rewards w/o severely upsetting the balance in the rest of eve.
now to get off the topic of HS ganking and what ccp should or should not do about it
with the rorqual maybe the risk/reward is to high for most players to put in the belt if this is the case rather than just trying to keep it 100% safe lets look at other options
why not lower the price? say cut it in half so it is closer to the price of a carrier 1~1.2B Even i can see that an increase in the risk it is taking on may warrant looking into rebalancing the amount of effort they take to build
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Dread Red
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 04:47:03 -
[1041] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:you are going to sit there and tell me your miner sitting in a HS belt is at a greater risk than a pilot going into combat? Be honest, what do you think is the survival rate for pilots in combat, then compare it to the survival rate of miners ganked?
Keeping in mind in one on one combat 50% of the pilots survive, one guy wins and one guy loses. So unless ganking has a failure rate greater than 50% your position is yet again dropping from the southern end of a north bound bull. Yeah even you can't spin that fact to better your argument. Gotta love the cold hard truth!
Even the article linked to by the OP of this thread only references ganking freighters with 70 some odd T1 dessies, because they don't dare reveal the numbers about how quickly the lowest end mining ships or haulers pop when attacked by the lowest end ganking dessie. CCP is fairly spineless on this issue, which is actually quite a surprise from the lovers of chaos. If there was anything close to a balance they would be beating us over the head with it, they are not because it is grossly one sided.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2987
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:00:01 -
[1042] - Quote
lol miners are not getting ganked 100% of the time don't try to sway the numbers
what is the survival rate of miners going out to mine vs a combat pilot going out to fight and miners are going to make back much more than they lose where as a combat pilot is going to need to recoup their losses some other way
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:23:59 -
[1043] - Quote
Vraygan wrote:Just to state my position, I made my suggestions because I know that Rorquals will rarely be used unless they are given more safety. My suggestions are meant to suggest additional safety mechanics to partially mitigate that. What is your position on that? You presume they will be used rarely - a subjective term at that, given different scenarios where the ship is currently and will be used.
My position is that not everyone who currently mines with Rorqual boosts will be able to after the changes. It is also that in many cases it should not be a good idea for them to try, nor should they feel robbed by using a "worse" booster.
From a design standpoint, I believe the difference in yield from using other boosting options should be relatively small. In particular when applied to less than 10 miners. It should be the mining capacity of the Rorqual itself that determines whether you put it in the belt, not the couple percent faster the rest of the fleet mines as a result. This is no different than using a Carrier instead of a Cruiser or HAC to Rat. You don't use a Carrier because it is (capable of) giving links to the ratting ships, so they can thin out tank and fit more dps. You use it because it chews through the rats. I want the Capital Industrial Ship to chew through rocks.
This would function no different than when I gas mined in wormhole space. Rather than gas mining with one character and Rorqual boosting on another, I mined on one in a venture while the other used a Ferox with Gas Harvesters and a mining link. Both of them mining with weaker boost was actually the better option. This is how I would like to see mining in general for smaller entities after the changes settle. For the new boosting ship to be a procurer/skiff with a spare high slot to run one link, with the 5% bonus listed in the blog. This should be better than the dedication of a character that does not mine sitting in a POS to provide a 25% (post change) bonused link to a handful of miners.
Personally, I feel this boost discrepancy is currently too large to achieve that effect on a large enough scale. I would rather see a 1/2/3% per level boost progression for Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual. Or perhaps even a 1/3/2% to follow the Destroyer/Command Ship/Titan dynamic of combat ships.
Finally, it addresses the issue of multiple Rorquals. They should mine enough themselves to justify commitment of multiples at a time! Rather than the current situation of one per system / 250 odd mining barges. I should want to deploy mine, even if my pilot does not have perfect skills and there is already a perfect booster in the fleet.
Vraygan wrote:No, that would be Ad Hominem. A Straw-Man argument sets up a false version of the opponentGÇÖs position (the Straw-Man) and tries to score points by attacking the Straw-Man. Which is what you did. I built no Straw-Man. You suggested:
"To prevent the Rorqual pinnatta situation, I think that PANIC should allow the miners/industrials to attack while invulnerable. "
Attacking while invulnerable is the most literal definition of god mode. The tethering idea I replied with is actually better all around, as it presents counter play! Attacking breaks tether for the duration of the weapons timer, so the miners could be baited. The miners can also be bumped out of tether range, forcing them to respond to the attackers or suffer potential losses. The Rorqual itself will eventually run out of Heavy Water, dropping siege and becoming vulnerable. Resupplying it means breaking the camp around it. What do you see as counterplay to invincible damage dealing mining ships supported by multiple PANIC Rorquals? Killing the drones only gets you so far, since they can refit more drones off the Rorqual. Lets not forget the ship maintenance bay either, the miners can reship to combat ships (and back for another PANIC) right there in the belt.
Beyond that, my responses have been to point out unwanted negative side effects from what you believe would be changes in a miner's favor. A far cry from "attacking" an idea, let alone one I made up.
Vraygan wrote:Yep, the things I'm suggesting are already in the game as deployables. Yet for some reason you think that adding any of my suggestions to the Rorqual hull (like bubbles given to HICS) are ill conceived? The reason is that first and foremost, there are negative effects to your suggestions that you did not consider. When a HIC turns on it's bubble, surprise! You -actually- want a bubble precisely where that ship is located. Activating an Industrial Core on a capital mining ship does not mean I want a bubble centered on me.
Second, the existing options take effort and resources - things that securing the use of a capital ship should take. Bubbles are not free. When you anchor them on a gate to set up for carrier ratting, it takes time to do. These are also resources in space that attackers can destroy, even if they can't get to your carrier. This is a good thing for the game. Resources like your HIC in the mining belt, if you really want a mobile on-demand bubble. If you have no problem with a dedicated booster supporting your mining fleet, a dedicated HIC on grid while the Rorqual mines should not be a problem. Especially if you firmly believe this will secure your Rorquals.
|
Dread Red
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:37:23 -
[1044] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lol miners are not getting ganked 100% of the time don't try to sway the numbers
what is the survival rate of miners going out to mine vs a combat pilot going out to fight and miners are going to make back much more than they lose where as a combat pilot is going to need to recoup their losses some other way Don't play word games when you lose the argument. We are not discussing the odds of being ganked. We are talking about the survival rate of those ganked versus as you said a widow jumping into a fight. Not the odds of a widow finding a fight. Man up you lost the argument on merit. Your position was emotional and not fact based, not surprising you are trying to spin it into an area where there is no way to measure. Have some integrity please.
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:41:48 -
[1045] - 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
But webbing them is, so that the fleet has to choose whether to abandon the booster or sit still and peel the webs. As is bumping the booster out of range, even with respect to a neutral one in high sec. You can also jump them away with command destroyers to isolate them or a part of their fleet.
Furthermore, when it comes to smaller fleets the command processor rig comes into play nicely. You're not tanking the alpha of several hundred ships so you can give up some buffer. This results in a small gang needing less booster ships to fill links, but those boosters are not fully buffered bricks. Fitting a MJD is still a bit of a tank balance issue between armor and shield command ships, though not as much as the command processor was. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2988
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:46:48 -
[1046] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lol miners are not getting ganked 100% of the time don't try to sway the numbers
what is the survival rate of miners going out to mine vs a combat pilot going out to fight and miners are going to make back much more than they lose where as a combat pilot is going to need to recoup their losses some other way Don't play word games when you lose the argument. We are not discussing the odds of being ganked. We are talking about the survival rate of those ganked versus as you said a widow jumping into a fight. Not the odds of a widow finding a fight. Man up you lost the argument on merit. Your position was emotional and not fact based, not surprising you are trying to spin it into an area where there is no way to measure. Have some integrity please.
no i'm talking about the day to day risk of an industrial
Quote: this idea that some how industrial ships are at a higher risk doing their day to day activities than a widow jumping into a fight is just ludicrous
you are the one playing word games
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 06:49:03 -
[1047] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:Be honest, what do you think is the survival rate for pilots in combat, then compare it to the survival rate of miners ganked?
Keeping in mind in one on one combat 50% of the pilots survive, one guy wins and one guy loses. So unless ganking has a failure rate greater than 50% your position is yet again dropping from the southern end of a north bound bull. Yeah even you can't spin that fact to better your argument. Gotta love the cold hard truth! Thanks for the laugh.
Actually, quite often BOTH pilots survive and the one who wins is the guy who thought he'll lose and bailed.
Meanwhile in ganking the attacker ALWAYS dies, the defender usually, but not always. Sometimes the loot fairy says no. Other times someone else steals the loot. Sometimes your looter gets caught and dies. Sometimes you get baited. The "fight" doesn't start or end with the gank itself.
It typically starts with a pilot making poor fitting decisions. Followed by leaving said ship in space obviously unattended to get ship scanned and then ganked. What you are looking at is not unlike my results in faction warfare as a noob in a meta fit rifter. I slipped out a few times, the rest of the time I died horribly. Yet no matter how many rifters I lost, the resulting statistics are not indicative of anything. Except maybe that new players should expect to get slaughtered by off grid boosted t2 fit ships. Kind of like pure yield fit Mackinaws not at their keyboard should expect to die to CODE. |
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 09:26:49 -
[1048] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lol miners are not getting ganked 100% of the time don't try to sway the numbers
what is the survival rate of miners going out to mine vs a combat pilot going out to fight and miners are going to make back much more than they lose where as a combat pilot is going to need to recoup their losses some other way Don't play word games when you lose the argument. We are not discussing the odds of being ganked. We are talking about the survival rate of those ganked versus as you said a widow jumping into a fight. Not the odds of a widow finding a fight. Man up you lost the argument on merit. Your position was emotional and not fact based, not surprising you are trying to spin it into an area where there is no way to measure. Have some integrity please.
Actually following your discussion, my understanding is that both of you are talking about the risk of flying a combat ship vs. risk of flying an industrial ship doing respectively activities. And both of you argued with a conditional probability. Warping into a fight vs. being ganked whereas you should compare 1h gameplay of both. So for example Roaming vs mining (vs ratting vs hauling vs hacking, ...). So the odds of being ganked is very important to the risk you're taking with your activity. With your (Dread Red) argument it wouldn't make a different if you are mininig in hs, low, null or wh space. As I said: conditional probability (look it up).
But even, just to throw you a bone, let's compare a combat ship warping into a fight (FW complex for example) and an industrial ship that is about to be ganked (gankers enter system and are immediately warping to you) the industrial ship has very high odds to survive because he can just warp off. Especially in k-space with (overpowered) local but also in wh space you can get pretty safe in industrial ships.
So we're back at the real "problem".... you have to take some steps of preparation and be vigilant to survive what most industrials are not ready to do - at least that's the public image one gets reading miners talk/whine on the forums. Of course I do know not every miner/industrial is like that because plenty of miners are able to escape a gank in time. And there is no difference if it's hs/low/null.
edit: just to make sure, there obviously is a difference between hs/low/null... what I meant is: no matter what the system is, you can avoid getting killed - it just takes different amounts of work on your side. |
Dread Red
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 11:36:38 -
[1049] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Dread Red wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lol miners are not getting ganked 100% of the time don't try to sway the numbers
what is the survival rate of miners going out to mine vs a combat pilot going out to fight and miners are going to make back much more than they lose where as a combat pilot is going to need to recoup their losses some other way Don't play word games when you lose the argument. We are not discussing the odds of being ganked. We are talking about the survival rate of those ganked versus as you said a widow jumping into a fight. Not the odds of a widow finding a fight. Man up you lost the argument on merit. Your position was emotional and not fact based, not surprising you are trying to spin it into an area where there is no way to measure. Have some integrity please. Actually following your discussion, my understanding is that both of you are talking about the risk of flying a combat ship vs. risk of flying an industrial ship doing respectively activities. And both of you argued with a conditional probability. Warping into a fight vs. being ganked whereas you should compare 1h gameplay of both. So for example Roaming vs mining (vs ratting vs hauling vs hacking, ...). So the odds of being ganked is very important to the risk you're taking with your activity. With your (Dread Red) argument it wouldn't make a different if you are mininig in hs, low, null or wh space. As I said: conditional probability (look it up). But even, just to throw you a bone, let's compare a combat ship warping into a fight (FW complex for example) and an industrial ship that is about to be ganked (gankers enter system and are immediately warping to you) the industrial ship has very high odds to survive because he can just warp off. Especially in k-space with (overpowered) local but also in wh space you can get pretty safe in industrial ships. So we're back at the real "problem".... you have to take some steps of preparation and be vigilant to survive what most industrials are not ready to do - at least that's the public image one gets reading miners talk/whine on the forums. Of course I do know not every miner/industrial is like that because plenty of miners are able to escape a gank in time. And there is no difference if it's hs/low/null. edit: just to make sure, there obviously is a difference between hs/low/null... what I meant is: no matter what the system is, you can avoid getting killed - it just takes different amounts of work on your side. Of course you are free to discuss anything you want, I was talking about getting ganked, not getting hunted, not warping out as soon as bad guys enter the system. I mentioned in some details on how a pilot should/ could reduce the chance of getting ganked. But the bottom line is an extremely high percentage of pliots who get ganked get their vessel destroyed aka they don't survive.
In combat like the aforesaid "Widow jumping into a fight", his words not just mine, he would have a fifty fifty chance perhaps of beating another combat ship he chose to jump into a fight against. Of course if he chose to attack a cruiser in his rookie ship I'd say he will lose almost all of them, but we are not talking about brain challenged pilots ok.
Spin and play word games if it makes you feel better about your position but everyone playing EVE for longer than a month actually knows the truth, combat ships survive combat better than mining ships.
So now we are back to the real real problem, too many people are dishonest about the fact that almost no risk is taken by the gank pilot once he begins the attack unless he is incompetent and runs out of ammo before the kill.
It is not an equal risk to suicide your ship to get a kill, it is a trade off you planned when you fit the ship, undocked, and hunted down a target, and you get the reward you seek, a kill mail and the value of the destroyed vessel credited to your name. The miner loses his ship, cargo, maybe capsule and implants and gets a debit for the value of the lost items associated with his name.
Risk is not equal, reward is not equal. CCP just happens to want it that way.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2991
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 11:45:49 -
[1050] - Quote
i'll take it you have never ganked b4 have you? a lot more can go wrong aside from "running out of ammo" a certain little E-war frig comes to mind
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Pretagos Omilas
Arch Arsonists of EvE Another Really Stupid Enterprise
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 12:26:08 -
[1051] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:But the bottom line is an extremely high percentage of pliots who get ganked get their vessel destroyed aka they don't survive. There we are again with the conditional probability. A high percentage of people flying a combat ship without bothering to do anything to stay alive will die. There, that is basically the same sentence as yours. Can you see the flaw?
Dread Red wrote:Spin and play word games if it makes you feel better about your position but everyone playing EVE for longer than a month actually knows the truth, combat ships survive combat better than mining ships. I'd ague it is you who is spinning and playing word games but since we probably cannot agree here why don't we just stop here repeating ourselves and let every reader decide what his/her conclusion is...
note: removed parts of quotes for readability purposes. |
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 14:50:47 -
[1052] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:you are going to sit there and tell me your miner sitting in a HS belt is at a greater risk than a pilot going into combat?
as for HS ganking yes the in game risk reward is pretty good. it will cost you more in cats to kill a well tanked proc than the proc costs and it will certainly cost you more than the loot that drops. with freighters you run the risk of losing a good deal of isk and have it turn out empty. Why does it seem so imbalanced? because what the gankers are looking for isn't some in game reward they just want to see you pop. so even if they have to spend 25-30 mill killing a proc that drops 3mill it was still worth it. You can't balance the risk/reward when the reward is something they get outside of the in game rewards w/o severely upsetting the balance in the rest of eve.
now to get off the topic of HS ganking and what ccp should or should not do about it
with the rorqual maybe the risk/reward is to high for most players to put in the belt if this is the case rather than just trying to keep it 100% safe lets look at other options
why not lower the price? say cut it in half so it is closer to the price of a carrier 1~1.2B Even i can see that an increase in the risk it is taking on may warrant looking into rebalancing the amount of effort they take to build
If you had any clue to how you sound with your posts you'd laugh as much as 2000 coalition has been at you for about 2 days now. Your posts are backwards my friend yes a miner boosters has about 100 times more risk going out in this upgrade there ship is worth 2Bn and your combat fighter is what 100M to be fair. Come on think a bit before posting we are not talking procurers here we are talking the changes they are proposing to make to our boosters the big isk items in the game. Next time you post think about what your saying it's getting lame. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2996
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 15:00:29 -
[1053] - Quote
yes the change to your boosts that mean you may actually have to risk something to get the rewards oh the horror sorry if i find it hard to be sympathetic to your entitlement
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 15:13:35 -
[1054] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yes the change to your boosts that mean you may actually have to risk something to get the rewards oh the horror sorry if i find it hard to be sympathetic to your entitlement
lol not entitled at all over here we know what we can and won't do to keep our investments. You might hunt fight and score the value your expecting to get or lose it all but when it comes to indie we weigh our risks and the value it will bring in and to risk that velue to say theres boosts most of us are already picking new games to meet up in and with zero miners and zero builders your looking at zero content for yourself. So instead of coming on here with no real input for CCP and the bla bla blaing you are doing it's kind of a waste of forums space. Trully we all have posted our thoughts and CCP will make the minds up without us and role out no matter what we say. But with that said I know just by looking at the daily that CCP is losing members and most of them are indie the ones that made the ships you fly the ammo you burn and the fits you use. Without us doing our jobs you would then have to become us just to fight get how the cycle works. :P |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2998
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 15:18:31 -
[1055] - Quote
... you do understand i'm an industrial pilot right?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 16:48:59 -
[1056] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote: Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals.
I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost.
At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.
Agreed, not even taking into account a corporation's "Friendly fire" setting. Losing an expensive ship providing bonuses to a small or very large operation would instill a hindered play style to which I'm sure many people will abandon all together without careful thought.
As I sit here since announcement, and think about these things myself. I wonder if enough of us miners abandon our roots and the market seed we provide for the very ships that will be destroying us, thus marking up their costs due to supply chains being lost will make cause for reconsideration, or at least more thought. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 17:33:54 -
[1057] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:no i mean the entire use of dps carriers was changed to the point that they no longer fly the same way. if i meant the change to triage i would have maid not of it
Ah, okay. Fair enough.
I didn't get to fly an ol' carrier pre-changes (ah, slowcats... as a sentry-drone-loving pilot, that woulda been... fun? I dunno, people say they weren't fun, but... eh), so when you said carrier changes, I didn't think of the no-more-heavy/sentry-drones and major-changes-to-fighters changes first... as to me (from a subcap-only outsider's POV), the FAX machine/carrier ship split was more of a big deal than the way carriers do their damage changing.
But perspective is everything. |
Dread Red
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 17:40:56 -
[1058] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Dread Red wrote:But the bottom line is an extremely high percentage of pliots who get ganked get their vessel destroyed aka they don't survive. There we are again with the conditional probability. A high percentage of people flying a combat ship without bothering to do anything to stay alive will die. There, that is basically the same sentence as yours. Can you see the flaw? Dread Red wrote:Spin and play word games if it makes you feel better about your position but everyone playing EVE for longer than a month actually knows the truth, combat ships survive combat better than mining ships. I'd ague it is you who is spinning and playing word games but since we probably cannot agree here why don't we just stop here repeating ourselves and let every reader decide what his/her conclusion is... note: removed parts of quotes for readability purposes. A feeble attempt at a straw man argument, up is down.... down is up, see if I switch it around my point is made. Can you see the flaw? lol I have no more time for pew pew trolls you are dismissed.
|
Dread Red
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 18:01:03 -
[1059] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... you do understand i'm an industrial pilot right? Will the member corps of your Alliance, mr. diplomat, be as giddy about putting their Orcas in a tight target ball as you seem to be? Seems like some of your alliance corp members advertise Orca support as something they offer to entice membership. Perhaps you should take a poll and show them which side you support on the forums, and see how that works out.
Perhaps they have some concerns you have yet to articulate here.
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 19:43:54 -
[1060] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:In combat like the aforesaid "Widow jumping into a fight", his words not just mine, he would have a fifty fifty chance perhaps of beating another combat ship he chose to jump into a fight against. Of course if he chose to attack a cruiser in his rookie ship I'd say he will lose almost all of them, but we are not talking about brain challenged pilots ok.
Spin and play word games if it makes you feel better about your position but everyone playing EVE for longer than a month actually knows the truth, combat ships survive combat better than mining ships.
Actually, I would argue you are talking about challenged pilots. They pick the wrong hull for the job, just like your rookie ship example. They often fit it wrong on top of that. Then they pay no attention to their ship, or even the game.
A Widow that fits pure damage and ecm with no tank, torpedoes against a small ship, jumps in, activates modules and walks away from the computer does not have a "good chance of winning the fight". Surprise, neither does the miner who does the same.
Mining ships of pilots that are not brain challenged as you put it, are selected fit and piloted with the potential of combat in mind. Those ships are not the flying death traps you describe. Regardless, this is not the thread to complain about your Hulk getting suicide ganked in High Sec.
Demortis wrote: Your posts are backwards my friend yes a miner boosters has about 100 times more risk going out in this upgrade there ship is worth 2Bn and your combat fighter is what 100M to be fair. Come on think a bit before posting we are not talking procurers here we are talking the changes they are proposing to make to our boosters the big isk items in the game. Next time you post think about what your saying it's getting lame.
100 mil buys you a T1 Battlecruiser fitted. You are actually talking about the equivalent of a procurer here, which costs half that.
A combat fit Widow, which is what he was referring to, will easily cost the same or more than a Rorqual. This is a billion isk hull that is almost always faction/deadspace fit. If you are selling them for 100mil each, I'll buy them all. A platinum insured Widow also pays out a net of 200mil. Your uninsured Rorqual pays out a billion isk straight into your wallet when you lose it. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17973
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 20:09:34 -
[1061] - Quote
Man, if some of these guys put half the energy into watching local and intel channels, rolling wormholes and planting drag bubbles that they invest in wailing that not doing these things means they get ganked all the time, then mineral prices would crash and 2nd hand ORE BPOs would be going for pennies on the ISK.
Perhaps it's as well. Sometimes when I've had a hard day at work I like to chill out with a bit of mining, and, just ike it's safer to take a slow fat friend when you go lion-watching, they're the kind of competition I prefer.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3002
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 00:50:21 -
[1062] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... you do understand i'm an industrial pilot right? Will the member corps of your Alliance, mr. diplomat, be as giddy about putting their Orcas in a tight target ball as you seem to be? Seems like some of your alliance corp members advertise Orca support as something they offer to entice membership. Perhaps you should take a poll and show them which side you support on the forums, and see how that works out. Perhaps they have some concerns you have yet to articulate here.
yes most of them are excited about it because so many that have trained orca now have a reason to use it not to mention the base buff to the boosts
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Harold Mach
Akimamur Industries The Revenant Order
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:00:57 -
[1063] - Quote
The consensus from my CEO and Roqual pilots is that we will NOT be taking the Roqual's on grid ever, the risk vs. the isk per hr gained is not worth it. Period end of discussion, not going to happen. That leaves the Roqual sitting at the POS or citadel running compression jobs, not really worth it. Now Orcas, CAN and do get brought on grid for the use of hauling the ores for a squad worth of miners, that job can be handled by a cloaked industrial that makes constant runs to the station/POS/Citadel., but the Orca's better due to larger cargo, fewer trips to unload, might need two pilots if using industrials.
So that brings us down to the new BC sized and destroyer sized boosters, I'm thinking you will see command destroyers on grid in high sec if there is any booster at all. Low sec and null are where you will see orcas and Roquals due to all the blues and scouts for advance warning. Worm hole will not have much booster usage.
Net result will be a net reduction in boosted mining in high sec. ABC minerals will become cheaper in relation to the high sec ores. Highsec gankers will NOT get a lot of nice killmails from ganking roquals, instead the highsec miners will sell, hanger queen, or scrap their roquals. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:07:22 -
[1064] - Quote
i'm sorry but there will plenty of people bringing orcas to belts in considering there already is a bunch of ppl who put orcas in belts. People put freighters in belts and they get comparable tanks in fact an orca can get a better tank than some freighters... and that is assuming the freighters are tanked
so maybe its not that these things are to risky but you and your corp are too risk averse
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:18:39 -
[1065] - Quote
Harold Mach wrote: The consensus from my CEO and Roqual pilots is that we will NOT be taking the Roqual's on grid ever, the risk vs. the isk per hr gained is not worth it. Period end of discussion, not going to happen. That leaves the Roqual sitting at the POS or citadel running compression jobs, not really worth it. Now Orcas, CAN and do get brought on grid for the use of hauling the ores for a squad worth of miners, that job can be handled by a cloaked industrial that makes constant runs to the station/POS/Citadel., but the Orca's better due to larger cargo, fewer trips to unload, might need two pilots if using industrials.
So that brings us down to the new BC sized and destroyer sized boosters, I'm thinking you will see command destroyers on grid in high sec if there is any booster at all. Low sec and null are where you will see orcas and Roquals due to all the blues and scouts for advance warning. Worm hole will not have much booster usage.
Net result will be a net reduction in boosted mining in high sec. ABC minerals will become cheaper in relation to the high sec ores. Highsec gankers will NOT get a lot of nice killmails from ganking roquals, instead the highsec miners will sell, hanger queen, or scrap their roquals.
You do realise that a Rorqual can't be used in high sec? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17993
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:24:07 -
[1066] - Quote
Harold Mach wrote: The consensus from my CEO and Roqual pilots is that we will NOT be taking the Roqual's on grid ever, the risk vs. the isk per hr gained is not worth it. Period end of discussion, not going to happen. That leaves the Roqual sitting at the POS or citadel running compression jobs, not really worth it. Now Orcas, CAN and do get brought on grid for the use of hauling the ores for a squad worth of miners, that job can be handled by a cloaked industrial that makes constant runs to the station/POS/Citadel., but the Orca's better due to larger cargo, fewer trips to unload, might need two pilots if using industrials.
So that brings us down to the new BC sized and destroyer sized boosters, I'm thinking you will see command destroyers on grid in high sec if there is any booster at all. Low sec and null are where you will see orcas and Roquals due to all the blues and scouts for advance warning. Worm hole will not have much booster usage.
Net result will be a net reduction in boosted mining in high sec. ABC minerals will become cheaper in relation to the high sec ores. Highsec gankers will NOT get a lot of nice killmails from ganking roquals, instead the highsec miners will sell, hanger queen, or scrap their roquals.
Tell us more about how you were boosting your HIGH SEC mining operations with a Rorqual.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17993
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:24:55 -
[1067] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:Harold Mach wrote: The consensus from my CEO and Roqual pilots is that we will NOT be taking the Roqual's on grid ever, the risk vs. the isk per hr gained is not worth it. Period end of discussion, not going to happen. That leaves the Roqual sitting at the POS or citadel running compression jobs, not really worth it. Now Orcas, CAN and do get brought on grid for the use of hauling the ores for a squad worth of miners, that job can be handled by a cloaked industrial that makes constant runs to the station/POS/Citadel., but the Orca's better due to larger cargo, fewer trips to unload, might need two pilots if using industrials.
So that brings us down to the new BC sized and destroyer sized boosters, I'm thinking you will see command destroyers on grid in high sec if there is any booster at all. Low sec and null are where you will see orcas and Roquals due to all the blues and scouts for advance warning. Worm hole will not have much booster usage.
Net result will be a net reduction in boosted mining in high sec. ABC minerals will become cheaper in relation to the high sec ores. Highsec gankers will NOT get a lot of nice killmails from ganking roquals, instead the highsec miners will sell, hanger queen, or scrap their roquals. You do realise that a Rorqual can't be used in high sec?
I think perhaps he was hoping that we didn't.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:35:33 -
[1068] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Harold Mach wrote: The consensus from my CEO and Roqual pilots is that we will NOT be taking the Roqual's on grid ever, the risk vs. the isk per hr gained is not worth it. Period end of discussion, not going to happen. That leaves the Roqual sitting at the POS or citadel running compression jobs, not really worth it. Now Orcas, CAN and do get brought on grid for the use of hauling the ores for a squad worth of miners, that job can be handled by a cloaked industrial that makes constant runs to the station/POS/Citadel., but the Orca's better due to larger cargo, fewer trips to unload, might need two pilots if using industrials.
So that brings us down to the new BC sized and destroyer sized boosters, I'm thinking you will see command destroyers on grid in high sec if there is any booster at all. Low sec and null are where you will see orcas and Roquals due to all the blues and scouts for advance warning. Worm hole will not have much booster usage.
Net result will be a net reduction in boosted mining in high sec. ABC minerals will become cheaper in relation to the high sec ores. Highsec gankers will NOT get a lot of nice killmails from ganking roquals, instead the highsec miners will sell, hanger queen, or scrap their roquals. You do realise that a Rorqual can't be used in high sec? I think perhaps he was hoping that we didn't.
maybe he really has just never used one... and considering he doesn't even think ppl wil bring orcas to belts maybe he hasn't even used one of those?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:00:48 -
[1069] - Quote
1. Command ships are COMMAND ships ...they should be top in all stats ...so why are there any ship give a greater range on link effects??? 2. Why should the super and titan blobbers get extra bonuses ..... is it an ncpl thinngy? so the super blobb will just become stronger??? 3. If the boni are not passiv any more but active ammo ****** things why are these skills not worth to refound??? because one alt is getting useless?
Why did you not just leave everything like it is but force boosters onto the grid????
No clue what these changes are meant for but they are kind of crap!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:09:14 -
[1070] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:1. Command ships are COMMAND ships ...they should be top in all stats ...so why are there any ship give a greater range on link effects??? 2. Why should the super and titan blobbers get extra bonuses ..... is it an ncpl thinngy? so the super blobb will just become stronger??? 3. If the boni are not passiv any more but active ammo ****** things why are these skills not worth to refound??? because one alt is getting useless?
Why did you not just leave everything like it is but force boosters onto the grid????
No clue what these changes are meant for but they are kind of crap!
1 command ships still give the best boosts they can also move faster than the capitals
2 titans are loosing their passive boost this isn't "extra its a replacement"
3 no idea why they are not just scripts... ccp feel ice prices are to low?
4? because this opens up a larger dynamic and gives a reason to use the different boosting ships available as well as a reason to have more than one of a link on field should you chose.
5? these changes are to add more game play to what used to be just a passive alt mechanic over all it is a good change
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
3033
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:23:37 -
[1071] - Quote
I riek! I riek very much!
My thoughts
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17995
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:26:31 -
[1072] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:1. Command ships are COMMAND ships ...they should be top in all stats ...so why are there any ship give a greater range on link effects??? 2. Why should the super and titan blobbers get extra bonuses ..... is it an ncpl thinngy? so the super blobb will just become stronger??? 3. If the boni are not passiv any more but active ammo ****** things why are these skills not worth to refound??? because one alt is getting useless?
Why did you not just leave everything like it is but force boosters onto the grid????
No clue what these changes are meant for but they are kind of crap!
NB: The plural of "bonus" is 'bonuses'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bonus?s=t
A bonus isn't a hippopotamus, and it's plural doesn't look like one either.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:31:52 -
[1073] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:1. Command ships are COMMAND ships ...they should be top in all stats ...so why are there any ship give a greater range on link effects??? 2. Why should the super and titan blobbers get extra bonuses ..... is it an ncpl thinngy? so the super blobb will just become stronger??? 3. If the boni are not passiv any more but active ammo ****** things why are these skills not worth to refound??? because one alt is getting useless?
Why did you not just leave everything like it is but force boosters onto the grid????
No clue what these changes are meant for but they are kind of crap!
NB: The plural of "bonus" is 'bonuses' http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bonus?s=t A bonus isn't a hippopotamus, and it's plural doesn't look like one either.
thx
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:39:33 -
[1074] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:1. Command ships are COMMAND ships ...they should be top in all stats ...so why are there any ship give a greater range on link effects??? 2. Why should the super and titan blobbers get extra bonuses ..... is it an ncpl thinngy? so the super blobb will just become stronger??? 3. If the boni are not passiv any more but active ammo ****** things why are these skills not worth to refound??? because one alt is getting useless?
Why did you not just leave everything like it is but force boosters onto the grid????
No clue what these changes are meant for but they are kind of crap!
1 command ships still give the best boosts they can also move faster than the capitals 2 titans are loosing their passive boost this isn't "extra its a replacement" 3 no idea why they are not just scripts... ccp feel ice prices are to low? 4? because this opens up a larger dynamic and gives a reason to use the different boosting ships available as well as a reason to have more than one of a link on field should you chose. 5? these changes are to add more game play to what used to be just a passive alt mechanic over all it is a good change
1. But the range is less than carriers or? 2. The extra buff for Titans is a huge thing for the Titan super blobbs.... so even if it is replacing the passiv bonuses ( correct this time?) 4-5. Why is it more gameplay when have this boots compared to an ongrid booster? You have to man this ship and fly it and can-Śt alt sitter it anyway? Because you have to reload the booster ammo? or to keep in range of your fleet? ...to shine as an elite pilot? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:50:56 -
[1075] - Quote
1 yes carriers are slower no? and they are a full 10% weaker
2 no clue will have to see final numbers and how they are used to early to tell
4-5 yes? those would all count as more gameplay than just tucking it in deadspace and maybe moving it if your probbed
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 11:03:27 -
[1076] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:1 yes carriers are slower no? and they are a full 10% weaker
2 no clue will have to see final numbers and how they are used to early to tell
4-5 yes? those would all count as more gameplay than just tucking it in deadspace and maybe moving it if your probbed
1. and still nothing should be stronger in strength and range than a command ship! 2. it is written in stone allready 4.-5. by just forcing the booster onto grid you would have got same without benefiting the Titan super blob! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 11:10:59 -
[1077] - Quote
1 why? already there are ships that can boost with more utility and currently there is no reason to put a link on a carrier/fax
2 nothing ccp does is written in stone don't be dramatic
4-5 no the fleet positioning/darting on and of grid/need for multiple boosters would not have been there in nearly the same way. if they just forced them on grid you could do what boosters do now when forced on grid. sit there look pretty make sure not to get out of RR range
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:17:17 -
[1078] - Quote
4-5 no the fleet positioning/darting on and of grid/need for multiple boosters would not have been there in nearly the same way. if they just forced them on grid you could do what boosters do now when forced on grid. sit there look pretty make sure not to get out of RR range[/quote]
If you are forced onto the grid it will need more than look pretty .... and even more if there are range limits ... the only thing more is to reload! You allready need 1x fleet booster + 1 for each wing so at leat 6 for a full fleet so i still don-Śt see the increase of fun .... but i might be blind in this case!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:23:19 -
[1079] - Quote
i can see this being much better and for one thing it will be harder for alts to do it meaning players who want to fill the buffer role can do it now even if they don't have max skills
be nice if it wasn't so hard to fit a T1 booster too :/
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Troubled Basterd
Island Life Capitalist Bastards Chained Reactions
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:23:52 -
[1080] - Quote
Marauders in higher clas wormholes are ****** as wel. No refitting and needing to fit even more tank becaus of the lack of boosts is making the marauder usles in my opinion.
Marauders have the tank advantage over other ships, thats wy its fun to drop them on to a (small) fleet. Links are wat make and break this. Not having links wil result in less solo marauder pvp. Thats a shame.
Pleas make the links ongrit, not close range. I do agree that an unscannable claymore aint fair. Thats wy i have a maxed out unscannable claymore alt.
o/,
Tb. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:27:50 -
[1081] - Quote
1 have run high class holes in marauders w/o boosts
2 boosting alt is not solo but i do agree 34.8k is a bit on the short side for command ships closer to 50k would be nice (the should at least be able to work at close to their max weapon range give or take ~10k) if not kite fleets will not work well and this would undo the efforts to stop fleets from balling up as much
3 things havent been unscannable for years there is now a cap on how hard it is to scan you
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:53:08 -
[1082] - Quote
Mining stuff:
Remove boosts from the rorqual completly, nobody needs this gameplay, where this giant sits next to barges doing again nothing except running a booster and sometimes pressing "F" to assign drones to a new target.
Instead make the boosts a system upgrade/structure if you please, god you could make it something deployable so even the highsecguys are happy. -> so dependant on the sec-status (high, low, null) the structure/deployable gives different % values.
I know, that in high-sec this would buff everyone equally in system, not sure what could be done against that for regulation, respectively proper distribution of these "boosts" -> was just a first idea
Changes for the rorqual: the new mining drones and something like a capital mining laser.
This would make it a capital vessel for mining, risk vs reward you bring capital you gather ore on a capital level.
and please for the sake of sense, just remove this flippin 5 minutes siege core crap, that nobody needs these days.
I agree and understand, that ships should be actually on grid to do stuff, but mining boosts are no active thing, and the so called "changes" for the rorqual don't encourage active gameplay, they just place the thing in the goddamn middle of a belt, basically saying: "come here and hotdrop me"
with this you still can introduce your defensive super weapon, rorqual can still encourage/bait fights, but they don't feel like complete garbage, at least I hope so.
I am all open for constructive feedback on this idea
Regards Mayce
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:56:37 -
[1083] - Quote
why would making the rorq a mining vessel be different from having boosts? if its boosts give the fleet 100m3 more an hr its the same as the rorq mining for 100m3 an hr.... and why is mining with a lazer and no boosts more active than mining with its drones and boosting, anyway?
upgrade you are just back to riskless mining deploy able is fine if you have to put it in belt it has the same range and costs as much as a rorq i see no issue
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:57:36 -
[1084] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i can see this being much better and for one thing it will be harder for alts to do it meaning players who want to fill the buffer role can do it now even if they don't have max skills
be nice if it wasn't so hard to fit a T1 booster too :/
You can fit t1, we did it for at :_) but the point here is that the only difference here is that you only reload ..... if you would still have passive with limited range on grid the only thing more to do would press "reload" and "activate module" again.... so why changing this that hard .... while you buff the super blobb?
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:59:38 -
[1085] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:why would making the rorq a mining vessel be different from having boosts? if its boosts give the fleet 100m3 more an hr its the same as the rorq mining for 100m3 an hr.... and why is mining with a lazer and no boosts more active than mining with its drones and boosting, anyway?
upgrade you are just back to riskless mining deploy able is fine if you have to put it in belt it has the same range and costs as much as a rorq i see no issue
you would have boosts and the rorqual mining -> so more ore than before
that doesnt have anything to do with riskless, the buff is just moved away from the rorqual, and the rorqual can actually be used for stuff
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:01:16 -
[1086] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i can see this being much better and for one thing it will be harder for alts to do it meaning players who want to fill the buffer role can do it now even if they don't have max skills
be nice if it wasn't so hard to fit a T1 booster too :/ You can fit t1, we did it for at :_) but the point here is that the only difference here is that you only reload ..... if you would still have passive with limited range on grid the only thing more to do would press "reload" and "activate module" again.... so why changing this that hard .... while you buff the super blobb?
i meant SP wise with fitting a T1
again managing range in logi is a big part of it so i imagine it would be the same in these ships so that is what the range adds to command ships. it adds a lot more to the dessi who may have to move around simply to spread boosts while not getting caught in a scram/web or with low trans and at the same time you are trying for an opportunity to mjd someone.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:03:22 -
[1087] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:why would making the rorq a mining vessel be different from having boosts? if its boosts give the fleet 100m3 more an hr its the same as the rorq mining for 100m3 an hr.... and why is mining with a lazer and no boosts more active than mining with its drones and boosting, anyway?
upgrade you are just back to riskless mining deploy able is fine if you have to put it in belt it has the same range and costs as much as a rorq i see no issue you would have boosts and the rorqual mining -> so more ore than before that doesnt have anything to do with riskless, the buff is just moved away from the rorqual, and the rorqual can actually be used for stuff
if the boosts are put into an upgrade they are not really at risk
so now you just want even more yeild on top of the boosts yeah that sounds reasonable.
and you didn't explain why boosting and mining with drones was less active than using a mining lazer
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:04:58 -
[1088] - Quote
again managing range in logi is a big part of it so i imagine it would be the same in these ships so that is what the range adds to command ships. it adds a lot more to the dessi who may have to move around simply to spread boosts while not getting caught in a scram/web or with low trans and at the same time you are trying for an opportunity to mjd someone.[/quote]
i doubt there will be command dessis for boosts but more caps, supers and Titans!
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:06:05 -
[1089] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:why would making the rorq a mining vessel be different from having boosts? if its boosts give the fleet 100m3 more an hr its the same as the rorq mining for 100m3 an hr.... and why is mining with a lazer and no boosts more active than mining with its drones and boosting, anyway?
upgrade you are just back to riskless mining deploy able is fine if you have to put it in belt it has the same range and costs as much as a rorq i see no issue you would have boosts and the rorqual mining -> so more ore than before that doesnt have anything to do with riskless, the buff is just moved away from the rorqual, and the rorqual can actually be used for stuff if the boosts are put into an upgrade they are not really at risk so now you just want even more yeild on top of the boosts yeah that sounds reasonable. and you didn't explain why boosting and mining with drones was less active than using a mining lazer
well the structure is at risk if it's deployed (means if not made an upgrade, because that's no option for highsec)
more yield, yeah well watching a mining laser actually gathering something is more fun, than watching 1min cd boosts doing nothing, i guess?
well more risk more yield, what's the issue? you don't put the flippin giant into the belt for nothing at all.
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:13:18 -
[1090] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:
well the structure is at risk if it's deployed (means if not made an upgrade, because that's no option for highsec)
more yield, yeah well watching a mining laser actually gathering something is more fun, than watching 1min cd boosts doing nothing, i guess?
well more risk more yield, what's the issue? you don't put the flippin giant into the belt for nothing at all.
i made a different point if it was a structure
thats poor reasoning
but you want more yield (boost + rorq laser) with the same risk (rorq in belt)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:14:20 -
[1091] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:
i doubt there will be command dessis for boosts but more caps, supers and Titans!
yeah i don't see ppl wiping out the caps for frig/cruiser gangs but silly me i forgot most pvp is done at the capital level in eve doi
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Qutain Malakovic
Nisroc Angels
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:19:16 -
[1092] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:why would making the rorq a mining vessel be different from having boosts? if its boosts give the fleet 100m3 more an hr its the same as the rorq mining for 100m3 an hr.... and why is mining with a lazer and no boosts more active than mining with its drones and boosting, anyway?
upgrade you are just back to riskless mining deploy able is fine if you have to put it in belt it has the same range and costs as much as a rorq i see no issue
You have just proved what a great and knowledgable industrialist you are when you think that an additional 100m3 an hour is a large amount. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:22:20 -
[1093] - Quote
Qutain Malakovic wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:why would making the rorq a mining vessel be different from having boosts? if its boosts give the fleet 100m3 more an hr its the same as the rorq mining for 100m3 an hr.... and why is mining with a lazer and no boosts more active than mining with its drones and boosting, anyway?
upgrade you are just back to riskless mining deploy able is fine if you have to put it in belt it has the same range and costs as much as a rorq i see no issue You have just proved what a great and knowledgable industrialist you are when you think that an additional 100m3 an hour is a large amount.
you have just proven how deductive you are for thinking that was anything but an easy number for examples sake
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:24:51 -
[1094] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:
well the structure is at risk if it's deployed (means if not made an upgrade, because that's no option for highsec)
more yield, yeah well watching a mining laser actually gathering something is more fun, than watching 1min cd boosts doing nothing, i guess?
well more risk more yield, what's the issue? you don't put the flippin giant into the belt for nothing at all.
i made a different point if it was a structure thats poor reasoning but you want more yield (boost + rorq laser) with the same risk (rorq in belt)
i know you did.
it's also poor reasoning by ccp saying we want active gameplay with the rorqual, if there is obviously not more active gameplay afterwards. the most important part is to remove the core mechanic. the rest was an idea, to make the rorqual more fun to actually "play" it.
i dont necessarily want more yield, I want the ship to actually do stuff, Capital mining lasers could be that special thing that ships does, but this yeah boosts are now on grid, is not very spectacular to me. Feels to me like a supercarrier with no fighters, but boosts on it?
I mean it's already the Rorqual guy "flying" his space coffin, hopefully getting safed by friends, that's his "fun gamplay" anyway -.-
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:34:10 -
[1095] - Quote
by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:38:34 -
[1096] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you?
I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:45:00 -
[1097] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you? I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD
in belt mining with drones is just as active as miners mining with lasers and much more active than not being in the same zip code as your PC
i do like how you are one of the few who not only realizes they will still be used but even that ppl will still afk with them though.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:57:37 -
[1098] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you? I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD in belt mining with drones is just as active as miners mining with lasers and much more active than not being in the same zip code as your PC i do like how you are one of the few who not only realizes they will still be used but even that ppl will still afk with them though.
ye you are right, i guess i would just love to see the rorqual doing something different than the boosting.
well mining is completly designed to be afk while doing it, except the hulks, where you shuffle ore around.
To me the rorqual should be something like a dread, you bring it to maybe break big ore or to mine more than normal stuff (in relation to a dread who is a classcannon in regards of damage)
but the current state, it's this stupid thing sitting there, hoping for times where it can finally shine.
-> you need the rorqual for efficiency but again not for fun :/
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:29:00 -
[1099] - Quote
again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc Drake Ashigaru
116
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:40:25 -
[1100] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you? I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD in belt mining with drones is just as active as miners mining with lasers and much more active than not being in the same zip code as your PC i do like how you are one of the few who not only realizes they will still be used but even that ppl will still afk with them though. ye you are right, i guess i would just love to see the rorqual doing something different than the boosting. well mining is completly designed to be afk while doing it, except the hulks, where you shuffle ore around. To me the rorqual should be something like a dread, you bring it to maybe break big ore or to mine more than normal stuff (in relation to a dread who is a classcannon in regards of damage) but the current state, it's this stupid thing sitting there, hoping for times where it can finally shine. -> you need the rorqual for efficiency but again not for fun :/ The problem with the Rorqual is it's design, in fact one could argue the problem with mining is it's basic game design as well. The great length of time that you don't have to interact with the game in many ways encourages people to get distracted by other things away from the keyboard.
If the mining went a lot faster, and I mean significantly faster, and a person had to re-target the shrinking rock every minute or so mining would no longer be mostly passive.
CCP will however be terrified to make this change, because they might actually do something that is helpful to industrialists without an immediate larger benefit for pvp pilots. That is the weak spot for CCP, they have a compelling urge to better the game for combat and everything else comes in a distant fourth place.
If Rorquals mined 15 to 20 times faster than the smaller Hulks, Skiffs, and Mackinaws I think you'd see more people using them in belts because the risk would better match the reward.
The market would adjust and survive so please don't start gnashing your teeth and wringing your hands about how this change might destroy the EVE economy. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:45:19 -
[1101] - Quote
yes if it mined 20x faster the market would change and adjust so that players that could not afford one would make next to nothing from mining....
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc Drake Ashigaru
117
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:51:29 -
[1102] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yes if it mined 20x faster the market would change and adjust so that players that could not afford one would make next to nothing from mining.... You mean like moon mining is and has been for years?
That destroyed the game right?
Do you have a problem with known facts? Your opinion is not the end all for everything, and mine is not either, please climb down from the self righteous sanctimonious perch you cling to in these forums and talk with people instead of pontificating at them.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:00:06 -
[1103] - Quote
moon mining cant be sped up buy 20x just with a better drills
and several people have pointed to static moon goo as a major problem in eve advocating for deposits to move/shift around as well as require active mining and no longer be passive
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc Drake Ashigaru
117
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:10:49 -
[1104] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:moon mining cant be sped up buy 20x just with a better drills
and several people have pointed to static moon goo as a major problem in eve advocating for deposits to move/shift around as well as require active mining and no longer be passive The point I apparently did a poor job of making was that the big fish of null and low sec get the best moons and it has not busted the economy. The big fish get to build capital ships and Titans and others still fly sub capital ships.
CCP will not mess with moon mining because the major PVP Alliances use it to survive.
Because a Rorqual in low or null can mine twenty times faster than a Hulk in high sec is not going to radically impact the game from my experience. It might make what is mined more valuable because the ore not as readily available in low & null sec will be needed to build more Rorquals for the market.
You know the rising tide thing.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:22:09 -
[1105] - Quote
oh really ls and null get the best moons?
ffs i'm going to bed thats just to much dumb
EDIT:
anyway yes it has broken the econemy and has alowed the big fish to get bigger and out a huge barrier for any of the smaller ones to grow
if these moons were simply made more available in LS so that alliances could not have a monopoly on them ships would be a lot cheaper and there would not be as large a gap between the big guy and the small guy
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc Drake Ashigaru
117
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:27:46 -
[1106] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:oh really ls and null get the best moons?
ffs i'm going to bed thats just to much dumb ffs, lol, there is no moon mining in high sec. Again do you have a problem with well known facts?
Sweet dreams sir, it is really actually nice discussing things with you, proof we can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads V. O. I. D.
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 22:58:01 -
[1107] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Can you please comment on how you and the rest of the dev team feel that a couple minute invulnerability effect locking a 2 billion isk ship in place, giving the enemy more time to get more on grid or bubble you (i'm assuming the invul period will not prevent you from being bubbled to hell) fits into your whole risk vs. reward scheme?
As far as I can tell, this basically turns the Rorqual into a very expensive bait ship. I think a good balance would be to allow the Rorqual to fit a Jump portal Generator and only be able to bridge indy ships. that way when the invul goes down, you can have a chance at extracting your fleet. Also, can the Nexus mod be cycled while locked or will it function like a cloak? can you activate once tackled and mitigate damage, then tank through the cooldown (assuming there is one) and then reactive for another invul period? Can local tank mods be cycled while the nexus is active? I think these things would all be much more favorable tradeoffs for requiring the Rorqual in belts that just "here have a bit of invulnerablility and sit there waiting for more tackle and bubbles to lock you down while you pull your mindlink and start copying capital part bpc's for your next Rorq build"
Response? |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
155
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 23:44:59 -
[1108] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:1. Command ships are COMMAND ships ...they should be top in all stats ...so why are there any ship give a greater range on link effects??? 2. Why should the super and titan blobbers get extra bonuses ..... is it an ncpl thinngy? so the super blobb will just become stronger??? 3. If the boni are not passiv any more but active ammo ****** things why are these skills not worth to refound??? because one alt is getting useless?
Why did you not just leave everything like it is but force boosters onto the grid????
No clue what these changes are meant for but they are kind of crap!
1) The command ships ARE top. They provide the most effective bonus. Successfully spreading them out throughout your fleets to keep up their bonuses has a reward.
2) Titans and capital boosters give a weaker boost amount over a larger area. This fills holes in command ships boosts to prevent your fleet from the drastic drop of going from max boosts to none. It needs to be there, because in bloc level combat you can expect to see boosting command ships regularly doomsdayed off the field. Especially before a supercapital is primaried.
Another reason the range discrepancy needs to exist, is there is a maximum range that makes sense for a pilot to feel rewarded for piloting the ship in small gang combat. The value of such a range is so small, that you will probably not want to be navigating through hundreds of sieged dreadnaughts to apply these boosts.
3) If you could keep your booster from getting probed before, I'm sure you can still orbit your main at 500m and click them every two minutes. That does not warrant a refund. Characters with FC5 and the base passive warfare skills trained, but no specializations or command ships are another story. They trained them for entirely different reasons that are being completely removed from the game.
As for the Ammo, I think it's a good idea. It rewards the booster being an active pilot rather than an afk alt. If you want scan res bonuses for your gate camp for several hours, you can just keep hitting the module and shuttle fuel to your booster. Or you can have an actual player specifically boost scan res on gate fire. You can hit it every minute and focus on piloting another character, or you can actually time to refresh when they are about to drop. Delaying refresh cycle has an added benefit when you are about to die. You are more likely to be able to fire off a final boost right before you go down and stretch the benefits for the rest of the fleet, rather than die in the middle of a cycle you didn't need to hit in the first place. Then there are things like boosting one group of ships, microjumping to another that was out of range and boosting them, then burning off to warp back to the first group for a refresh.
I fail to see how a "I clicked the button 6 hours ago, therefore everything on grid (read: within 10,000+ km) gets the bonuses until I die" system would provide better gameplay. Scan Res/Tackle Range boosters sitting in tackle range of the people jumping into them, oh the horror!
People are used to their booster snugly in a safe or on a citadel. Command ships should be in the middle of the fleet, you know, commanding it. That is what these changes are meant for. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18007
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 06:26:06 -
[1109] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:
4-5 no the fleet positioning/darting on and of grid/need for multiple boosters would not have been there in nearly the same way. if they just forced them on grid you could do what boosters do now when forced on grid. sit there look pretty make sure not to get out of RR range
If you are forced onto the grid it will need more than look pretty .... and even more if there are range limits ... the only thing more is to reload! You allready need 1x fleet booster + 1 for each wing so at leat 6 for a full fleet so i still don-Śt see the increase of fun .... but i might be blind in this case! [/quote]
Are you really this angry that fleet boosting is now a role that will require some attention?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 07:10:54 -
[1110] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser
Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet.
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:01:41 -
[1111] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet.
For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:07:47 -
[1112] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet. For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different
I did already, I said I would want to see the rorqual as an actual capital miner loose from the boosting.
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:10:19 -
[1113] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet. For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different I did already, I said I would want to see the rorqual as an actual capital miner loose from the boosting.
No you still have not explained why boosting while using mining drones was less active than not boosting and using a laser
Citadel worm hole tax
|
X Mayce
Manson Family Advent of Fate
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 13:48:13 -
[1114] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser Ye I know, I am just not convinced by this yet. For Crist's sake man just tell me why it's different I did already, I said I would want to see the rorqual as an actual capital miner loose from the boosting. No you still have not explained why boosting while using mining drones was less active than not boosting and using a laser
In the current setup the Rorqual is a requirement to be max efficient as a fleet -> not optional in sense of efficiency
if the boosts were uncoupled from the rorqual, the rorqual would just be an escalation tool to gather even more ore, because you go capital. -> that's what i would like more
If that going capital is by a superweapon to cut a belt or a big ore cluster, or you mine with capital lasers or whatever i dont care, but this you require the capital in the belt at all times, I dunno what to think about this.
It's not more active playstyle it's a different approach in general I assume.
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 13:58:33 -
[1115] - Quote
we are not talking about currently but the change that will give it highly efficient mining drones only it can use <-this right here i want to know why THIS is differant from giving it the laser you proposed earlier. with this it not only mines at a capital rate but also boosts why is that worse than it mining at a capital rate but unable to boost?
again if its boosting or if its just mining for max efficiency you need it
if it adds 100m3 to a fleet per hour from its boosts or if it adds 100m3 to the fleet from mining the effect is the same.
the only difference is if boosting the potential of the rorq is limitless where if its mining it will have a hard cap. so really your way is just a nerf
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Saffoo
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 15:52:14 -
[1116] - Quote
Hi All
Well I've chewed this over a lot and come to a few conclusions about the changes to boosting, i'm probably wanting my cake and to eat it but here goes :)
Firstly I agree that OGB does indeed give an advantage to a squad or fleet of ships when engaging another group of ships etc and boosting should indeed be a more active, hands on in fleet roles
However there has never been any reason why both parties cant have an OGB and indeed everyone does it but i digress
So a big old yes please to on grid boosting? Well hold up for a minute there is a few flies in the ointment!
Many people have stated concerns over range, lag, TiDi, fitting changes et all and these are all good and valid concerns and time will tell how the changes pan out but let's dig a bit deeper
We are all agreed that these changes break a lot of long established game play some for the good and some for (hopefully) the better but i am concerned that CCP is attempting to extract more real money from our wallets
Let's take mining boosts as an example, though this applies to most other areas of boosting, currently you can have an orca boosting a squad of miners who are happily mining several different belts of roids, shooting rats, hauling ore and generally doing their thing and scratching a living from mining
Post changes they can no longer do this, this game play has been completely broken and they are forced to mine in a group, in 1 belt in a nice big bait ball
Yay you might say more miners to shoot, well look at it this way the only other option these poor miners have is to sub another account and train up another orca (or porpoise, dang this ship better haul some ore) pilot if they want to not be mining over themselves or overworking the orca pilots
OK like i said this is just an example of how these changes break current game play and throw in the need for additional accounts i'm sure this applies to other areas of fleet boosting and the need for additional accounts and hence income
I dont have the answers to make life fairier just that these changes have a decidedly fishy undercurrent about them
OK time to put my tinfoil hat back on :) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:46:54 -
[1117] - Quote
if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3018
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:48:32 -
[1118] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great
i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts
Citadel worm hole tax
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:53:17 -
[1119] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts
if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong |
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
105
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 17:59:58 -
[1120] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:With apologies to CASMA (more about that below) my initial reaction to these changes is very positive. Last night a Fed Navy Comet came into my system so I undocked a Comet of my own while looking forward to some 1v1 action. As I was calculating a warp-in however a Tengu entered system. I sighed and docked up, not wanting to fight against a boosted opponent. Turns out the Tengu was just a coincidental neutral but by then it was too late. With on-grid command burts, at least I would have known exactly when or when not the opponent was receiving boosts. It wouldn't preclude the opponent's booster warping in after getting a scram and deploying the Command Burst, but that's at least a little bit more tolerable.
As a close-range brawler I also like the nerf this deals to bs kiting comps. The booster would need to be at least as fast as the kiting ships in order to continue to provide boosts, and it would also require the kiting ships to stick together to remain in range of the effect.
Additionally, as somebody who trained some leadership skills mostly to pass boosts other fleetmates were providing, I suppose I could extract those skills and sell the Injectors for ISK - but I would much prefer to reallocate those SP elsewhere in my character, without having to deal with the Injectors providing much less than 500k SP for my character. CCP, please consider a skill refund with the deployment of these changes.
Finally, for CASMA - I do not know how you operate as despite being in CCG I am only peripherally aware of you guys. But CCG does make use of Orca and Rorqual boosts a lot in our nullsec home, so these changes will effect us as well. I have no idea what the miners in CCG will do about the mining boosts changes, but you guys are totally welcome to come down and join us where at least you'll have some sort of PvP backup for protection. (But AFK mining, of course, is not really an option and we cannot help with that.) The ice and roids are quite valuable and should be more than enough compensation for the inevitable ship losses. Getting on some nice killmails in the meantime is another perk of nullsec mining.
(Pardon if a dupe - got a "we were ganked" message first posting.)
So no change here ..... When the grid boosts are implemented when a Navy Comet and a Tengu fly in - you will still choose not to fight them |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3022
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:09:52 -
[1121] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong
... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them
Citadel worm hole tax
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:24:05 -
[1122] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong ... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them
you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3023
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:28:13 -
[1123] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong ... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.
only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Apollo Outamon
Galactic Exploration and Mining Inc The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:49:30 -
[1124] - Quote
I do not see where these changes are going to be helpful to industrialists in the long run. Yes the boosts will be better and the booster toon can now mine directly as well but, most booster toons are alts of miners anyway for the sole purpose of boosting the squad or fleet.
CCP stated that they listened to us players about wanting on grid boosting.... I do not know a single industrialist who would want such a thing. Putting a 2+ billion isk ship where it can be killed along with every miner that now has to mine next to it at risk of being 1 big bait ball. Not to mention that if a miner needs a specific type of ore for building ships that players use for ratting, defence of an area or PVP and there are none in the current belt they have to wait until the fleet moves to another belt to get it. The current mining boosting system works very well and should not be changed simply because PVPers want to be able to kill the mining booster ships and/or hot drop a group of miners all at once for the added killboard padding.
CCP says they are giving the boosting ships an increase in defence and the Rorqual a superweopon to counteract hot drops and roaming fleets coming to kill it. This will allow enough time for a friendly fleet to come to the rescue....PVP time again. Miners will most often still lose this one. the superweopon for protection last only so long and then if help isn't there or available.. POOF!
Most miners are vulnerable enough as it is and get killed often enough as it is. Why make them more of a target? Does CCP not realize that without the miners and builders the PVP part would suffer greatly? That most miners will not risk the boosting ships of any price tag at this point. The price of ore and minerals will sky rocket followed by the price of ships, modules and every other item in game? Players will stop playing the game. Miners will no longer mine. and PVPers who are the driving force behind these changes (i have no doubt) will be the ones to suffer the most in the end. How long until a 45 mil isk PVP ship becomes 145 mil isk? Or more?
Now let's get to the new boosting ship, the Porpoise. A ship that is cheap and able to provide mining boosts and that is quick enough to get out of harms way is an great idea. Right? Let's look at this. Ok so miners are not going to risk the big isk ships for boosting on grid we know this so let's make a ship that can do it and that is cheap and able to get out much quicker. At a far less boosting amount. Now this is like saying we know this change is going to upset just about every industrialist in the game because we know none of them wants these changes we are forcing on them so lets try to apease them some what with this alternative ship for boosting. Because CCP knows that no mining equals no pvp which equals no $$ for them.
I appologize for the length of this post but, as someone who mines, pvps, builds and explores in this game, i can not sit here and think gee this is a great idea when it is nothing but another way for pvp to make CCP $$.
As it stands it looks like when the miners stop mining or the influx of ore drops drastically will CCP stop and go "oops, we messed that one up" and fix it back to how it is now. PVP will suffer from lack of ore to make the ships that they use.
Think about the domino effect here people. Everything in this game is tied to everything else in one way or another. If miners suffer so does PVP. If enough miners quit, stop mining or aren't able to mine enough ore any longer due to lack of boosts you will see the effects rather quickly.
Just a thought.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3023
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:56:01 -
[1125] - Quote
Apollo Outamon wrote: the current boosting system has 0 risk and loads of reward. this is a good thing
your the reason indi pilots get a bad reputation
Citadel worm hole tax
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1271
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 20:39:20 -
[1126] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.
only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)
it's awkward because this post is the opposite of the truth, but we're off-topic so I shouldn't be responding |
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads V. O. I. D.
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 21:56:56 -
[1127] - Quote
X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:X Mayce wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....
the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you? I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD in belt mining with drones is just as active as miners mining with lasers and much more active than not being in the same zip code as your PC i do like how you are one of the few who not only realizes they will still be used but even that ppl will still afk with them though. ye you are right, i guess i would just love to see the rorqual doing something different than the boosting. well mining is completly designed to be afk while doing it, except the hulks, where you shuffle ore around. To me the rorqual should be something like a dread, you bring it to maybe break big ore or to mine more than normal stuff (in relation to a dread who is a classcannon in regards of damage) but the current state, it's this stupid thing sitting there, hoping for times where it can finally shine. -> you need the rorqual for efficiency but again not for fun :/
I am all for the coming changes, I do have my reservations about the Rorq being put in the belt and I guess I would just like to see it having a reasonable chance of escape/defending itself. Sadly this seems to be another round of CCP pandering to the people who cry about not having enough easy high ISK killmails.
I guess more than anything I would like to see is the Rorqual being able to move while boosting. Get rid of this stupid siege mechanic for the industrial core. From what i can gather from the discussions I've read the mining yield will be more, yes, but as with the new carrier system they have increased the level of micromanaging necessary to significantly gimp productivity. The skiff, being my preferred mining vessel will now have two mining lasers and will fill its hold before it can jetcan, meaning now all the barges for long term mining ops will need to anchor a can or constantly warp out and back. The micromanaging necessary for a couple miners will not be so much but for those alliance supporting type entities who take out 10-20 alt fleets, it will become next to impossible.
So it seems to me that for all intents and purposes, the yield will remain roughly the same overall, only now you are risking a 2 billion isk ship, in the belt. So while at face value it may seem the risk vs. reward system is being implemented by saying we will be getting a huge boost to mining amount, but it will be offset by the added time in managing storage and transport. So for this to not be heavily biased in favor of miner ganks, there needs to be a reasonable expectation of egress or a really big boost to yield. time will tell |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3027
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 22:01:24 -
[1128] - Quote
they did make it so you do not need to siege the rorq and still get a significant boost over the orca but if you want to take on the extra risk you can siege and get even more.
-.- i have no sympathy if you alt management got harder. if thats what this change has done good one CCP
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc Drake Ashigaru
120
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 22:33:13 -
[1129] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts
if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong ... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them. only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large) This is the perfect example of the myopic self centered blindness people can and often do develop when they think their game style is the only or best game style to play.
8 or 10 man fleets running Incursions certainly NEED logistics. But when all you think about is pvp you can become blind to the day to day reality other players face. Sometimes what you don't consider breaks the game for others. No logistics would certainly break the game for people flying Incursions.
Now go ahead and say you think Incursions are bad and you want them to go away. (aka you don't run incusions so you don't care about breaking it for those who do)
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3031
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:15:33 -
[1130] - Quote
... he said need it at all times. If anyone was blind to other Play styles it was him.
And I do run incursions i make most my isk that way and yes they are bad they are a risk free Isk faucet. The HS rewards should be cut in half
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Rick Wyatt
Massive Dynamic inc. Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 13:52:44 -
[1131] - Quote
Everyone should be figuring out a way to congratulate CCP. In the vastness of all this open space they have managed to find a way to shove everyone into office cubicles limited by the range of boosters. They have successfully destroyed a hierarchical system in which far less experienced players can now have the same effect as someone who has been playing since the game started. Any advantage you had by being here a long time is pretty much dissipated in a big battle. They have taken something already very complicated and turned it into a big spreadsheet. If you're outside of the lines of the spreadsheet or if you have to go back to get another spreadsheet ship you are open for annihilation because you're not blanketed by the spreadsheet. If you are not in the right position you will not get the protection of the spreadsheet. Lastly they have created something so incomprehensibly complicated that I no longer even feel I can participate in combat and I've pretty much given up the idea of even trying. Mining will no longer be worth it to smaller groups who can't cover against even a 10 ship fleet or will become not worth it because people are going to be unwilling to risk losing major ships that boost. or you don't even have enough ships that boost because the 2 guys that boost are in a different time zone. On top of all of this they're going to throw in a herd of people even more newbie than I am to gaming. I pretty much figure that people are going to be leaving in droves and I agree with the person that said CCP is forcing people into a style of combat that one or two people like. I'm not looking forward to any of this. |
Rin Aiko
CVT IND
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 15:39:53 -
[1132] - Quote
Rick Wyatt wrote:Everyone should be figuring out a way to congratulate CCP. In the vastness of all this open space they have managed to find a way to shove everyone into office cubicles limited by the range of boosters. They have successfully destroyed a hierarchical system in which far less experienced players can now have the same effect as someone who has been playing since the game started. Any advantage you had by being here a long time is pretty much dissipated in a big battle. They have taken something already very complicated and turned it into a big spreadsheet. If you're outside of the lines of the spreadsheet or if you have to go back to get another spreadsheet ship you are open for annihilation because you're not blanketed by the spreadsheet. If you are not in the right position you will not get the protection of the spreadsheet. Lastly they have created something so incomprehensibly complicated that I no longer even feel I can participate in combat and I've pretty much given up the idea of even trying. Mining will no longer be worth it to smaller groups who can't cover against even a 10 ship fleet or will become not worth it because people are going to be unwilling to risk losing major ships that boost. or you don't even have enough ships that boost because the 2 guys that boost are in a different time zone. On top of all of this they're going to throw in a herd of people even more newbie than I am to gaming. I pretty much figure that people are going to be leaving in droves and I agree with the person that said CCP is forcing people into a style of combat that one or two people like. I'm not looking forward to any of this.
I wish boosts were removed altogether. Sad that folks feel that they can't participate in gameplay without them. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 21:02:27 -
[1133] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong
I know, right? If only there were ships that can fit links AND guns at the same time. Forcing those 4link t3's on grid with no tank or guns is totally a bad idea |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1757
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 02:02:03 -
[1134] - Quote
Rin Aiko wrote:I wish boosts were removed altogether. Sad that folks feel that they can't participate in gameplay without them.
In wormhole warfare do to limited mass you can take through wormholes boosts are often the deciding factor when going balls deep into a fleet you know can bring reinforcements |
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 06:56:07 -
[1135] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:
4-5 no the fleet positioning/darting on and of grid/need for multiple boosters would not have been there in nearly the same way. if they just forced them on grid you could do what boosters do now when forced on grid. sit there look pretty make sure not to get out of RR range
If you are forced onto the grid it will need more than look pretty .... and even more if there are range limits ... the only thing more is to reload! You allready need 1x fleet booster + 1 for each wing so at leat 6 for a full fleet so i still don-Śt see the increase of fun .... but i might be blind in this case!
Are you really this angry that fleet boosting is now a role that will require some attention?[/quote]
NOPE! .... but as i told several times before i smell another door that pushes the super blobb..... and harms the small to med scale fun ... ! I really like the fact that boosters are forced onto the grid and have a limited range! But present game mechanics like tidi will cause huge problems for boosters ( remind a cycling "gun-thinngy" which has to reload.... ) ... you might say ok every other Pilot has same issues at the same time but this is not true! If Titans , who allready have the most effective tidi weapon will get an extra effect for what ever it will buff the super blob even more ... or do i get it wrong?
And again cycling a single module is not really any kind of extra fun nor need of super soft skills to handle on field.... so i really see no imrpovement that seems better than just remove all kind of boosters on an active base ( maybe just give command ships of any kind a fixed bonus they are giving out, if used in the role of their fleet ....and if they are on field/ grid and in range .... so you can use these ships and not need to gimp em :-)) |
Diana Lillywhite
The Stars in heaven Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 09:38:22 -
[1136] - Quote
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 |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
740
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 09:45:28 -
[1137] - Quote
15 x 4 = 6000 ? |
Sentenced 1989
198
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 10:08:08 -
[1138] - Quote
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.
The Incursion Guild
Epic Arc Guide
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
302
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 11:09:46 -
[1139] - Quote
always boosting offensive. never defensive... its hard enough defending mining fleets as it is. putting them at more risk. why should people mine anymore...
killing the game slowly but surly
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3049
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 11:12:53 -
[1140] - Quote
how is giving you a free 5min time out making it harder for you to get a def fleet
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3102
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:43:28 -
[1141] - 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 -
[1142] - 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. |
Mytto Amaei
Phoenix Incarnate DevilBear
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:55:59 -
[1143] - Quote
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 has never been any modules boosting your yield, only your cycle time, and thats still in there, so instead of boosting 3 things, we are now gonna boost 4..\o/ |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3051
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:59:46 -
[1144] - Quote
Mytto Amaei 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 has never been any modules boosting your yield, only your cycle time, and thats still in there, so instead of boosting 3 things, we are now gonna boost 4..\o/
oh come now mytto surely you understand they mean the 10% bonus that is no longer being given by the implant. all the other implants got their boost put into a booster but mining just got the crystal thing
Citadel worm hole tax
|
aldhura
Iudicium Phalanx Federation
99
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 19:30:33 -
[1145] - Quote
If you don't have to be in a fleet to apply the boost, does that mean even the enemy fleet that is close up will receive your boosts ? Does this mean we will soon see boosting battleships ?? I do like the idea of receiving my own boosts. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3051
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 19:41:02 -
[1146] - Quote
aldhura wrote:If you don't have to be in a fleet to apply the boost, does that mean even the enemy fleet that is close up will receive your boosts ? Does this mean we will soon see boosting battleships ?? I do like the idea of receiving my own boosts.
you only apply boost to fleet m8s and yourself so no fleet then just you get them
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1532
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 19:56:05 -
[1147] - Quote
- Command Burst Reload time: 60 seconds.
- Command Burst Specialist: -10% reload time per level, for a minimum of 30 seconds.
- Command Burst Reactivation Delay: 60 seconds. There are no possible reductions here.
So we can reload our burst module in as little as 30 seconds. But we can't use it again for another 30 seconds? What's the point to the reload time reduction skill if we can't reactivate it? This assumes we will even be able to reload during the reactivation delay.
We kind of need to know what the capacity of these modules will be, or how they will be using fuel. Will we need to reload these after every use? Or will they be like seige modules or cynos in that they just pull fuel from cargo/fuel bays as required? I am assuming they will have scripts for the differing effects.
If we cannot reload during the reactivation delay, then it will take at least 90 seconds just to get a second different effect from the same module, and the duration skills will be absolutely mandatory. Anything less than a 90 second duration will be a no-go. It would suck if we had to reload after every use.
Frankly, if we are going to use fuel for these, I think you should get rid of the reactivation delay. Spamming bursts to constantly refresh the duration will waste a lot of fuel. But it does allow for good or bad pilot decision making on how to use it.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
aldhura
Iudicium Phalanx Federation
99
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 20:04:45 -
[1148] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:aldhura wrote:If you don't have to be in a fleet to apply the boost, does that mean even the enemy fleet that is close up will receive your boosts ? Does this mean we will soon see boosting battleships ?? I do like the idea of receiving my own boosts. you only apply boost to fleet m8s and yourself so no fleet then just you get them
second post on page one says... Q: Will a pilot be affected by his/her own boosts? A: Yes, even if they are not in a fleet
I read it wrong.. sigh it means I can solo boost.. my bad
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 20:28:20 -
[1149] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote: NOPE! .... but as i told several times before i smell another door that pushes the super blobb..... and harms the small to med scale fun ... ! I really like the fact that boosters are forced onto the grid and have a limited range! But present game mechanics like tidi will cause huge problems for boosters ( remind a cycling "gun-thinngy" which has to reload.... ) ... you might say ok every other Pilot has same issues at the same time but this is not true! If Titans , who allready have the most effective tidi weapon will get an extra effect for what ever it will buff the super blob even more ... or do i get it wrong?
Please elaborate on this "small to med scale fun" you are having with titans in TiDi.
All I see you complaining about here is that boosts will not cycle at all in fights with thousands of pilots on grid. Which means a bunch of supers on all sides with less tank. Death2allsupers. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 20:36:14 -
[1150] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:always boosting offensive. never defensive... its hard enough defending mining fleets as it is. putting them at more risk. why should people mine anymore...
killing the game slowly but surly
There are no boosts that increase damage. The boosts only increase your defenses in terms of HP, resists, and making you a smaller target that is harder to hit. In fact, the Rorqual is getting a substantial buff here as it now gets bonuses to running Shield links equal to command ships.
The only offensive boost is to reduce the time to lock a target, or increase the chance to jam their targeting. This arguably works in favor of the miners, making it easier to clear small tackle ships and extract. |
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 06:32:13 -
[1151] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:GROUND XERO wrote: NOPE! .... but as i told several times before i smell another door that pushes the super blobb..... and harms the small to med scale fun ... ! I really like the fact that boosters are forced onto the grid and have a limited range! But present game mechanics like tidi will cause huge problems for boosters ( remind a cycling "gun-thinngy" which has to reload.... ) ... you might say ok every other Pilot has same issues at the same time but this is not true! If Titans , who allready have the most effective tidi weapon will get an extra effect for what ever it will buff the super blob even more ... or do i get it wrong?
Please elaborate on this "small to med scale fun" you are having with titans in TiDi. All I see you complaining about here is that boosts will not cycle at all in fights with thousands of pilots on grid. Which means a bunch of supers on all sides with less tank. Death2allsupers.
In small / med scal you can-Śt just sit there while trying to outrepp incomming dps and trying to outdps hostile repping power ... you have to move, split hostile forces bla blah blah so this would harm this gameplay more than the blobb=fact
Supers don-Śt need another buff, while new titan command boost effect would be one= fact
So pls just force em onto grid, give real command ships a fixed bonus when they are used in the correct role inside a fleet ( foe claymore on wing commander position= 10% boni on shield and skirmish) while range is limited to 50 km ...and everything is solved :_)!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3053
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 07:34:21 -
[1152] - Quote
why do you want to limit what the command ships can do? there should be no reason i can't get weaker skirmish links out of a nighthawk if i chose.
also i know you guys like dropping supers on things as simple as 3-4 guys but for most of us when we are talking small to mid scale titans don't tend to be involved and there generally are not enough pilots where tidi becomes a regular issue
making them have to reload just makes it that much harder for this to be done on an alt as it forces you to split your attention just a little bit more
Citadel worm hole tax
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 07:43:30 -
[1153] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
making them have to reload just makes it that much harder for this to be done on an alt as it forces you to split your attention just a little bit more
I think making the ship attractive to fly because you don-Śt need a ton of modules for just providing links would be the better way.... and a fixed, passiv bonus would solve the fitting problems so ppl can fly them. To get more ppl to do something while make it harder was never a good way or em i wrong?
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 07:49:02 -
[1154] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also i know you guys like dropping supers on things as simple as 3-4 guys but for most of us when we are talking small to mid scale titans don't tend to be involved and there generally are not enough pilots where tidi becomes a regular issue
I don-Śt .... and it is like a view on what will happen on the other side! And i think Superblobb don-Śt need a buff ! And yes it is a buff... because new special command boosts will give spcial advantage for those who are using it ...
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3053
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 07:51:56 -
[1155] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also i know you guys like dropping supers on things as simple as 3-4 guys but for most of us when we are talking small to mid scale titans don't tend to be involved and there generally are not enough pilots where tidi becomes a regular issue
I don-Śt .... and it is like a view on what will happen on the other side! And i think Superblobb don-Śt need a buff ! And yes it is a buff... because new special command boosts will give spcial advantage for those who are using it ...
you may not your alliance does -.- good fun though ^.^
yeah but what do those boosts have to do with the reload of the command boosts besides the way i see it the new boosts the titans get will add more than they take away it will be interesting since the boosts will affect both fleets. i can see some play counter play going
only down side i see is if its not balanced right the meta will become even more solidified into only a few comps that mesh the best with the best boost :/
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
107
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 08:59:52 -
[1156] - Quote
Perhaps I have missed it in the 50+ pages of this
WHY are the passive skills being removed?????????????????
(technically not removed, but changed to no longer provide passive buffs to fleet mates, instead they only provide bonus's to modules for command ships as I understand it )
not everyone pilots a command ship to provide boosts to a fleet, they instead have the passive skills that provide boosts to a fleet I know that I got those skills to boost the folks I fly with, but not be required to pilot a command ship.
I'm quite sure that the vast majority of folks , be they multi boxers or solo players that fly with others.. did the same
this is gonna result in a very drastic decrease in EHP for everyone that does not have a command ship in a fleet
is this intended ????
what do the passive skills cap out at?? 10% boost to shields, 10% boost to armor, 10% boost to sensor strength, 10% boost to agility??? so everyone in the game looses this and now the ONLY way to get boosts is via having a command ship in a fleet. |
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 11:24:10 -
[1157] - Quote
[quote=Lugh Crow-Slave yeah but what do those boosts have to do with the reload of the command boosts besides the way i see it the new boosts the titans get will add more than they take away it will be interesting since the boosts will affect both fleets. i can see some play counter play going
only down side i see is if its not balanced right the meta will become even more solidified into only a few comps that mesh the best with the best boost :/[/quote]
it is not interessting to buff the super blobb it is a pain in the ass! ......
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 17:55:08 -
[1158] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote: I think making the ship attractive to fly because you don-Śt need a ton of modules for just providing links would be the better way.... and a fixed, passiv bonus would solve the fitting problems so ppl can fly them. To get more ppl to do something while make it harder was never a good way or em i wrong?
You are wrong.
Making things harder is not automatically a bad thing. Making something that is really hard already more difficult, perhaps is a bad thing in most cases. Making something that literally takes zero effort for significant benefit actually require some effort is a good thing in most cases.
There are these things called a skill floor and a skill ceiling. The floor is how hard it is to perform adequately. The ceiling is how far a skilled player can push things for added benefit. Ship design is no different than class design in an MMO or character design in a MOBA. You want a low floor so it's accessible to a wide public without spending a lot of effort to get the basics down. You want a high ceiling to allow dedicated people to shine. I think the proposed system does a good job of that.
People want to shine. They want to have that "i pulled it off and swung the fight" feeling. Ships with more decisions to make that have meaningful impact attract a certain kind of player. Yes, player. Not a minimized alt. If it's too much effort for you, you might have to give up links. Or pass them off to someone else who welcomes it. Or drop something else from your multitasking to free up brain cycles for keeping your links. You will need to do a little more than anchor your Claymore and cycle missiles on a broadcasted target. Or just not bother with weapons, fit more links, and use that effort on keeping them up instead.
As for your gripe about fitting problems, you do realize that making the links passive would also mean shaving the utility high slots from these ships right? Along with roughly 100 CPU and 220 Power Grid. |
DiDDleR
Skunkdogz Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 18:15:23 -
[1159] - Quote
Fozzie seems like you have some hate for miners and industrialists huh?
I'm part of CASMA we are a group of players dedicated to introducing new and existing EVE players into the world of mining and provide Orca mining boosts to members of the fleet.
The changes to on-grid boosting will severely restrict what we can do if the boosting Orca has to be within a set vicinity of the fleet members. Mining belts aren't enormous (perhaps this area could do with a tweak / revision) so an entire fleet with a close Orca will need to constantly relocate once the belt is exhausted.
The Mining Foreman Link for "reduced crystal deteroiation" or whatever it is called is a complete waste of time, I mean who thought of that? Absolute joke of an idea considering how cheap mining crystals are?
Instead of the currently planned tweaks why not this -
Mechanic to "lock" mining vessel to asteroid to prevent miner bumping, currently there is no counter-attack to a determined bumper and myself have had to resort to logging out and doing something else after being followed from belt to belt by a determined bumper. Miner bumping serves no purpose and this is an area CCP should be addressing, its not like we are sitting tethered to a Citadel in a dreadnought in low / null sec where someone is attempting to engage.
Provide a mechanic where miners can get even with CODE and miner bumping and even the field. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6390
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 22:53:15 -
[1160] - Quote
Rowells wrote: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? Bonuses are always multiplied:
15 km base * (1 + 200% T2 Core) * (1 + 50% role) * (1 + 5 * 4% FC) * (1 + 5 * 5% WC) * (1 + 5 * 6% Leadership) = 131.625 km
I've not yet found details on the Mining Director skill bonus, and for that matter, the leadership / WC / WC bonuses I also have second-hand. Links to the info would be appreciated. |
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 07:29:30 -
[1161] - Quote
DiDDleR wrote:Fozzie seems like you have some hate for miners and industrialists huh?
I'm part of CASMA we are a group of players dedicated to introducing new and existing EVE players into the world of mining and provide Orca mining boosts to members of the fleet.
The changes to on-grid boosting will severely restrict what we can do if the boosting Orca has to be within a set vicinity of the fleet members. Mining belts aren't enormous (perhaps this area could do with a tweak / revision) so an entire fleet with a close Orca will need to constantly relocate once the belt is exhausted.
The Mining Foreman Link for "reduced crystal deteroiation" or whatever it is called is a complete waste of time, I mean who thought of that? Absolute joke of an idea considering how cheap mining crystals are?
Instead of the currently planned tweaks why not this -
Mechanic to "lock" mining vessel to asteroid to prevent miner bumping, currently there is no counter-attack to a determined bumper and myself have had to resort to logging out and doing something else after being followed from belt to belt by a determined bumper. Miner bumping serves no purpose and this is an area CCP should be addressing, its not like we are sitting tethered to a Citadel in a dreadnought in low / null sec where someone is attempting to engage.
Provide a mechanic where miners can get even with CODE and miner bumping and even the field.
We also ran a free fleet with free boost for new players which gave new miners a community and chance to interact with and learn from more experienced players. The systemwide boost enabled that - and allowed us to concurrently boost experienced players mining ice, and new players mining ore in ventures. The limited area of effect of the proposed new boosting regime for the most part eliminates that gameplay. It takes a significant investment of time and skillpoints to be a good booster and there aren't that many people out there who have made that investment and agree to give it's benefit to new players for free to field multiple boosters per fleet.
+1 on needing some counter to bumping. The bumper is at no risk, yet can paralyze the gameplay of another player. The only counter now is to have your full mining fleet swap into cats, suicide the bumper, and then deal with the fact all your miners now have to fly under killrights.
If CCP wants groups like CODE to be able to "own" high sec space and charge rent to other players (mining permits) then provide some equivalent for high sec to Null SOV where the system "owner" has to invest and pay a significant cost to dominate one or more systems. Stationing a group of alts with an inventory of disposable cats nearby is not an appropriate cost for the benefit of inconveniencing many other players. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3060
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 07:32:32 -
[1162] - Quote
for boosting the fact that you now need more than one orca per system has actually gotten a lot of my newer members excited as they now have a reason to use their orcas for boosting
for bumping counter
didn't they add a timer on how long you can be "warping" before warp initiates even if you are being bumped
Citadel worm hole tax
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 07:36:49 -
[1163] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:for boosting the fact that you now need more than one orca per system has actually gotten a lot of my newer members excited as they now have a reason to use their orcas for boosting
for bumping counter
didn't they add a timer on how long you can be "warping" before warp initiates even if you are being bumped
CCP added a solution to prevent freighter pilots from being endlessly bumped and never able to go to warp because they could never align before the next bump happened. That change doesn't prevent a bumper in a mach or stabber from essentially preventing a player from mining by bumping his mining ship 100-200km off the rock that was being targeted each bump. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3060
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 07:39:15 -
[1164] - Quote
yeah but you can always just go to the next system... if they continue to follow you and you have asked them not to you can submit it for harassment. bumping other miners in your system is a legit way to disrupt competition
(remember for it to be harassment they need to be following you system to system not belt to belt)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 08:09:16 -
[1165] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yeah but you can always just go to the next system... if they continue to follow you and you have asked them not to you can submit it for harassment. bumping other miners in your system is a legit way to disrupt competition
(remember for it to be harassment they need to be following you system to system not belt to belt)
If you're in a system to take advantage of a public fleet boost, or hang out and mine with your friends, you can't just go to the next system. Same if you're there for an ice, gas or other anom that is spawned now and not available in the next system.
We've had no examples of it being a competition disrupting activity. It's exclusively been for the pleasure of the bumper disrupting other players gameplay. Players have to stop mining and do other activities, or just dock up and talk. People with limited time to play Eve (because they have kids or whatever) have their opportunity for their preferred gameplay denied by the bumper. What we've seen in our community when this happens is the targeted players get frustrated (because they have no counter) and go play other games.
Leaving to play other games because gameplay is unrewarding yields no benefit to CCP or the Eve community. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3060
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 08:22:58 -
[1166] - Quote
we do it all the time to people in ice belts and ore spawns. (again disrupting competition) and you can just move your fleet to the next system if its for boosts.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Jason Ozran
Screaming Hayabusa Neo-Bushido Movement
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 10:42:30 -
[1167] - Quote
I had this idea while talking with other solo PVP players in the game. I know it will probably not be noticed by anybody, especially after 56 pages of messages, but it doesn't hurt to try I guess... CCP Fozzie ?
So, let's have a look at WHO is gonna be impacted by the change you guys are doing do fleet boosting: - small gangs: a bit, they will get the bonus for 2 minutes and go for the fight, until 2 minutes later when the boost ship warp in the middle, apply the bonus and warp out again (I can foresee warp core stabilizers in a lot of fits already). Worse case they can defend it for a while - big fleets (50+): at this point you most likely have a couple of logi ships, so having a cruiser for boost in the fleet is gonna become normal - solo PVP : well... you gonna get 2 minutes of bonuses and then you will be by yourself to fight whoever join the party to get your ass. Cause nobody will be willing to commit a boosting ship to a fight for a frigate or a destroyer, especially in FW where it gets harder everyday to not get blobbed by half of the local
In a nutshell: fleets will not get impacted and just have boost ships included in their fleet (it was already the case very often), small gang will still have bonuses apply to them at all time with the trick I mentioned, and solo PVPers will be left without any bonuses
Which bring the following idea: why not applying different kind of bonuses whether you are alone in the fleet (= 1 player, not 2 or 3) or with multiple people ? People will still be able to see if you get bonuses or not, with the glow around your ship, but at least you won't need them on grid AND that would indicate that there is a boosting ship in system ready to be probed!
That would be a great change and would push people to at least try some solo PVP once in a while, and giving them the edge and a chance to get out when they are about to get blobbed. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3065
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 10:55:14 -
[1168] - Quote
should i also be able to RR and E-war from off grid with my alts if i'm solo? didn't think so there will always be an advantage to having more than one person with you. if you want solo boosts fly a boosting ship
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Jason Ozran
Screaming Hayabusa Neo-Bushido Movement
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 10:58:18 -
[1169] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:should i also be able to RR and E-war from off grid with my alts if i'm solo? didn't think so there will always be an advantage to having more than one person with you. if you want solo boosts fly a boosting ship
Don't start trolling. I'm not asking to add more stuff from off-grid, I'm just trying to find a way to adapt the current change of boosts so that it fits everyone, and not just people that fly in fleets. If you have nothing interesting to add on this, please don't post :) |
MrB99
Astral Mining
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 11:17:35 -
[1170] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:we do it all the time to people in ice belts and ore spawns. (again disrupting competition) and you can just move your fleet to the next system if its for boosts.
EDIT:
we also get bumped for the same reason and have learned that you are practically unbumpable in the expedition frigs and you only give up 1.9m3/s over a proc
you guys that doc up because of decs/gankers/bumpers rather than thinking just a little and using tools you have been given are only ruining the game for your self. then you run to ccp to give you more tools and never use them (like the higs anchor)
Your gameplay in low/null is different than ours in high sec both in terms of the game mechanics that affect us and the behavior of other players we share space with. It is arrogant and presumptive to suggest we do not think, or engage to understand the game in depth and explore and experiment with all the tools CCP provides. The low and nullsec players who fly their alts with us have the same issues and run into the same limitations as players who spend the majority of their time in high sec.
If the tools we had been given solved the problems in our gameplay we would have no need for this pleasant conversation. We've talked with the game designers at CCP and as of our last conversation they acknowledge the game is currently not balanced and needs attention in the area of high sec ganking/minerbumping vs the selection of mining ships and their possible fits.
CCP is making a lot of changes that will impact our gameplay in this next release and we hope they will listen and that some of the changes will make us enjoy the game more rather than less. The only way for them to understand how their customers use such a complex and flexible piece of software is for us to dialog with them. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3071
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 11:23:16 -
[1171] - Quote
... wait when did my corp move to low/null i had always thought most of them were mining in HS. i am also in a null corp where we do have null miners but the players i oversee are HS
how exactly have the tools not solved your gameplay? are you still getting bumped when using a prospect? are you still losing freighters when moving them with webs/links/RR are you still losing tanked procs/skiffs to small numbers of gankers? are your falcons and griffans not managing to lower incoming DPS? is RRing your orca still not enough to keep it alive until concord shows?
EDIT:
the only unbalanced thing i can think of in HS is War decs and i'm not just talking from the side of the defender there is also a lot of crap attackers have to put up with. <- that is the part of HS i really wish CCP would look at fixing
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Hafwolf
Intersteller Trash Disposal
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 14:27:19 -
[1172] - Quote
Hey how about an anti boost links. Since fleet boosts affect everyone in an area how about ones to take away from shields, armor, or speed. I can see a command cruiser flying into the middle of a enemy fleet popping one of those off right before the main fleet warps in. This would add some interesting game play. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3072
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 14:30:17 -
[1173] - Quote
fleet boosts only affect your fleet not everyone in the area as for debuffs that is the kinda thing the new titan mods do
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3073
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 18:02:39 -
[1174] - Quote
Jason Ozran wrote:
I'm just trying to find a way to adapt the current change of boosts so that it fits everyone, and not just people that fly in fleets.
funny that i thought they were fleet boosts
the problem is every one was using them do to the ease and low risk forcing every one else to use them to stay competitive. after this change they will be just another ship. it being harder to field means not everyone will have one meaning not everyone needs to bring one
BLOPS Hauler
|
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 18:17:22 -
[1175] - Quote
MrB99 wrote: We also ran a free fleet with free boost for new players which gave new miners a community and chance to interact with and learn from more experienced players. The systemwide boost enabled that - and allowed us to concurrently boost experienced players mining ice, and new players mining ore in ventures. The limited area of effect of the proposed new boosting regime for the most part eliminates that gameplay.
How it works now:
You have a booster in a safe place, providing bonuses to the entire system. You have a number of miners in your fleet. They spread out over the belts in the system. They lock the nearest rock, start their cycle and resume watching netflix until the asteroid is depleted.
How it will work after the changes:
Your fleet will be going to the designated belt. You will spread over it actually watching which rocks are being mined. Perhaps even use a rock scanner to short cycle your strips when there's a quarter of a cycle left in the rock. Your players will actually be in the same place, interacting.
I fail to see how this hinders gamePLAY.
You have issues with CODE. When there's wolves about, you round up the sheep. This can only work in your favor. I'm sure when you are dealing with these issues as a group, you will come up with something better than log off. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 18:31:51 -
[1176] - Quote
Jason Ozran wrote:solo PVPers will be left without any bonuses I too solo with Titan links and 5 caps on the other end of my cyno. Err wait, that doesn't sound right, does it?
He wasn't trolling. If you want links for solo pvp, go solo in a Command Destroyer, Battlecruiser or Command Ship. |
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 19:08:28 -
[1177] - Quote
What I'd like to know is when the hell are these changes gonna go live on Singularity? Seems kinda stupid not to put them on the test server asap instead of waiting til literally right before it supposed to go live on Tranquility, so as to get feedback from players but also to make sure its working properly and to find the bugs, I mean here it is middle of September still nothing on Sing, new barge updates in just a couple days so really were kinda done with that so lets see the new stuff already on Sing |
DiDDleR
Skunkdogz Corporation
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 21:09:31 -
[1178] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote: How it works now:
You have a booster in a safe place, providing bonuses to the entire system. You have a number of miners in your fleet. They spread out over the belts in the system. They lock the nearest rock, start their cycle and resume watching netflix until the asteroid is depleted.
How it will work after the changes:
Your fleet will be going to the designated belt. You will spread over it actually watching which rocks are being mined. Perhaps even use a rock scanner to short cycle your strips when there's a quarter of a cycle left in the rock. Your players will actually be in the same place, interacting.
I fail to see how this hinders gamePLAY.
You have issues with CODE. When there's wolves about, you round up the sheep. This can only work in your favor. I'm sure when you are dealing with these issues as a group, you will come up with something better than log off.
LOL - yes of course we all just AFK mine and watch netflix... really?
When I mine I'm after the highest yield and shortest cycles I can manage whilst also mining only the ores I am interested in. This means quite a bit of management on my part whilst also scanning the system regularly for gankers or bumpers.
I time my cycles so that I don't waste any and also check that I'm not mining someone elses asteroid (doesn't apply to ice fields due to the huge competition).
And yes everyone I know within the CASMA group uses a survey scanner and does the same as I as regards short cycling etc.
Yes when CODE are about in gank catalysts we swap ships for Skiffs or Procurers and only see Retrievers, Covetors and the occasional Mackinaw getting ganked.
The bumpers are rare but when it happens it is very annoying due to the crime-watch mechanics not providing a mechanism for retaliation. As others have pointed out the only way to get even is to become a criminal yourself and gank the bumper but then that means you lose security rating and provide the bumper with a kill right.
I liked the earlier suggestion to use a Prospect or Endurance frigate and I will definitely try that next time.
Also will look into the Higgs Anchor in more detail as this looks like it could prove useful! Thanks.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
826
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 08:15:51 -
[1179] - Quote
Lord Mudeki wrote:What I'd like to know is when the hell are these changes gonna go live on Singularity? Seems kinda stupid not to put them on the test server asap instead of waiting til literally right before it supposed to go live on Tranquility, so as to get feedback from players but also to make sure its working properly and to find the bugs, I mean here it is middle of September still nothing on Sing, new barge updates in just a couple days so really were kinda done with that so lets see the new stuff already on Sing
would make sense. Especially since AT coming we can assume staff will be diverted to that. 2-3 weeks of october shot really as the software they use in not plug and play, even more more so since the guy who made was poached away a bit back.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3078
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 08:47:52 -
[1180] - Quote
i'm sure both the links and indi arrays will be on SiSi before October they need to wait until after the release on Tuesday otherwise they may not know if something broke because of incomplete code with the November features or if there is an issue with what is about to go to TQ.
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14393
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:48:39 -
[1181] - Quote
Hello again folks! Big thanks to everyone who is continuing to send along feedback, whether it be in this thread, by passing it along to the CSM, or through other methods such as evemail and twitter. I'm sorry that I don't have time to respond to every comment individually but rest assured I'm reading all of it.
The next blog in this series (focusing on the Mining Foreman gameplay role and the Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual) is in progress and we'll be getting it to you all as soon as possible.
Today we've got another set of updates and answers for the thread today thanks to your feedback and questions.
Firstly, let's talk about ammo! We've been seeing some questions about the design intent behind the introduction of charges to command burst gameplay and I'd like to chat about those a bit as well as revealing our current plans for volumes and material compositions (which will determine prices).
We decided a while back that we wanted to consolidate the current warfare link modules into a smaller number of group-based modules and allow players to switch the exact burst type in space. This provided us a good way to open up more interesting decisions that support players can make over the course of a battle. Once we had the basic gameplay in mind, the next decision we discussed internally was whether to use scripts or consumable charges. There are a number of reasons we decided to go with charges, and I'll list them here in rough order from least important to most important.
- As a bigger conceptual break from the existing system (with modules that don't use any scripts or charges), the use of charges helps players realize that the new system works completely differently from the old one. This issue is one we've encountered over the past several months as we've communicated the plan for fleet boosts at fanfest, on the forums, on podcasts and in other venues. Some of the biggest sources of confusion from players came from situations where people were trying to merge their understanding of the old system with bits they are hearing about the new system. Completely replacing the in-universe concept helps us get to a clean slate where players can learn about the new system without baggage. The in-universe explanation for the old system involves a capsule-assisted mental connection between the command pilot and their subordinates in fleet. The new system instead uses packets of nanites projected in all directions from the source ship that enhance the allies that they land upon.
- The use of ammo provides far more balance levers to adjust than scripts. Some of which our current plan uses prominently (reload time) while some others are not currently being used but could in a future iteration (faction or T2 ammo). This allows us to better respond to balance issues you bring up, as well as allowing the creation of more gameplay decisions for players.
- Most importantly, even cheap ammo introduces a new source of consumption of player-produced goods. Sinks for mined resources and manufactured items are always something we're interested in expanding in EVE, as they help support the gameplay for miners and industrialists all over EVE.
As for the actual stats of these charges, we're ready to announce our current plan for their blueprints and volume.
The burst charges themselves are planned to have a volume of 0.01m3, and the modules themselves will have a capacity of 3m3. This means that if you don't want to change ammo types you can boost for 5 hours continuously without reloading.
The blueprint originals for each of these charge types will be sold by NPCs, just like other T1 charges.
The current plans for material requirements for batches of the burst charges are as follows (base values for an unresearched blueprint): Batch size for all bust charges is 500.
All information command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All skirmish command burst charges: 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All shield command burst charges: 100 units of Hydrogen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All armor command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All mining foreman burst charges: 500 units of Heavy Water 500 units of Tritanium 500 units of Isogen
This means that the cost of an individual burst charge should land between 200 and 400 isk, with the mining burst charges costing a bit less than the combat ones.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14393
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:48:47 -
[1182] - Quote
Reserved
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:58:01 -
[1183] - Quote
reason one for your charge change i can already see getting backlash as a poor reason -.-
overall i still like the idea of them being charges i just think thats a really dumb reason in long term
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1826
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:59:38 -
[1184] - Quote
Interesting, faction and t2 burst charges that provide a larger radius or higher strength.
Well played |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:01:57 -
[1185] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Interesting, faction and t2 burst charges that provide a larger radius or higher strength.
Well played
maybe some with a longer duration? should they ever be added
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14393
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:16:15 -
[1186] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:reason one for your charge change i can already see getting backlash as a poor reason -.-
overall i still like the idea of them being charges i just think thats a really dumb reason in long term
If the third reason was the only one that would be enough tbh. I did say it was in order from least important to most important.
But in general it can be easy to underestimate the effect that a conceptual change can have, just repackaging something to get players into a different mindspace can have a giant impact. This is actually something that I personally tend to underestimate and that I've been learning more and more as I gain experience as a designer.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1827
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:21:09 -
[1187] - Quote
Also in b4 mining nerds crying about having to reload every 5 hours |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:25:03 -
[1188] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:reason one for your charge change i can already see getting backlash as a poor reason -.-
overall i still like the idea of them being charges i just think thats a really dumb reason in long term If the third reason was the only one that would be enough tbh. I did say it was in order from least important to most important. But in general it can be easy to underestimate the effect that a conceptual change can have, just repackaging something to get players into a different mindspace can have a giant impact. This is actually something that I personally tend to underestimate and that I've been learning more and more as I gain experience as a designer.
lol i'll take your word for it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Rain6637
NulzSec
34215
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:43:50 -
[1189] - Quote
forcing command destroyers to stay with fast tackle is an alright idea I guess.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2069
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:05:25 -
[1190] - Quote
On the cost of charges:
The cost of charges, the duration before reloading, and the overall volume of charges, is way better than I expected. Turns out it shouldn't pose any issues imo.
I still think however that it's a bit awkward to use charges, and to justify it by saying that any revamp needs to be completely different from the old system so as not to confuse players... Is an equally awkward justification.
Still, the intent to increase consumption of materials is interesting and makes sense. It's interesting in that I wonder if this is in any way related to the clone states coming in November. Clone states will definitely change the ratio of people able to mine stuff vs people able to use the mined stuff (through command destroyers, fuel blocks, etc... that is only available for Omegas), so maybe this is one way to increase consumption by a tiny bit to compensate? Interesting indeed :).
Thanks also for increasing the boost strength of command destroyers, and giving the orca a tiny added bonus. These changes makes a lot of sense.
On the range of boosts:
It seems to me that the very small range of boosts (which wasn't adressed in this post) is however still an issue, as is the lack of sp refund for, at the very least, all the fleet/wing/squad command skills. This second point is actually the symptom of an underlying cause, which is that, even without mentionning these skills have their situations of use turned upside down, it becomes a very VERY, VERY tedious train (x8, x12, not to mention it's in CHARISMA) for very little benefit.
You could kill two birds with one stone (boor birds :( ) by changing the bonus range from 6%/5%/4% to a 10%/9%/8% (total multiplier 3.045 versus the old 1.95), without changing the base module range or ship bonuses. Making the module useful and giving more leeway in terms of range.
If increasing the range is really not an option, then it is still in my opinion very important that you reconsider the role of the Fleet Command skill. A x12 train for a 4% per level is really bad, this range bonus could use being incorporated into the other two skills, and being replaced with something more useful. For instance, reduced cap + reduced cycle time (10% per level for both) so that you can pulse twice as much (but the duration of the buff is not reduced). This would be an elegant solution to cover more people without increasing the range.
It would enable command destroyers to move around and, while yes covering a smaller area, being able to pulse more, while still zipping around the fleet, to compensate. Side note here, if this isn't something that ends up being incorporated into the fleet command skill, I really think you should consider giving a cycle time bonus to all subcaps able to use boosts, as a role bonus. This role bonus strength being inversely proportional to their boost range bonus.
PS: I'm premptively answering to everyone thinking that the presence of skill injectors is an excuse not to do a refund: There is an AUR cost and a loss of 70% of the SP associated with using skill injectors.
On the third mining boost, and the rorqual in general:
Now for the 3rd mining boost. Here are a few ideas (pick one or more): (For the sake of simplicity, mining laser = mining laser + strip miners. Industrial ships = Industrial ships + Transport ships + Shuttles + Mining Barges + Exhumers + Freighters + Jump Freighters + Bowhead)
- Increased agility (for everyone or for industrial ships only) - Increased drone damage (for industrial ships only) - Reduces substantially (75%) cycle time + cap consumption + crystal damage for mining lasers, this way the amount of wasted mining time due to asteroid depletion is reduced. - Reduces substantially mining crystal damage - Repairs (\o/) mining crystal damage - Makes mining laser able to damage stuff if targeting a ship instead of an asteroid (cool idea but would probably require to do some extensive coding, so...) - Makes mining laser have an added 10% yield in an AoE of a Xkm around their main target (same, cool but probably hard to implement) - Makes mining laser give a small yield multiplier to other mining lasers from other ships, targeting the same asteroid. - Increased agility and warp speed (for industrial ships only - would facilitate running away, and would encourage using gates as a mining fleet to move around if you don't own a bridge / titan (potentially niche but fun) - would NOT trigger weapons timer)
Note: The increased agility link, would make a nice alternative "doomsday" on the Rorqual, if not already incorporated into the third mining link. Instead of the invulnerability, render the Rorqual unable to move for 30s, but launch a pulse that makes every ship around it align 75% faster. The rorqual would have an increased chance to die, but the rest of the fleet would be able to try and escape more easily.
Note 2: Unrelated to boosts, related to the Rorqual, what if the capital tractor beam was able to also tractor beam friendly industrial ships?
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3938
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:13:13 -
[1191] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:. The new system instead uses packets of nanites projected in all directions from the source ship that enhance the allies that they land upon. ..... This gives me an idea:
What about a charge the delivers packets of nanites to ALL ships in range, irrelevant of their fleet or enemy status? Purpose: It lets anti-gankers actually do something to help the ship being attacked.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14399
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:19:50 -
[1192] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:. The new system instead uses packets of nanites projected in all directions from the source ship that enhance the allies that they land upon. ..... This gives me an idea: What about a charge the delivers packets of nanites to ALL ships in range, irrelevant of their fleet or enemy status? Purpose: It lets anti-gankers actually do something to help the ship being attacked.
We are building similar systems with the Titan effect generators, so this kind of thing could be possible in the future. We'll definitely keep the idea in mind.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3565
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:23:53 -
[1193] - Quote
after reading that i kinda want now golden glitter faction charges which only boost amarr ships ;)
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
152
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:31:38 -
[1194] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: ...
Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
...
Like I said above, we're working hard on the next dev blog (focusing on the Mining Foreman gameplay role and the Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual) and we hope to get that out to you all soon. Thanks everyone for the continued feedback!
-Mining Drone speed/yield - I'm taking this idea off the rigs, we have drone yield rigs so at some point a team at CCP felt this was a light weight enough to be balanced. I personally favor this idea because I see it being far easier to balance this as there are no hull bonuses (on barges/exhumers) which could amplify this effect and it also works to restore some of what was lost with the removal of the passive yield bonus from MD.
Thanks for the update Fozzie! I'm glad to see you communicating with us on this one. |
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:32:22 -
[1195] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:reason one for your charge change i can already see getting backlash as a poor reason -.-
overall i still like the idea of them being charges i just think thats a really dumb reason in long term If the third reason was the only one that would be enough tbh. I did say it was in order from least important to most important. But in general it can be easy to underestimate the effect that a conceptual change can have, just repackaging something to get players into a different mindspace can have a giant impact. This is actually something that I personally tend to underestimate and that I've been learning more and more as I gain experience as a designer.
It's great that this type of thinking is going into EVE game design! However, it's also the type of theory that can be meaningless unless tested. And by "tested", I mean proper user testing.
Not sure how much user testing CCP is currently doing, but these sorts of "mental model" theories are difficult to evaluate from general feedback. Seeing people demonstrate what their mental model is of a particular concept is much more informative (and accurate) than having someone tell you what their mental model is. The former is dependant on observation and analysis, while the latter tends to derive from direct "feedback" (from forums?) and questionable interpretation.
Slightly off topic, but hopefully still relevant. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3080
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:32:23 -
[1196] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
What about increased mass? I know bumping is still an issue with miners..... i just don't know how this would affect WH is there another way to limit how hard a ship is bumped? idk what all goes into it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Synmath Uisen
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 18:23:30 -
[1197] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The current plans for material requirements for batches of the burst charges are as follows (base values for an unresearched blueprint): Batch size for all bust charges is 500.
All information command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All skirmish command burst charges: 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All shield command burst charges: 100 units of Hydrogen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All armor command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All mining foreman burst charges: 500 units of Heavy Water 500 units of Tritanium 500 units of Isogen
This means that the cost of an individual burst charge should land between 200 and 400 isk, with the mining burst charges costing a bit less than the combat ones.
So this is very affordable, and can be worked well, 5 hours per load of ammo, no issues there decent amount of time.
here is my next big question and issue, it has to do with mining boosts. i know you say that the blog for it is coming out soon, but to be honest, I'm watching the numbers and seeing my mining productivity dropping like a rock, and I'm very very nervous about the future state of mining.
Have you given thought to having the mining boots just have longer range period? 15km is too small to support even the smallest of null fleets, and the Idea of having to put a 500 mil (projected and speculation) battle cruiser on the filed to even consider getting boosts is really hampering any production we would see.
This on top of the major changes (I read as Nerfs - blog about Ore revamp) to our main mining ships, and watching the current productivity drop in a major way. I would like to feel that I'm not going to be working harder and harder to make even the slightest Isk.
At this point, I could see mineral prices double after these changes, as Null/low mining is getting completely hammered with these Nerfs.
Again I apologize for jumping the gun on this, but Mining is what I enjoy, I love the Industry aspect of the game, but I get very sensitive at how much my profits are being cut by the sheer amount of productivity loss.
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 23:03:37 -
[1198] - Quote
Devs - while you're looking at the fleet feature could you please look and see if you can incorporate changes for any of the following unresolved fleet-admin issues with the way fleets work now... In our case these impact static public mining fleets rather than mobile combat fleets. Someone should also explicitly do some thinking about how dc's will impact fleets differently in the new system.
1. Now if the fleet boss dc's the advert (if there is one) goes down. It would be nice if there were a way for the advert to automatically go back up in case the new person who becomes boss happens to be afk and unavailable to click the "post advert" dialog box that is displayed.
2. Will hierarchy still be the mechanism to control who becomes fleet boss if the boss dc's? It would be nice to have a manual mechanism to control who becomes boss (since who see's the fleet is based on the boss address book, and not everybody may have it). ...particularly if fleet tree hierarchy is being de-emphasized.
3. It would be nice to have a mechanism to specify in the fleet saved-settings 2 or more toons who will have boss ability to manipulate the full fleet tree. Having up to 10 people with full rights to move around the tree and who would become boss if they're logged in and have joined the fleet would be nice.
4. It would be nice if free move really meant free move. Now fleet members can't self-move themselves into wing or fc slots. This assumes the wing role will still be valuable for wing-warping, and the wing view of the show fleet composition window.
5. Who sees the fleet is based on the boss's address book, but if you're running a public fleet you can exceed the current max address book size pretty easily. In a public fleet you're not all in the same corp, so corp address book slots are not necessarily available as overflow. It would be nice if the address book size was 2x-3x larger and it would be nice if there was an easy way to share your address book with another player (example: txt file import/export like you can do with fits).
6. There's no way to block a disruptive person unless you block their whole corp. When you allow NPC corps you can't block somebody's alt unless you remove the corp and 1-by-1 add all the npc players who routinely participate in your fleet. This, in part, is what can cause the address book size requirement to balloon. In public mining fleets you have the problem of npc new accounts who join, fly a venture, and then steal ore from fleet members jetcanning. You want to boot, and exclude players who do this from your public fleet.
7. It would be nice to have an import-export mechanism for fleet saved settings, and a way to easily move the motd text among characters.
8 It would also be nice if there was an accurate character counter when authoring fleet motds (or there was a view as text, view as html option). Now it's trial and error because the characters consumed by embedded codes/html tags to add color etc... are not visible to the motd author.
---
Features specific to the new system:
1. It would be nice if the boss and FC had a way to see who was boosting, what kind of boosts they were giving, and their boost-ammo status. There's been talk of visual effects due to the new focus of being on-grid but fleet management may be managing a large enough group they are operating on multiple grids.
2. When a booster dc's it would be helpful for the fc/boss/wing to visually see who lost boost and who is in boost range of which booster.
3. It would be nice to know who is boost-capable (based on fit and skills) and of what kind of boost in the show fleet composition window. |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
178
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 23:49:10 -
[1199] - Quote
I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?
The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
|
Luscius Uta
228
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 07:25:52 -
[1200] - Quote
Do you plan to make any significant changes to Command ships and their bonuses? In other words, are they going to continue to function as good DPS boats, or will people who don't plan to use command bursts be advised to spend their SP on something else?
Workarounds are not bugfixes.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3082
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 07:28:44 -
[1201] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Do you plan to make any significant changes to Command ships and their bonuses? In other words, are they going to continue to function as good DPS boats, or will people who don't plan to use command bursts be advised to spend their SP on something else?
the better at the very least look back at the tank im going to be a bit irritated if the meta shifts even more in to brick armor because the damnation is the best at taking a hit
BLOPS Hauler
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
755
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 07:33:16 -
[1202] - Quote
Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed. |
Lavayar
russian sobr Dream Fleet
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:39:37 -
[1203] - Quote
Any comments from CCP about increasing base command burst AoE range?
It's too small. Really. http://i.imgur.com/5MpU15H.png
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:46:23 -
[1204] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed.
... isn't that even more of a reason to revise them? they don't need to all be brought up to the damnation they just need to be ballanced
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:47:28 -
[1205] - Quote
looks fine to me... particularly since they want to encourage using more than one
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:47:59 -
[1206] - Quote
Synmath Uisen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The current plans for material requirements for batches of the burst charges are as follows (base values for an unresearched blueprint): Batch size for all bust charges is 500.
All information command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All skirmish command burst charges: 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All shield command burst charges: 100 units of Hydrogen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All armor command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All mining foreman burst charges: 500 units of Heavy Water 500 units of Tritanium 500 units of Isogen
This means that the cost of an individual burst charge should land between 200 and 400 isk, with the mining burst charges costing a bit less than the combat ones.
So this is very affordable, and can be worked well, 5 hours per load of ammo, no issues there decent amount of time. here is my next big question and issue, it has to do with mining boosts. i know you say that the blog for it is coming out soon, but to be honest, I'm watching the numbers and seeing my mining productivity dropping like a rock, and I'm very very nervous about the future state of mining. Have you given thought to having the mining boots just have longer range period? 15km is too small to support even the smallest of null fleets, and the Idea of having to put a 500 mil (projected and speculation) battle cruiser on the filed to even consider getting boosts is really hampering any production we would see. This on top of the major changes (I read as Nerfs - blog about Ore revamp) to our main mining ships, and watching the current productivity drop in a major way. I would like to feel that I'm not going to be working harder and harder to make even the slightest Isk. At this point, I could see mineral prices double after these changes, as Null/low mining is getting completely hammered with these Nerfs. Again I apologize for jumping the gun on this, but Mining is what I enjoy, I love the Industry aspect of the game, but I get very sensitive at how much my profits are being cut by the sheer amount of productivity loss.
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:51:32 -
[1207] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
you just answered your own question
BLOPS Hauler
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:05:57 -
[1208] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
you just answered your own question
It will be interesting to see if this ships or is changed. The announced plan for Citadel fuel was to require isotopes from 4 different areas of space but later that was cancelled.
I actually liked the original Citadel fuel plan because if you wanted to go in the new Citadel fuel business it meant you had to diversify your mining activity into multiple regions or new gameplay was created for traders and haulers to ensure all of New Eden was supplied with the raw materials for Citadel fuel. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:41:18 -
[1209] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?
Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:50:35 -
[1210] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rosewalker wrote:I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen? Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.
why are the "MAX" boost numbers in the blog so much lower than what we have now even though the base for most the mods is higher? is there some modifier that's been changed or removed that i'm not seeing? it seems all the implants and ship boosts are about the same. or is the T2 mods weaker than the ones we have now
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:54:05 -
[1211] - Quote
MrB99 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
you just answered your own question It will be interesting to see if this ships or is changed. The announced plan for Citadel fuel was to require isotopes from 4 different areas of space but later that was cancelled. I actually liked the original Citadel fuel plan because if you wanted to go in the new Citadel fuel business it meant you had to diversify your mining activity into multiple regions or new gameplay was created for traders and haulers to ensure all of New Eden was supplied with the raw materials for Citadel fuel.
The intent for nullsec production is that the majority of materials by volume to be able to be sourced locally, but that some trade should still be required (mostly in specialty and lower volume items).
The fuel for citadels fall into the bulk category, while the materials for building these burst charges are expected to be a smaller volume.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:57:03 -
[1212] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Rosewalker wrote:I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen? Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now. why are the "MAX" boost numbers in the blog so much lower than what we have now even though the base for most the mods is higher? is there some modifier that's been changed or removed that i'm not seeing? it seems all the implants and ship boosts are about the same. or is the T2 mods weaker than the ones we have now
The skills provide a much milder increase in strength compared to the current system.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:05:19 -
[1213] - Quote
Possibly already asked and or answered but, 58 pages..
What happens to existing leadership implants when they no longer do anything?
What about the skills that were trained specifically for passive boosts?
What happens to "fleet" "wing" and "squad" command skills once those roles in fleet are no longer needed for boosting?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:07:21 -
[1214] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The skills provide a much milder increase in strength compared to the current system.
ah over looked that it was cut in half. well it feels like this is going to be hard on groups that use these for E-war particularly considering you normally have them spread out but i suppose its not much of an issue when everyone has the same disadvantage
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:08:43 -
[1215] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Possibly already asked and or answered but, 58 pages..
What happens to existing leadership implants when they no longer do anything?
What about the skills that were trained specifically for passive boosts?
What happens to "fleet" "wing" and "squad" command skills once those roles in fleet are no longer needed for boosting?
the existing implants still boost the mod
sucks to be us (all but mining was moved to a boost)
they now add range
BLOPS Hauler
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:56:38 -
[1216] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up
Automating transfer of ore from mining ship to command ship.
Compression on the fly in mining ships, or the command ship.
Improve performance of mining drones to make them more compelling to use.
Ability to tractor rocks to your mining group's location. (i.e. to reduce slowboating of bonus-group)
Ability to get yield from all the too-small-to-target rocks that are now eye candy yet mysteriously disappear when a belt is mined out.
Make visible / scannable "hidden" mining belts that are in combat anomalies or mission spaces.
Modify frequency of gas anomalies spawning, or ice anomalies respawning.
Proximity alarm of hostiles.
Spawning of "bonus" rocks in a belt.
Animation improvement - rock size scales based on # of remaining units to mine
Killmarks for # of rocks mined.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:00:24 -
[1217] - Quote
... those are some pretty crazy ideas for a fleet boost
BLOPS Hauler
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3571
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:06:26 -
[1218] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed. ... isn't that even more of a reason to revise them? they don't need to all be brought up to the damnation they just need to be ballanced Actually it's an even better reason to give all ships DPS caps Citadel like to prevent instant volleying, and provide squad & wing commanders a larger role in combats. Obviously this then means a lower logi cap gets introduced. Both of which introduce far more skill into the chain of command, not just needing one good FC but also a bunch of good sub commanders to really make a fleet excellent. And then this whole issue of headshots, & instant alpha of boosters goes away, and everyone gets more fun in a fight. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:14:04 -
[1219] - Quote
they kinda just sounds like a bad idea... all that would do is cause people to brick tank their ships with no damage mods for any fight expected to get that large. E-war would become pointless as you would no longer need it for application or reducing incoming damage. Resists would go out in favor of Raw HP. there would be no need for sub commanders as logi and E-war become less relevant.
currently Logi and alpha are what give us the need for good FCs and even mid sized fights are full of sub FCs for E-war Logi sub cap and capital DPS.
in these fights you are not trying to kill every enemy ship you "win" once the enemy DPS can no longer get through your reps. for some reason many people find this dull and a problem with RR and alpha. Really it puts you into a tactical environment much more like real combat. Where you are not annihilating the enemy army in a battle but breaking them and forcing a retreat.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ivan Beer
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:20:26 -
[1220] - Quote
Hello.
I wanted to type a few (very few) words about this update (?)
Umm, So, first off I have a question:
Why is their going to be a visual effect??
Second Question:
The Orca I purchased (on contracts) well before this potential update was even posted has the (?older?) high slot fitting modules. So, in about 45 more days from now, when I can actually fly that ship I will not be able to use the (high slot) mining links that are fitted on it? I do not know, hence the question.
Lastly,
I do not do PvP, I just Mine the ore I find in the asteroid belts. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, I thank you in advance.
Cheers!
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3571
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:25:13 -
[1221] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they kinda just sounds like a bad idea... all that would do is cause people to brick tank their ships with no damage mods for any fight expected to get that large. E-war would become pointless as you would no longer need it for application or reducing incoming damage. Resists would go out in favor of Raw HP. there would be no need for sub commanders as logi and E-war become less relevant.
currently Logi and alpha are what give us the need for good FCs and even mid sized fights are full of sub FCs for E-war Logi sub cap and capital DPS.
in these fights you are not trying to kill every enemy ship you "win" once the enemy DPS can no longer get through your reps. for some reason many people find this dull and a problem with RR and alpha. Really it puts you into a tactical environment much more like real combat. Where you are not annihilating the enemy army in a battle but breaking them and forcing a retreat. Rubbish. Resists would matter because it would mean more DPS ships need to engage you to hit your DPS cap. Ewar would not become irrelevant because it would still be key to break DPS incoming on your key ships or logi repping their key ships. And it would mean you could always break reps on a ship but it would be a slower thing allowing the targeted pilot time to actually fight, rather than instant death
Alpha is what removes the need for decent squad commanders as soon as you hit instant volley size. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:47:20 -
[1222] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Alpha is what removes the need for decent squad commanders as soon as you hit instant volley size.
no because you still need FCs for things like E-war and logi ect you try to get one guy doing that and you will be left with cluttered coms and your FC will suffer cardiac arrest
BLOPS Hauler
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18022
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:50:11 -
[1223] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they kinda just sounds like a bad idea... all that would do is cause people to brick tank their ships with no damage mods for any fight expected to get that large. E-war would become pointless as you would no longer need it for application or reducing incoming damage. Resists would go out in favor of Raw HP. there would be no need for sub commanders as logi and E-war become less relevant.
currently Logi and alpha are what give us the need for good FCs and even mid sized fights are full of sub FCs for E-war Logi sub cap and capital DPS.
in these fights you are not trying to kill every enemy ship you "win" once the enemy DPS can no longer get through your reps. for some reason many people find this dull and a problem with RR and alpha. Really it puts you into a tactical environment much more like real combat. Where you are not annihilating the enemy army in a battle but breaking them and forcing a retreat. Rubbish. Resists would matter because it would mean more DPS ships need to engage you to hit your DPS cap. Ewar would not become irrelevant because it would still be key to break DPS incoming on your key ships or logi repping their key ships. And it would mean you could always break reps on a ship but it would be a slower thing allowing the targeted pilot time to actually fight, rather than instant death Alpha is what removes the need for decent squad commanders as soon as you hit instant volley size.
Ahahaha nope
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:51:11 -
[1224] - Quote
Ivan Beer wrote:Hello.
I wanted to type a few (very few) words about this update (?)
Umm, So, first off I have a question:
Why is their going to be a visual effect??
Second Question:
The Orca I purchased (on contracts) well before this potential update was even posted has the (?older?) high slot fitting modules. So, in about 45 more days from now, when I can actually fly that ship I will not be able to use the (high slot) mining links that are fitted on it? I do not know, hence the question.
Lastly,
I do not do PvP, I just Mine the ore I find in the asteroid belts. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, I thank you in advance.
Cheers!
visual effect so that people on both sides know what is going on
second the mods are not going to go anywhere there stats will change to become the new ones
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 12:59:56 -
[1225] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ivan Beer wrote:Hello.
I wanted to type a few (very few) words about this update (?)
Umm, So, first off I have a question:
Why is their going to be a visual effect??
Second Question:
The Orca I purchased (on contracts) well before this potential update was even posted has the (?older?) high slot fitting modules. So, in about 45 more days from now, when I can actually fly that ship I will not be able to use the (high slot) mining links that are fitted on it? I do not know, hence the question.
Lastly,
I do not do PvP, I just Mine the ore I find in the asteroid belts. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, I thank you in advance.
Cheers!
visual effect so that people on both sides know what is going on second the mods are not going to go anywhere there stats will change to become the new ones Sorry Lugh but your wrong, the modules are changing from 3 different modules with different attributes to 1 module with 3 different types of "ammo" (silly idea). Orca especially will be hit hard by this. It has 3 highslots of which (since barge and exhumer buffs capacitor link is redundant, unless you run an active tank) 2 can be used for links, 1 for a tractor beam to more easily scoop cans. Post November, all 3 highslots will be used for links, 2 for mining, 1 for shield. NB; Shield link will make little difference in a pvp situation, your orca gets red boxed, consider it dead. They just aren't designed to survive or defend themselves.
IMO the visual is only there to make it easier for the opposing side to see who to primary. Devs expectation is that every fleet will have numerous boosters travelling with them, so to make it easier for opposing fleets to see who is boosting at a given time, they included a target marker (visual effect).
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2999
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 13:51:09 -
[1226] - Quote
I really like the idea of buffs for anybody within range. White knighting in highsec should be a thing. Maybe make this an ammo variant? 'Promiscuous Shield Command Burst' would fit with your current naming scheme...
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14412
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 17:07:09 -
[1227] - Quote
Just to let everyone know, we currently plan on releasing the blueprints for the command burst charges in our October release so people can start building them in prep for the changeover in November.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2493
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 19:02:46 -
[1228] - Quote
Regarding the blueprints: I'm glad to see that strontium clathrates aren't an ingredient. They're under TREMENDOUS pressure right now, and don't really need more use.
However, one thing that could use a little love is Liquid Ozone. Have you considered adding Liquid Ozone to the ingredient list as well?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 20:21:55 -
[1229] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok let's answer some other questions and update the plan a bit more!
Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
[....]
Like I said above, we're working hard on the next dev blog (focusing on the Mining Foreman gameplay role and the Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual) and we hope to get that out to you all soon. Thanks everyone for the continued feedback!
Nice to hear that the next dev blog is on its way!
I totally agree, that not every link needs an equal counterpart in the new system ; If everyone gets slightly worse boosts the prices might go up a little and it wont change much for the average miner. Considering this, it's pretty important to know if the Rorqual will be able to move while the indu-core is activated... If not, big alliances with the ability to form defense fleets at any given time will get better boosts most of the time, and the income of the average miner will drop. --> 10% less income is a pretty big deal if you have to mine for 25 hours a month just to pay the plex (i just wanted to post it so i can be salty if things dont work out the way i want them to :-P )
If the Rorqual IS able to move while boosting at full potential and lots of them are on grid, i'd say the boosts are fine the way they are. Having boosts for mining drones would not really help, since players willing to field a rorqual will most likely be willing to use hulks for maximum yield... long story short: the cargohold is too small for 2 cycles + drones, even without a boost for them. If, on the other hand, you could assign your drones to your booster ship and fill it's cargo with ore this kind of boost could be REALLY great and encourage bigger mining fleets since the booster ( for example the Porpoise withput mining-fighters) would be able to profit while helping other people without an own boosting char...
A pretty gimmicky alternative would be an increased range for interactions with containers and fleet-hangars. a 50 km boost range does not really help it the whole mining op has to stay within 2.5 km of a container... good for people who actually use containers, but totally useless if you warp to a station/pos to drop off the ore. (but i guess the crystal preservation link is useless unless you actually use crystals...) |
XxUltradmbxX
Girl Friends Please Ignore League of Unaligned Master Pilots
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 23:43:46 -
[1230] - Quote
rip mining missions thanks ccp |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3572
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 23:47:23 -
[1231] - Quote
XxUltradmbxX wrote:rip mining missions thanks ccp Explain? Don't see any problem with mining missions. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
287
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 00:08:33 -
[1232] - Quote
XxUltradmbxX wrote:rip mining missions thanks ccp
Boosts won't run 23/7 now. They max out around 5 hours before you need to reload the new boosting device.
Boosts won't cover an entire system. Instead, you'll need to stick an Orca out in a belt now.
Boosts won't give you the same amount they do now. See CCP Fozzie's post on this.
Once again I'll say this ....
Mining boosts are not logistics boosts are not combat boosts. They are three completely different styles of gameplay being lumped into a single category because someone can't tell the different.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3572
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 00:13:45 -
[1233] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Boosts won't cover an entire system. Instead, you'll need to stick an Orca out in a belt now.
Or you know, stick the new Porpoise in a Belt. or heck, even stick a T1 BC in the belt. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
287
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 00:27:05 -
[1234] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Or you know, stick the new Porpoise in a Belt. or heck, even stick a T1 BC in the belt.
Then what's the point of mining with boosts? If you're not getting the bonus from the Rorqual/Orca/Porpoise, then why even do it?
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1981
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 00:59:49 -
[1235] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Or you know, stick the new Porpoise in a Belt. or heck, even stick a T1 BC in the belt.
Then what's the point of mining with boosts? If you're not getting the bonus from the Rorqual/Orca/Porpoise, then why even do it? Same reason you mined with boosts before, it was more effective than mining without them. |
Draden Alderland
Khanid - Industries
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 01:44:52 -
[1236] - Quote
First let me say:
I see and like the idea for the combat based bonuses and support it, it should make the PVP world more enjoyable indeed.
That being said though I struggle to see the need for the Mining boosts to be bursts
with the ever increasing war decks against industry & mining corporations I don't see how forcing very difficult to defend Orcas and mining barges/exhumers to sit in a single ore belts adds any value to anyone but HS war decking corps.
How does this bring more excitement to industry groups that already struggles to get anything done.
This is just pure candy to the gankers and entices them to war deck Mining corps even more to pad there Kill boards.
___________________________________________
So here are some thoughts for you:
Stop trying to make the entire game about PVP and start focusing on enticing new players to stick around. Might help get the avg. online player base back to the 40-50k range again. Not everyone wants to kill someone else in the game stop making it more and more difficult on industry folks.
You need to consider how you entice new people to play not how you make it easier for gankers to walk away with billions in easy kills.
If you don't start focusing on ways to allow young players to get a foot hold, learn skills, and survive without constant struggle from players who have years of experience you are likely to soon see your numbers dwindle to <10k on line at peek hours.
The game needs to work on protecting new players and enticing them to be around 3-5 years down the road, not making it easier for experienced ganker corps to walk away with billions in easy kills by forcing expensive industry ships to sit in silly situations.
Start looking at ways to allow non PVP players to enjoy the game not just be cannon fodder for people to scared to go fight against ships/pilots that can fight back.
My 2 cents. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3572
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 02:15:08 -
[1237] - Quote
Draden Alderland wrote:Start looking at ways to allow non PVP players to enjoy the game not just be cannon fodder for people to scared to go fight against ships/pilots that can fight back. My 2 cents. This is the only part of your rant worth a reply. However you are going the wrong way. Don't magically change the game to allow non PvP play immunity. Change the ships to have real fittings so they can fit weapons & fit active tanks, prop mods & the rest of it that combat ships fit. The real problem is CCP trying to make modern industrial concepts from a time of effective peace (For industry anyway) work in an environment more akin to the spanish main with constant piracy and attacks on said vessels. They built 'Industrial' tanks in WW2 for bridging, trench filling, mine clearing and all the rest of the works that were equally armoured and had guns that gave them a fighting chance, (if not as good as a dedicated CBT) they can do the same with the mining vessels. And no the Procurer is not already there, it has next to no cap, half the slots of a cruiser, no internal weapons, only a single flight of light drones (Compared to the Full flight of sentries certain cruisers get), no PG & no CPU relative to cruisers also.
This is though, a topic for another thread (Like the mining barge revamp thread in fact, where it's already been brought up). And nothing to do with boosts. |
Apollo Outamon
Galactic Exploration and Mining Inc The Ditanian Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 05:56:10 -
[1238] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Exciting news! For the November expansion the world of fleet boosting will be revolutionized with the removal of passive, off-grid boosters in exchange for new, active, on-grid boosters. When loaded with the proper ammo and activated, Command Bursts modules will provide time limited, area-of-effect based bonuses to fleet members in range of the ship activating the burst. For details and numbers, please check out the latest blog Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting. This is the first blog in a series, more will follow with additional details!
This is not exciting news to over 3/4 of your industrialist players.In high sec i can see players having on grid mining boosts because of the cost of running POS's or the cost of obtaining a citadel. most of your players aren't rich in game and that includes corps. big alliences and corps do not speak for all of eve. I can see where they would want this. In null sec on grid boosting is pretty much the death of mining in null sec and possibly large parts of low as well. Any of the boost capable ships will be target number one for pvpers which we will not want to put out just to get yet more pvpers to come to our area because they notice an increase in boost ship kills for that system.
there will be less mining going on in eve. less building. higher prices and eventually less pvp. i have spoken to many corps, alliences and individual players on this matter and not one of them like this idea. listening to the players for what we want is great. changing an entire system to benefit pvp is not 1 of those great ideas. This changing of the mining boost system is going to cause miners to stop mining in great numbers across eve.
|
Apollo Outamon
Galactic Exploration and Mining Inc The Ditanian Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 05:58:31 -
[1239] - Quote
Clifffitir Awik wrote:I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book.
Its not to late CCP. You can save yourselves from being the next SOE and eve being the next SWG. Listen to the people who actually use the system you are about to change.
agreed no industrialist wants this |
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 07:44:08 -
[1240] - Quote
Apollo Outamon wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Exciting news! For the November expansion the world of fleet boosting will be revolutionized with the removal of passive, off-grid boosters in exchange for new, active, on-grid boosters. When loaded with the proper ammo and activated, Command Bursts modules will provide time limited, area-of-effect based bonuses to fleet members in range of the ship activating the burst. For details and numbers, please check out the latest blog Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting. This is the first blog in a series, more will follow with additional details! This is not exciting news to over 3/4 of your industrialist players.In high sec i can see players having on grid mining boosts because of the cost of running POS's or the cost of obtaining a citadel. most of your players aren't rich in game and that includes corps. big alliences and corps do not speak for all of eve. I can see where they would want this. In null sec on grid boosting is pretty much the death of mining in null sec and possibly large parts of low as well. Any of the boost capable ships will be target number one for pvpers which we will not want to put out just to get yet more pvpers to come to our area because they notice an increase in boost ship kills for that system. there will be less mining going on in eve. less building. higher prices and eventually less pvp. i have spoken to many corps, alliences and individual players on this matter and not one of them like this idea. listening to the players for what we want is great. changing an entire system to benefit pvp is not 1 of those great ideas. This changing of the mining boost system is going to cause miners to stop mining in great numbers across eve.
The trouble is that the two main players in this at CCP hate pve in all it's forms. They pay lip service to it, but it's inevitably a nerf somehow, it always is over the last few years.
They are only interested in feeding the wardec/ganking/griefing/hot dropping machine by constantly providing more and juicier targets for them.
They are ONLY interested in providing killmails, nothing else.
It's sad really that they treat a very large portion of their player base this way by just ignoring the way they play the game in favour of others who's sole purpose in game is to **** all over others in any way they can, because they l33t.
I'm at the stage now, like a lot of others it seems, where my sub is only running in hope of some positive changes in industry, citadels were a let down for smaller corps and solo players, now a nerf to mining, what next?
My subs are running hoping for some good to come with the new platforms, but so far it's looking very unlikely they'll support the small guys, again.
Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between. |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2717
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 07:56:59 -
[1241] - Quote
Apollo Outamon wrote:In null sec on grid boosting is pretty much the death of mining in null sec and possibly large parts of low as well. Any of the boost capable ships will be target number one for pvpers which we will not want to put out just to get yet more pvpers to come to our area because they notice an increase in boost ship kills for that system.
there will be less mining going on in eve. less building. higher prices and eventually less pvp. While I seriously doubt the 'sky is falling' and a noticeable number of miners are going to disappear because their risk-free boosts are going away, I think part of this flood of whining and panic would have been avoided if these boosts were released alongside the Drilling Platform. That structure has to do something, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it could offset some or all of the reduction in yield some miners may take from the boosting change. Besides, any general hit to yield will mean an increase in ore prices meaning efficient miners will be making the same, if not more ISK/h than before.
There is still a lot of time until November for a devblog detailing how the Drilling Platform is going to work. I suggest all the miners out there worried over this change take a deep breath, calm down, and wait and see how this new mining infrastructure plays out before doing anything rash.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1858
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 09:10:42 -
[1242] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between.
God forbid you have to defend your operation in a pvp game
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 09:45:26 -
[1243] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between. God forbid you have to defend your operation in a pvp game
Lets say you want to make a few billion isk per month to have enough money for pvp, injectors and some new shiny ships. Lets say you can play 8 hours per week (you do have job and stuff...)
Just so you can compare how much a miner actualla makes while only playing 32 hours per month:
A miner with 12 Accounts, fielding 8-10b of assets makes as much as:
A carrierpilot, ratting (fielding less than 2b and being able to shoot back)
A ratter with 2 AFK ishtars, fielding 500m isk
If you extract SP and sell them in Jita you would only need 6 or 7 miners, fielding 5b, but hey... risk vs reward does REALLY not work out for a casual gamer :D |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2683
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:03:55 -
[1244] - Quote
Apollo Outamon wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Exciting news! For the November expansion the world of fleet boosting will be revolutionized with the removal of passive, off-grid boosters in exchange for new, active, on-grid boosters. When loaded with the proper ammo and activated, Command Bursts modules will provide time limited, area-of-effect based bonuses to fleet members in range of the ship activating the burst. For details and numbers, please check out the latest blog Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting. This is the first blog in a series, more will follow with additional details! This is not exciting news to over 3/4 of your industrialist players.In high sec i can see players having on grid mining boosts because of the cost of running POS's or the cost of obtaining a citadel. most of your players aren't rich in game and that includes corps. big alliences and corps do not speak for all of eve. I can see where they would want this. In null sec on grid boosting is pretty much the death of mining in null sec and possibly large parts of low as well. Any of the boost capable ships will be target number one for pvpers which we will not want to put out just to get yet more pvpers to come to our area because they notice an increase in boost ship kills for that system. there will be less mining going on in eve. less building. higher prices and eventually less pvp. i have spoken to many corps, alliences and individual players on this matter and not one of them like this idea. listening to the players for what we want is great. changing an entire system to benefit pvp is not 1 of those great ideas. This changing of the mining boost system is going to cause miners to stop mining in great numbers across eve. http://imgur.com/xsIz6Hj
I for one look forward to mining more profitably. I'm really excited about actually having some gameplay for my Rorqual pilot besides "sit in a POS and boost."
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1895
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:04:31 -
[1245] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between. God forbid you have to defend your operation in a pvp game Lets say you want to make a few billion isk per month to have enough money for pvp, injectors and some new shiny ships. Lets say you can play 8 hours per week (you do have job and stuff...) Just so you can compare how much a miner actualla makes while only playing 32 hours per month: A miner with 12 Accounts, fielding 8-10b of assets makes as much as: A carrierpilot, ratting (fielding less than 2b and being able to shoot back) A ratter with 2 AFK ishtars, fielding 500m isk If you extract SP and sell them in Jita you would only need 6 or 7 miners, fielding 5b, but hey... risk vs reward does REALLY not work out for a casual gamer :D 'Casual' gamer is the definition of person who buys PLEX with RL money, sells it and has fun in his play time. Person who creates and maintains 12 accounts at the same time, and spends his available time mining (to make money for pvp) cannot be called 'casual'. It's quite the opposite.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Alpha Bet
Alpha Mass
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:08:17 -
[1246] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between. God forbid you have to defend your operation in a pvp game
Make that a sanbox game that features industry, planetary interaction, trading and exploration. |
Alpha Bet
Alpha Mass
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:13:44 -
[1247] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Apollo Outamon wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Exciting news! For the November expansion the world of fleet boosting will be revolutionized with the removal of passive, off-grid boosters in exchange for new, active, on-grid boosters. When loaded with the proper ammo and activated, Command Bursts modules will provide time limited, area-of-effect based bonuses to fleet members in range of the ship activating the burst. For details and numbers, please check out the latest blog Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting. This is the first blog in a series, more will follow with additional details! This is not exciting news to over 3/4 of your industrialist players.In high sec i can see players having on grid mining boosts because of the cost of running POS's or the cost of obtaining a citadel. most of your players aren't rich in game and that includes corps. big alliences and corps do not speak for all of eve. I can see where they would want this. In null sec on grid boosting is pretty much the death of mining in null sec and possibly large parts of low as well. Any of the boost capable ships will be target number one for pvpers which we will not want to put out just to get yet more pvpers to come to our area because they notice an increase in boost ship kills for that system. there will be less mining going on in eve. less building. higher prices and eventually less pvp. i have spoken to many corps, alliences and individual players on this matter and not one of them like this idea. listening to the players for what we want is great. changing an entire system to benefit pvp is not 1 of those great ideas. This changing of the mining boost system is going to cause miners to stop mining in great numbers across eve. http://imgur.com/xsIz6Hj I for one look forward to mining more profitably. I'm really excited about actually having some gameplay for my Rorqual pilot besides "sit in a POS and boost."
Then you better start building a few more. |
XxUltradmbxX
Girl Friends Please Ignore League of Unaligned Master Pilots
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:14:38 -
[1248] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:XxUltradmbxX wrote:rip mining missions thanks ccp Explain? Don't see any problem with mining missions.
i can now share my boost with other people in the whole system after this patch every one in every mission need his own orca. i made some buddys with sharing my missions mining orca boost but in the future meeting this way new people will not be possible anymore.
and why rip mining missions is because i use 5 chars a for mining and 1 char for boosting and every character does his own mission, of course you can mine without boost but its pain in the +++++ because asteroids are 50km away in the deadspace pocket.
mining missions are only worth it if get boost (45k m-Ś 50k away for 4k LP and 1 Mill ISK) |
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:30:56 -
[1249] - Quote
As a null sec miner that usually boosts the fleet in my rorq, I will keep on boosting the fleet when required, in my rorq, in the belt.
Here is the reasoning why it's virtually risk free if you set up right: - If your mining in a fleet, people nearby are ratting too, usually in the same system or 2 jumps out - your mining location should already of been picked because it is isolated/doesn't see much traffic in the first place. - cynos...your mining in null, you have access to a metric crapton of 'big toys'...your using a capital already so production is there. - comms or scouts - intel channels, again..or scouts - a max tank fit on your rorq, you can get over 4 million EHP quite easily, enough buffer for FAX's to jump in and rep you - eventual PANIC button for 5 minutes to get your crap together if you messed up.
If you have that sort of set-up, which any decent nullsec alliance has by default, then you should be pretty much perfectly safe. The only way you can really get screwed is via a WH spewing out a crapton of T3's, but you will have a cyno handy and a PANIC immunity for 5 minutes so you have time to react, even as local spikes with 60+ T3's with your destruction on their mind. Jump in carriers, FAXs and go to town, if it is 60+ T3's...your boned either way really unless you have BFG titans and you have the PANIC up so your immune to the DD damage, they clear tackle..and most of anything else on field, your PANIC drops, you jump out and your mining ships bugger off to your local citadel and you take out apocs (or ship of choice for hole rolling) and roll the hole. Job done.
Sure you will loose stuff, but ah well. In that situation you would loose ships anyways |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:36:01 -
[1250] - Quote
Abadayos wrote:As a null sec miner that usually boosts the fleet in my rorq, I will keep on boosting the fleet when required, in my rorq, in the belt.
Here is the reasoning why it's virtually risk free if you set up right: - If your mining in a fleet, people nearby are ratting too, usually in the same system or 2 jumps out - your mining location should already of been picked because it is isolated/doesn't see much traffic in the first place. - cynos...your mining in null, you have access to a metric crapton of 'big toys'...your using a capital already so production is there. - comms or scouts - intel channels, again..or scouts - a max tank fit on your rorq, you can get over 4 million EHP quite easily, enough buffer for FAX's to jump in and rep you - eventual PANIC button for 5 minutes to get your crap together if you messed up.
If you have that sort of set-up, which any decent nullsec alliance has by default, then you should be pretty much perfectly safe. The only way you can really get screwed is via a WH spewing out a crapton of T3's, but you will have a cyno handy and a PANIC immunity for 5 minutes so you have time to react, even as local spikes with 60+ T3's with your destruction on their mind. Jump in carriers, FAXs and go to town, if it is 60+ T3's...your boned either way really unless you have BFG titans and you have the PANIC up so your immune to the DD damage, they clear tackle..and most of anything else on field, your PANIC drops, you jump out and your mining ships bugger off to your local citadel and you take out apocs (or ship of choice for hole rolling) and roll the hole. Job done.
Sure you will loose stuff, but ah well. In that situation you would loose ships anyways
Or put another way, anom mining in a Rorq is perfectly safe, in a perfect world.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:36:30 -
[1251] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between. God forbid you have to defend your operation in a pvp game
Finished trolling yet?
In HS it'll make very little difference as you always see Orca's on grid anyway...I'd just carry on regardless.
In low/null though it's a different story, put out a nice juicy target and try to defend it with a single account? And halve your income that you need to sell or use for manufacturing.
Or just don't bother anymore? Not everyone is in massive alliances or have their own defense fleet. I'm talking about a small guy, try getting some reading comprehension...he will always lose out with these changes.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
681
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 10:54:32 -
[1252] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:Finished trolling yet?
In HS it'll make very little difference as you always see Orca's on grid anyway...I'd just carry on regardless.
In low/null though it's a different story, put out a nice juicy target and try to defend it with a single account? And halve your income that you need to sell or use for manufacturing.
Or just don't bother anymore? Not everyone is in massive alliances or have their own defense fleet. I'm talking about a small guy, try getting some reading comprehension...he will always lose out with these changes. Yes, in an MMO, the advantage goes to the bigger army. And you know why? Because if something is advantage to one guy, the bigger army will have every guy doing it so you STILL lose.
This is an MMO, and there is literally not a single thing that is designed in this game, or CAN be designed in this game, to favor one person over a group. Think running relic sites (or exploration in general) is a solo activity? The pair of guys with a PvP Proteus/relic Proteus is going to have enormous advantages over a single guy in a Stratios. The alliance that maintains a tight control over their space to better keep intruders out, and let their own guys run the sites, is much more well off than your average day-tripper from highsec.
I agree in principle that there should be limited avenues for solo work in most professions. Lo and behold, that's already the case. You can mine abundantly solo or small group, and scale your risk factor based on your judgment of the surrounding areas. Plus, solo/small miner outfits just got a boon - the Porpoise. CCP heard your call for a more affordable low-level booster, and you've gotten it. This was a good call on all sides - there was a lacking for a low-level mining booster, and now you have it. You have exactly what you want and need.
It's never been a better time to be a miner than now. Why on Earth are you still complaining?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:15:12 -
[1253] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Finished trolling yet?
In HS it'll make very little difference as you always see Orca's on grid anyway...I'd just carry on regardless.
In low/null though it's a different story, put out a nice juicy target and try to defend it with a single account? And halve your income that you need to sell or use for manufacturing.
Or just don't bother anymore? Not everyone is in massive alliances or have their own defense fleet. I'm talking about a small guy, try getting some reading comprehension...he will always lose out with these changes. Yes, in an MMO, the advantage goes to the bigger army. And you know why? Because if something is advantage to one guy, the bigger army will have every guy doing it so you STILL lose. This is an MMO, and there is literally not a single thing that is designed in this game, or CAN be designed in this game, to favor one person over a group. Think running relic sites (or exploration in general) is a solo activity? The pair of guys with a PvP Proteus/relic Proteus is going to have enormous advantages over a single guy in a Stratios. The alliance that maintains a tight control over their space to better keep intruders out, and let their own guys run the sites, is much more well off than your average day-tripper from highsec. I agree in principle that there should be limited avenues for solo work in most professions. Lo and behold, that's already the case. You can mine abundantly solo or small group, and scale your risk factor based on your judgment of the surrounding areas. Plus, solo/small miner outfits just got a boon - the Porpoise. CCP heard your call for a more affordable low-level booster, and you've gotten it. This was a good call on all sides - there was a lacking for a low-level mining booster, and now you have it. You have exactly what you want and need. It's never been a better time to be a miner than now. Why on Earth are you still complaining?
BULLSHIT
Mining is the only PVE profession in which 50% of your income depends on boost/having a boosting char
forcing every single miner in eve to get a boosting ship and even forcing them on grid is the biggest nerf you could possibly throw at the industrial part of the game. I personally think its okay to bring expensive ships on grid, but just imagine the shitstorm if you cut all ratting income by 50%, unless you anchor an ESS that can only be shared every 5 minutes, but gets a panic button that locks all the ratters in place and disables their weapons.... PL would not care since they can just jump in 10 titans that always wanted to use their doomsday, but i am pretty sure that isk generation by ratting would concentrate even more on such big entities and others would just start doing incursions....
would you call THAT the best time to be a ratting-carrier pilot?
EDIT: If they remove sieging from the indu core i would even say you are not completely bonkers, but until we get the next dev-blog you should probably assume things are changing for the worse... i really hope that i am wrong, but noone should rejoice before we even know WHAT they are changing for industriialists. If they keep all the bad parts of the current system and still force rorquals on grid, at least half of the miners would earn a lot less or even stop mining while big entities would earn shittons of money |
Draden Alderland
Khanid - Industries
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:15:59 -
[1254] - Quote
Thank for the feedback Broken
I don't want immunity for the Industry teams, but I do want them to have a fighting chance to enjoy the game. Your idea of supplying fighting capable ships is certainly and option that could help established corps with experienced players, yet I am not sure it will always help with the young players just getting into eve. Remember these are players who are looking forward to their first barge or first 100 million in ISK being pounded on by guys who have been playing for years. They are not players who can just hop into any cruiser they like; T2 fit it and go take the fight to them. Nor would they likely be capable of fitting a modified mining barge either. You have a huge gap in capabilities here. Guys with several years of experience or more can easily out gun a new player down pretty quickly, especially one who has focused on industry skills. Why I understand the concept of allowing people to war deck in HS I believe it has become simply so easy to do that it functionally grinds young industrialists to a halt. I don't want CCP to make this completely go away but I would like them to bring additional options to the table that allow the CEO and corps to have more options then paying mercenary corps or trying to get players to train combat in place of industry just to survive. Capabilities to hire NPC militaries to fight for them in a single system would be an option. This would ensure that corps have some amount of real protection. Today as it is, many mercenary corps are simply collecting payment for very little support and are in some cases the ones initiating the War Deck's to simply make free ISK. Another option would be for CCP to review the player base of both the initiating corp. and target corp. and determine a better war deck cost. IE a corp. whoGÇÖs avg. pilot age of say 5 years with 400 members taking on a 10 man corp. with the avg. pilot age of 6 months would be charged far more than if the two corps where more evenly matched. Again these are just ideas to start a thought process by CCP to think about young players and ways to entice them to stay.
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:18:05 -
[1255] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Finished trolling yet?
In HS it'll make very little difference as you always see Orca's on grid anyway...I'd just carry on regardless.
In low/null though it's a different story, put out a nice juicy target and try to defend it with a single account? And halve your income that you need to sell or use for manufacturing.
Or just don't bother anymore? Not everyone is in massive alliances or have their own defense fleet. I'm talking about a small guy, try getting some reading comprehension...he will always lose out with these changes. Yes, in an MMO, the advantage goes to the bigger army. And you know why? Because if something is advantage to one guy, the bigger army will have every guy doing it so you STILL lose. This is an MMO, and there is literally not a single thing that is designed in this game, or CAN be designed in this game, to favor one person over a group. Think running relic sites (or exploration in general) is a solo activity? The pair of guys with a PvP Proteus/relic Proteus is going to have enormous advantages over a single guy in a Stratios. The alliance that maintains a tight control over their space to better keep intruders out, and let their own guys run the sites, is much more well off than your average day-tripper from highsec. I agree in principle that there should be limited avenues for solo work in most professions. Lo and behold, that's already the case. You can mine abundantly solo or small group, and scale your risk factor based on your judgment of the surrounding areas. Plus, solo/small miner outfits just got a boon - the Porpoise. CCP heard your call for a more affordable low-level booster, and you've gotten it. This was a good call on all sides - there was a lacking for a low-level mining booster, and now you have it. You have exactly what you want and need. It's never been a better time to be a miner than now. Why on Earth are you still complaining?
We have Command Destroyers now we can use, albeit with a lot less boost and bugger all fitting room.
What we'll have after is a lot of redundant Rorqs and Orcas in a lot of areas(and redundant skills), yes we have the Porpoise coming, I'm just not holding out a lot of hope for it.
Yes I'll have to suck up the changes and the nerf, but that doesn't mean I'll have to like it. |
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:23:30 -
[1256] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Abadayos wrote:As a null sec miner that usually boosts the fleet in my rorq, I will keep on boosting the fleet when required, in my rorq, in the belt.
Here is the reasoning why it's virtually risk free if you set up right: - If your mining in a fleet, people nearby are ratting too, usually in the same system or 2 jumps out - your mining location should already of been picked because it is isolated/doesn't see much traffic in the first place. - cynos...your mining in null, you have access to a metric crapton of 'big toys'...your using a capital already so production is there. - comms or scouts - intel channels, again..or scouts - a max tank fit on your rorq, you can get over 4 million EHP quite easily, enough buffer for FAX's to jump in and rep you - eventual PANIC button for 5 minutes to get your crap together if you messed up.
If you have that sort of set-up, which any decent nullsec alliance has by default, then you should be pretty much perfectly safe. The only way you can really get screwed is via a WH spewing out a crapton of T3's, but you will have a cyno handy and a PANIC immunity for 5 minutes so you have time to react, even as local spikes with 60+ T3's with your destruction on their mind. Jump in carriers, FAXs and go to town, if it is 60+ T3's...your boned either way really unless you have BFG titans and you have the PANIC up so your immune to the DD damage, they clear tackle..and most of anything else on field, your PANIC drops, you jump out and your mining ships bugger off to your local citadel and you take out apocs (or ship of choice for hole rolling) and roll the hole. Job done.
Sure you will loose stuff, but ah well. In that situation you would loose ships anyways Or put another way, anom mining in a Rorq is perfectly safe, in a perfect world.
No-where did I say it was perfectly safe. What I was saying was with a good group and organization the risks are greatly reduced and when the worst should happen you already have in place contingency plans (ratting carriers/supers/titans..the cyno, being near your ratters and some people like to have FAX alts logged in just incase a cap/super gets tackled.
In a perfect world, your Rorqual is perfectly safe docked up in an NPC station and your account un-subbed to further prevent the loss of the rorqual..but that's hardly perfect now is it?
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
681
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:54:45 -
[1257] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:BULLSHIT
Mining is the only PVE profession in which 50% of your income depends on boost/having a boosting char
forcing every single miner in eve to get a boosting ship and even forcing them on grid is the biggest nerf you could possibly throw at the industrial part of the game. I personally think its okay to bring expensive ships on grid, but just imagine the shitstorm if you cut all ratting income by 50%, unless you anchor an ESS that can only be shared every 5 minutes, but gets a panic button that locks all the ratters in place and disables their weapons.... PL would not care since they can just jump in 10 titans that always wanted to use their doomsday, but i am pretty sure that isk generation by ratting would concentrate even more on such big entities and others would just start doing incursions....
would you call THAT the best time to be a ratting-carrier pilot?
EDIT: If they remove sieging from the indu core i would even say you are not completely bonkers, but until we get the next dev-blog you should probably assume things are changing for the worse... i really hope that i am wrong, but noone should rejoice before we even know WHAT they are changing for industriialists. If they keep all the bad parts of the current system and still force rorquals on grid, at least half of the miners would earn a lot less or even stop mining while big entities would earn shittons of money "Forcing".
You instantly lost the debate right there. Who forces what? Did a clown car of CCP devs drive to your house in the middle of the night, force you to boot your computer, log into EvE, and warp a Roq to a belt? No? Well, what's the forcing involved then? You aren't forced to do a single thing. You can mine perfectly fine without boosts. You can use an Orca or a Porpoise. You can risk the Roq or decide against it. You can also quit mining and go to a more profitable profession at any time.
You can try to form a league of miners that charge more for their minerals. You can try to convince traders at Jita to up their prices. You can take part in the ganking of highsec miners, or hunting nullsec ones. You can increase demand for your minerals by helping blow stuff up or decreasing supply.
But what you can't do, is assume or demand CCP give you all the isk in the world because your profession is some special snowflake. You get M^3 and bring it to market, by whatever means you have available. Players set the prices. CCP could double your yields and you'd still end up with the same isk at the end of the day because what you mine is important only in regards to other sources of mineral income and mineral destruction. Everything else balances itself out.
If Isk were tremendously harder to get, by your example, prices would drop due to a dearth of circulating isk in the economy. That includes, especially, your precious minerals. When isk is easy to get, like now, prices rise due to the lack of scarcity of the currency. You'd recognize those concepts as inflation and deflation, obviously tremendously simplified for this discussion.
You're comparing the generation of currency, to the generation of a resource that only has value relative to the currency. Apples and oranges.
Also, last I checked, CCP did nerf nullsec bounties to encourage use of the ESS. Not 50%, granted, but it did happen. People complained then, too. Then they adapted. In due time, you will adapt, and the discussion will no longer be about your persecution complex.
Oh and I'm positive ratters, especially capitals, would rejoice if they had a panic button they could use to buy time for reinforcements to arrive. The difference is the crowd of people in combat ships expect losses, work together for support and backup, etc. Maybe you should try that? Don't mine where you can't expect backup, don't field assets you and your friends can't defend, and learn from your mistakes. Every carrier ratter that gets caught and killed made those mistakes and paid for it with their multi-billion-isk assets, why should you be immune from it?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Inovy Dacella
Polarized Polarbears.
29
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:59:22 -
[1258] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:Come November a guy with say 3 accounts and enjoys the indy side will have a ***** of a choice to make, keep running with an Orca and 2 miners, or use one as a defence for the booster, which cuts his mining income by 50% instantly.
Do we risk the booster like CCP obviously want us to do, or do we forget the boosts and put out a third miner with a shared can to pick up the ore later?
Whichever way you look at it, it's 2 bad choices to pick between. God forbid you have to defend your operation in a pvp game I don't think any competent pvp fleet would have the patience to guard a mining op for untold hours. I would love to gank a Rorqual and similar ships, but lets be fair, protecting them would be a major task that few could accomplish. That invulnerability thingy the Rorqual is supposed to have may help but I don't think it would change the outcome for smaller alliances which cannot have a pvp fleet lying around for rescue. Unless it lasts for hours and bores the gank fleet (and the mining fleet) to death. In any case the gank fleet is %100 committed to ganking, whereas the mining fleet would have to commit resources to mining and fighting! The economically feasible defense for miners is to run, not to fight.
Bottom line is, I don't think this new system will work for miners, and If we over hunt our prey we will starve too. |
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:06:13 -
[1259] - Quote
Abadayos wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Abadayos wrote:As a null sec miner that usually boosts the fleet in my rorq, I will keep on boosting the fleet when required, in my rorq, in the belt.
Here is the reasoning why it's virtually risk free if you set up right: - If your mining in a fleet, people nearby are ratting too, usually in the same system or 2 jumps out - your mining location should already of been picked because it is isolated/doesn't see much traffic in the first place. - cynos...your mining in null, you have access to a metric crapton of 'big toys'...your using a capital already so production is there. - comms or scouts - intel channels, again..or scouts - a max tank fit on your rorq, you can get over 4 million EHP quite easily, enough buffer for FAX's to jump in and rep you - eventual PANIC button for 5 minutes to get your crap together if you messed up.
If you have that sort of set-up, which any decent nullsec alliance has by default, then you should be pretty much perfectly safe. The only way you can really get screwed is via a WH spewing out a crapton of T3's, but you will have a cyno handy and a PANIC immunity for 5 minutes so you have time to react, even as local spikes with 60+ T3's with your destruction on their mind. Jump in carriers, FAXs and go to town, if it is 60+ T3's...your boned either way really unless you have BFG titans and you have the PANIC up so your immune to the DD damage, they clear tackle..and most of anything else on field, your PANIC drops, you jump out and your mining ships bugger off to your local citadel and you take out apocs (or ship of choice for hole rolling) and roll the hole. Job done.
Sure you will loose stuff, but ah well. In that situation you would loose ships anyways Or put another way, anom mining in a Rorq is perfectly safe, in a perfect world. No-where did I say it was perfectly safe. What I was saying was with a good group and organization the risks are greatly reduced and when the worst should happen you already have in place contingency plans (ratting carriers/supers/titans..the cyno, being near your ratters and some people like to have FAX alts logged in just incase a cap/super gets tackled. In a perfect world, your Rorqual is perfectly safe docked up in an NPC station and your account un-subbed to further prevent the loss of the rorqual..but that's hardly perfect now is it?
You're still on about massive alliances and corps though..
Btw, how long do you think your alliance/corp will enjoy running all over the place trying to save god knows how many Rorqs and Orca's constantly, or will they eventually get fed up and just say tough, don't use it? |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:11:49 -
[1260] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:
You instantly lost the debate right there. Who forces what? Did a clown car of CCP devs drive to your house in the middle of the night, force you to boot your computer, log into EvE, and warp a Roq to a belt? No? Well, what's the forcing involved then? You aren't forced to do a single thing. You can mine perfectly fine without boosts. You can use an Orca or a Porpoise. You can risk the Roq or decide against it. You can also quit mining and go to a more profitable profession at any time.
You can try to form a league of miners that charge more for their minerals. You can try to convince traders at Jita to up their prices. You can take part in the ganking of highsec miners, or hunting nullsec ones. You can increase demand for your minerals by helping blow stuff up or decreasing supply.
But what you can't do, is assume or demand CCP give you all the isk in the world because your profession is some special snowflake. You get M^3 and bring it to market, by whatever means you have available. Players set the prices. CCP could double your yields and you'd still end up with the same isk at the end of the day because what you mine is important only in regards to other sources of mineral income and mineral destruction. Everything else balances itself out.
If Isk were tremendously harder to get, by your example, prices would drop due to a dearth of circulating isk in the economy. That includes, especially, your precious minerals. When isk is easy to get, like now, prices rise due to the lack of scarcity of the currency. You'd recognize those concepts as inflation and deflation, obviously tremendously simplified for this discussion.
You're comparing the generation of currency, to the generation of a resource that only has value relative to the currency. Apples and oranges.
Also, last I checked, CCP did nerf nullsec bounties to encourage use of the ESS. Not 50%, granted, but it did happen. People complained then, too. Then they adapted. In due time, you will adapt, and the discussion will no longer be about your persecution complex.
Oh and I'm positive ratters, especially capitals, would rejoice if they had a panic button they could use to buy time for reinforcements to arrive. The difference is the crowd of people in combat ships expect losses, work together for support and backup, etc. Maybe you should try that? Don't mine where you can't expect backup, don't field assets you and your friends can't defend, and learn from your mistakes. Every carrier ratter that gets caught and killed made those mistakes and paid for it with their multi-billion-isk assets, why should you be immune from it?
Mining without boosts is no viable alternative since your income drops by 50% --> If you want to plex your accounts you need boosts --> ccp forces us to use boosts because otherwise we cannot play the game without RL money. simple as that
Fielding billions of isks is not really the point, the point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that directly influence your productivity in PVE. What I am talking about ist the relative income, which will drop for everyone who can not field a rorqual, be it because of the lack of skills, money or because they are a coward... 95% of the EVE population dont have the backup, needed to anchor 20b worth of ships at 5 in the morning because they want to PVE before work... If it wasnt anchored and you had the chance to reduce the risk for yourself with scouts and intel i'd be okay with that, but if Big alliances can make a lot more money with a lot less risk and possibly skill, just because theyve got a ******* huge blue donut and 150 supercap pilots, who are bored it's not changing for the better!
ps. miners are special snowflakes;) whoelse fields multiple billions of assests without weapons? who else is dependant on fleetboosts just to be able to compete with others? (dont tell me big fleets work that way! 150 cruisers without boosts still beat 100 with boosts. 150 hulks without boosts mine 25% less than 100 hulks with boosts)
So, again, it is BULLSHIT that this is the best time to be a miner, it is the best time to be a PL/NC/idontcarewhatelse - miner
|
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
762
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:34:48 -
[1261] - Quote
But ..... if there's less ore in general, wouldn't that mean the price goes up?
And more importantly, a difference in those who mine with and those who mine without boosts? Organized groups earn more, provided they can defend their booster ...? Just spitballing. |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:46:08 -
[1262] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:But ..... if there's less ore in general, wouldn't that mean the price goes up?
And more importantly, a difference in those who mine with and those who mine without boosts? Organized groups earn more, provided they can defend their booster ...? Just spitballing.
this is true, so removing every single direct yield and cycle time boost would be the best thing to do.... the difference of mining with, or without boosts ist just TOO big. A Nullsec Hulk in an average mining op can make 45-50m per hour, unboost that would be about 20 (since you lose range and have to slowboat its even more than 50%)
If a big alliance can provide cover for a couple of ops, their ore-yield would not change, while all the others in the game make significantly less ore. while still risking more assets than they do now --> a lot of people might stop mining -->ore prices rise --> Big alliances can make tons of money because they have 30% yield than all the others -->Small miners will get just a little less money per hour
If the need to siege the rorqual would be removed ppl would not have an excuse not to field it (except :"I want to be brain afk")
If miningboosts were removed alltogether (the yield and cycle time ones) fielding a booster would indeed become optional, just like it is for every single other boost in the game |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
682
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:52:42 -
[1263] - Quote
I'm going to make an effort to be nicer. So, I still respectfully disagree with your assertions and I will do my best to list and explain.
- Mining without boosts is no viable alternative since your income drops by 50%
Income is still relative in the case of mining since you're competing for infinite resources against those could be bothered to harvest and process it. If everyone's M^3 drops, then everyone's income basically stays the same. If you can't field the same boosts as a larger entity, then, that's the point. I'm sorry there's no way to sugar coat it, but that's exactly what is supposed to be at play here. Bigger boys get bigger toys.
- If you want to plex your accounts you need boosts --> ccp forces us to use boosts because otherwise we cannot play the game without RL money. simple as that
This is probably the biggest problem I have with what you've said. In what dev blog are you guaranteed boosts or guaranteed the right to farm enough materials to buy plex?
- If Big alliances can make a lot more money with a lot less risk and possibly skill, just because theyve got a ******* huge blue donut and 150 supercap pilots, who are bored it's not changing for the better!
You said a lot in that paragraph but I think this was the most important snippet. Yes, part of the advantage of the INSANELY LARGE WORKLOAD of fostering a fledgling corp, recruiting new people, fending off wars, training the members, moving out to nullsec, carving out space for yourself and defending it, organizing your teams, getting good FCs in place...part of that advantage is that you get to take advantage of bigger and better things, including fielding mining capitals. You also get to field ratting capitals, which generally have more isk/hour generated than their HAC ratting cousins.
You will still have boosts. You might not have the same level of boosts as the giant alliances. Or you might. Hire diplomats. Organize intel channels, ask other mining groups for advice in defense. I'll bet you, it'll be easier than you think to field a Roq. Maybe not "easy" in a complete sense, but probably easier than you're indicating.
- ps. miners are special snowflakes;) whoelse fields multiple billions of assests without weapons? who else...
Sorry but not all things in EvE are equal. There will never be parity here. Logically, there can never be absolute parity between vastly different and diverse things. Accept that things are different and work within the confines of what is available to you. Trying to do otherwise just results in frustration.
- some figures: numer of hours needed to pay for a plex while doing a PVE activity without boosts while others recieve boosts....Ratting: about 20h....Incursions : about 10h....Exploration : about 15h....Mining : about 80h....tell me again how mining boosts are optional!
Boosts are optional. Once upon a time, I mined. I had no boosts, no support of any kind. I think your estimate of "80 hours" is close enough to be correct. But I did it. Two marauders, a plex, and dozens of gank catalysts later, and I still have stockpiles of ore and minerals I'm too lazy to get to market.
(side note, your estimates are very, very generous to those other professions. Under the most ideal, optimal, perfect conditions, and sometimes not even then. Don't let braggarts fool you)
Again, where is any devblog guaranteeing parity between every possible profession in EvE? Sorry, there will always be winners or losers in this regard. And again again, the isk you get for your mining is due to supply and demand set by the players. If you absolutely need isk to survive on free-playing EvE, you yourself already listed several better options to pursue.
Mine because there's something you enjoy in it. People PvP or PvE because there's stuff they enjoy in it. It's a game, enjoy it. If you're just grinding endlessly for isk for the ability to play another month free of grinding minerals for isk to plex again, then I don't understand your position and perhaps you should take a fresh look at it yourself.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:17:43 -
[1264] - Quote
Thank you! You are not wrong in what you are saying in this post, but you were wrong when you said "This is th best time to be a miner!"
my point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that favor powerblocks a lot more than smaller entities (assuming you have to siege the rorq) , so mining suddenly gets a whole lot less profitable for at least 70% of the miners and it gets even worse for the poor newbros without friends in shiny capitals.
When i started playing eve, i came to the provi block and was shocked to see how much money i could make while recieving a boost from some random guy, somewhere in the system... i did not even know where that boost was coming from until i read about it on the internet:D
The new system makes it practically impossible for a new player to think "in one year, i want to sit in a Carrier, built with the minerals I found and not bought wir RL money!"
Those people would definitly go and rat and make 60-70 million per hour in a vexor navy issue without any risk of getting ganked while watching lokal and a complete return of investment after 90 minutes of flying in forsaken hubs...
This is the absolute worst time to be new to mining and the absolute best time to be a 30-account-miner in a big alliance.
Can we at least agree on my last sentence so i dont have to check this thread anymore? :D I only wanted fozzie to adress the indu-core, but i guess i will have to wait a few days before i can decide what to do with my mining alts... |
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 14:16:25 -
[1265] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Thank you! You are not wrong in what you are saying in this post, but you were wrong when you said "This is th best time to be a miner!"
my point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that favor powerblocks a lot more than smaller entities (assuming you have to siege the rorq) , so mining suddenly gets a whole lot less profitable for at least 70% of the miners and it gets even worse for the poor newbros without friends in shiny capitals.
When i started playing eve, i came to the provi block and was shocked to see how much money i could make while recieving a boost from some random guy, somewhere in the system... i did not even know where that boost was coming from until i read about it on the internet:D
The new system makes it practically impossible for a new player to think "in one year, i want to sit in a Carrier, built with the minerals I found and not bought wir RL money!"
Those people would definitly go and rat and make 60-70 million per hour in a vexor navy issue without any risk of getting ganked while watching lokal and a complete return of investment after 90 minutes of flying in forsaken hubs...
This is the absolute worst time to be new to mining and the absolute best time to be a 30-account-miner in a big alliance.
Can we at least agree on my last sentence so i dont have to check this thread anymore? :D I only wanted fozzie to adress the indu-core, but i guess i will have to wait a few days before i can decide what to do with my mining alts...
I'm in Provi myself, but we're not part of a big alliance.
I suppose we're a smallish corp really, sometimes we have 20/25/30 online (rare), sometimes half a dozen. We can't decide what's going to happen come November boost wise.
One things for sure, we couldn't afford to keep replacing Rorqs or Orcas.
Let's see what the Dolphin brings. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3095
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 14:25:41 -
[1266] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote: One things for sure, we couldn't afford to keep replacing Rorqs or Orcas.
Let's see what the Dolphin brings.
(inner nerd "orcas are dolphins")
one thing you may want to remember is you will still get more boosts out of a rorq now than an orca even outside of the industrial core. this means so long as you are not afk it can boost while having an E-cyno ready
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1862
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:06:30 -
[1267] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Thank you! You are not wrong in what you are saying in this post, but you were wrong when you said "This is th best time to be a miner!"
my point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that favor powerblocks a lot more than smaller entities (assuming you have to siege the rorq) , so mining suddenly gets a whole lot less profitable for at least 70% of the miners and it gets even worse for the poor newbros without friends in shiny capitals.
When i started playing eve, i came to the provi block and was shocked to see how much money i could make while recieving a boost from some random guy, somewhere in the system... i did not even know where that boost was coming from until i read about it on the internet:D
The new system makes it practically impossible for a new player to think "in one year, i want to sit in a Carrier, built with the minerals I found and not bought wir RL money!"
Those people would definitly go and rat and make 60-70 million per hour in a vexor navy issue without any risk of getting ganked while watching lokal and a complete return of investment after 90 minutes of flying in forsaken hubs...
This is the absolute worst time to be new to mining and the absolute best time to be a 30-account-miner in a big alliance.
Can we at least agree on my last sentence so i dont have to check this thread anymore? :D I only wanted fozzie to adress the indu-core, but i guess i will have to wait a few days before i can decide what to do with my mining alts...
Hate to break it to you but eve is not about equality.
If you can't afford to plex without rorqual boosts and you're too scared to actually risk one: tough ****, go do something else or work around it.
That's the essence of eve, innovation in the face of adversity.
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:21:57 -
[1268] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Hate to break it to you but eve is not about equality.
If you can't afford to plex without rorqual boosts and you're too scared to actually risk one: tough ****, go do something else or work around it.
That's the essence of eve, innovation in the face of adversity.
hate to break it to you, but this is not about me complaining about not having a rorqual boosts, this is about all the other people who wont have one and wont be able to plex their accounts with mining. I COULD get rorqual boosts and I WOULD field one if i felt like doing it was worth it... if not, i can still fly vexor navy issues on 3-4 accounts for 200 million isk/hour and drop 4 subscriptions... a workaround, but probably one that makes the game more boring for me and everyone who comes by, trying to get a nice killmail...
so please give me more of your intelligent explanations of how this boosting system is going to bring more people into the industrial sector of eve :D:D:D:D
gosh, sometimes people are so narrow minded -.- |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1865
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:54:30 -
[1269] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Hate to break it to you but eve is not about equality.
If you can't afford to plex without rorqual boosts and you're too scared to actually risk one: tough ****, go do something else or work around it.
That's the essence of eve, innovation in the face of adversity.
hate to break it to you, but this is not about me complaining about not having a rorqual boosts, this is about all the other people who wont have one and wont be able to plex their accounts with mining. I COULD get rorqual boosts and I WOULD field one if i felt like doing it was worth it... if not, i can still fly vexor navy issues on 3-4 accounts for 200 million isk/hour and drop 4 subscriptions... a workaround, but probably one that makes the game more boring for me and everyone who comes by, trying to get a nice killmail... so please give me more of your intelligent explanations of how this boosting system is going to bring more people into the industrial sector of eve :D:D:D:D gosh, sometimes people are so narrow minded -.-
Did I say that eve should not be equal for you?
No, stop with your overblown ego, not everything is about you.
All those faceless miners that you're white knighting for don't get equality as a privilege either ( though I doubt you're such a good person that you're fighting for them anyway)
If they can't plex without bringing a rorqual on grid either: tough **** for them too.
You realise that what you're trying to propose is that you want rorqual boosts to either be available to everyone (at no risk) or to no-one?
Do you realise this will have absolutely 0 (ZERO) effect on an average miners ability to plex? If everyone gets the same increase or reduction to their income, all you've done is shifted some numbers around and prices will shift to match.
If it's so hard to plex through the industrial sector of eve, that means that that particular part of the economy is saturated and therefore only people who literally drool on their keyboard would want to enter it.
You need less people, not more.
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 17:15:23 -
[1270] - Quote
you, my friend, are mistaken :D
every single one of us wants more paying customers.... i dont think i have to explain how more people make the game more interesting and more money gives ccp more possibilities to improve our experience even further.
right now it is possible for most people to plex an account while they are mining, mostly because they can mine just as much as the people in deep sov-null... they might have to get safe more oftern, and they might lose more ships, but still, mining is a feasable way of playing eve.
if one group of players can get much more reward for the same amount of work and even less risk, how do you think this is going to change? Big alliances get bigger, small ones get smaller and tiny groups of industrialists can **** off because they cant compete.
remove the yield/cycle time buff und the income will roughly stay the same... (you cant tell me more than 5% of the minerals on the market were mined without boosts :D)(big industrialists would still field rorquals, just because they dont want to move their ships while cycling an ore anomaly in nullsec)
+ finding a small group of miners with a small boosting ship sounds pretty nice for a roaming gang. only finding them deep in, lets say, PL space, kind of sucks, doesn't it? |
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1867
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 17:45:01 -
[1271] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:you, my friend, are mistaken :D
every single one of us wants more paying customers.... i dont think i have to explain how more people make the game more interesting and more money gives ccp more possibilities to improve our experience even further.
right now it is possible for most people to plex an account while they are mining, mostly because they can mine just as much as the people in deep sov-null... they might have to get safe more oftern, and they might lose more ships, but still, mining is a feasable way of playing eve.
if one group of players can get much more reward for the same amount of work and even less risk, how do you think this is going to change? Big alliances get bigger, small ones get smaller and tiny groups of industrialists can **** off because they cant compete.
remove the yield/cycle time buff und the income will roughly stay the same... (you cant tell me more than 5% of the minerals on the market were mined without boosts :D)(big industrialists would still field rorquals, just because they dont want to move their ships while cycling an ore anomaly in nullsec)
+ finding a small group of miners with a small boosting ship sounds pretty nice for a roaming gang. only finding them deep in, lets say, PL space, kind of sucks, doesn't it?
We want more paying customers correct, we can agree on this point.
I don't want them to be mining though, we quite clearly already have a plentiful mineral supply and more stuff needs to blow up rather than mining surplus minerals causing industry to often come at a loss.
What do you think is more harmful for new industrialists, getting less ore than an established 1000 man alliance with super capital support or making a net profit of 1000 isk per item they produce?
It seems you don't understand what you've been told earlier. EVE IS NOT FAIR. Burn these words into your mind and recall them every time you decide to type something about one group of people being more privileged than the others.
That super coalition was not gifted sov and thousands of members by CCP, they had to work for it ( how much is up to debate but it's still work) and every advantage they have is earned through effort.
What the **** is the point of all of the above when some guy in some corner of npcs null in a covetor can make as much as someone in sovereign held space. It would be pointless to hold control over an area of space as that's the whole point of sovreignty: you control an area of space to take advantage of its resources.
I don't understand your last hypothetical situation either. How would you even get into deep PL space without already being blown up before you got anywhere near their miners? Wormholes come to mind but that's a different mechanic and you can bet your bottom dollar that if a rorqual is tackled it will have a cyno nearby and at least 4 supers and a Titan ready to jump to it
Art of Explosions
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 17:50:07 -
[1272] - Quote
to add to what saterine said right now with rorqs i can remember as a 3 month old corp we were already exploiting the uses of orcas for mining because we could just put up a pos and sit the rorq in there. THREE MONTHS and we were already using the end game mining booster
BLOPS Hauler
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
21
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 18:48:21 -
[1273] - Quote
Abadayos wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Abadayos wrote:As a null sec miner that usually boosts the fleet in my rorq, I will keep on boosting the fleet when required, in my rorq, in the belt.
Here is the reasoning why it's virtually risk free if you set up right: - If your mining in a fleet, people nearby are ratting too, usually in the same system or 2 jumps out - your mining location should already of been picked because it is isolated/doesn't see much traffic in the first place. - cynos...your mining in null, you have access to a metric crapton of 'big toys'...your using a capital already so production is there. - comms or scouts - intel channels, again..or scouts - a max tank fit on your rorq, you can get over 4 million EHP quite easily, enough buffer for FAX's to jump in and rep you - eventual PANIC button for 5 minutes to get your crap together if you messed up.
If you have that sort of set-up, which any decent nullsec alliance has by default, then you should be pretty much perfectly safe. The only way you can really get screwed is via a WH spewing out a crapton of T3's, but you will have a cyno handy and a PANIC immunity for 5 minutes so you have time to react, even as local spikes with 60+ T3's with your destruction on their mind. Jump in carriers, FAXs and go to town, if it is 60+ T3's...your boned either way really unless you have BFG titans and you have the PANIC up so your immune to the DD damage, they clear tackle..and most of anything else on field, your PANIC drops, you jump out and your mining ships bugger off to your local citadel and you take out apocs (or ship of choice for hole rolling) and roll the hole. Job done.
Sure you will loose stuff, but ah well. In that situation you would loose ships anyways Or put another way, anom mining in a Rorq is perfectly safe, in a perfect world. No-where did I say it was perfectly safe. What I was saying was with a good group and organization the risks are greatly reduced and when the worst should happen you already have in place contingency plans (ratting carriers/supers/titans..the cyno, being near your ratters and some people like to have FAX alts logged in just incase a cap/super gets tackled. In a perfect world, your Rorqual is perfectly safe docked up in an NPC station and your account un-subbed to further prevent the loss of the rorqual..but that's hardly perfect now is it?
The point is that nullsec mining is also a few miners wanting to hit the anoms when the alliance is away or asleep. This proposal moves nullsec mining from the ability of impromptu improv to requiring a Broadway production. Obviously it would be "safer" on Broadway.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 18:55:13 -
[1274] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:[
The point is that nullsec mining is also a few miners wanting to hit the anoms when the alliance is away or asleep. This proposal moves nullsec mining from the ability of impromptu improv to requiring a Broadway production. Obviously it would be "safer" on Broadway.
and you can still do that but you may need to do it with fewer boosts or start recruiting for your alliances slower TZs
BLOPS Hauler
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
30
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 18:58:03 -
[1275] - Quote
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. |
Cearain
Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis
1477
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 19:06:45 -
[1276] - Quote
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.
It will definitely help solo players. They will be able to fight people without thinking they are just throwing away ships to someone with a boosting alt.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 19:11:47 -
[1277] - Quote
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
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:01:22 -
[1278] - Quote
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
A solo player could have 10 accounts, he's still a solo player.
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
30
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:17:02 -
[1279] - Quote
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
So before you spam post stuff. Do you read or just spam repetitive things contrary to those ideas to which you are quoting.
I'v enjoyed every aspect of eve over the last 11 years. I have seen and adapted to CCP attempts to nerf the little guy in hopes of boosting their subscriber count. The nerf bat has come to many things mostly supported by clueless carbears and major holding alliances. Everything in this game that single players combat pvp enjoy have been heavily diminished by the goals of making eve online a group event.
Why must you make me play with other player? I do not wish to login and wait. I want to login and compete vs other large groups SOLO. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1982
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:18:17 -
[1280] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Mining without boosts is no viable alternative since your income drops by 50% --> If you want to plex your accounts you need boosts --> ccp forces us to use boosts because otherwise we cannot play the game without RL money. simple as that You have a strange definition of viable.
Laurens Punani wrote:Fielding billions of isks is not really the point, the point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that directly influence your productivity in PVE. I take it you aren't familiar with incursions?
Laurens Punani wrote:some figures: numer of hours needed to pay for a plex while doing a PVE activity without boosts while others recieve boosts:
Ratting: about 20h Incursions : about 10h Exploration : about 15h ... Mining : about 80h
tell me again how mining boosts are optional! Seems the answer is clear, do something other than mine for PLEX. PLEXing an account isn't an entitlement and not an argument for a reason that the activity requiring the lowest level of interaction of those on your list should require more time to obtain it. So yes, it's still optional, because PLEXing is optional.
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1982
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:20:30 -
[1281] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:Why must you make me play with other player? I do not wish to login and wait. I want to login and compete vs other large groups SOLO. No one's making you do anything. If you want to be solo then be solo. It's just going to mean actually solo rather than "solo" now when you're the only one on grid.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:22:20 -
[1282] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote: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 So before you spam post stuff. Do you read or just spam repetitive things contrary to those ideas to which you are quoting. I'v enjoyed every aspect of eve over the last 11 years. I have seen and adapted to CCP attempts to nerf the little guy in hopes of boosting their subscriber count. The nerf bat has come to many things mostly supported by clueless carbears and major holding alliances. Everything in this game that single players combat pvp enjoy have been heavily diminished by the goals of making eve online a group event. Why must you make me play with other player? I do not wish to login and wait. I want to login and compete vs other large groups SOLO.
its almost like its an MMO... an MMO built around rewarding cooperation
BLOPS Hauler
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
30
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:32:50 -
[1283] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Donmadefy wrote: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 So before you spam post stuff. Do you read or just spam repetitive things contrary to those ideas to which you are quoting. I'v enjoyed every aspect of eve over the last 11 years. I have seen and adapted to CCP attempts to nerf the little guy in hopes of boosting their subscriber count. The nerf bat has come to many things mostly supported by clueless carbears and major holding alliances. Everything in this game that single players combat pvp enjoy have been heavily diminished by the goals of making eve online a group event. Why must you make me play with other player? I do not wish to login and wait. I want to login and compete vs other large groups SOLO. its almost like its an MMO... an MMO built around rewarding cooperation
I'm a kid playing in this large SANDBOX. Why must I go over to your castle and ask for help to play it.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3097
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:47:01 -
[1284] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Donmadefy wrote: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 So before you spam post stuff. Do you read or just spam repetitive things contrary to those ideas to which you are quoting. I'v enjoyed every aspect of eve over the last 11 years. I have seen and adapted to CCP attempts to nerf the little guy in hopes of boosting their subscriber count. The nerf bat has come to many things mostly supported by clueless carbears and major holding alliances. Everything in this game that single players combat pvp enjoy have been heavily diminished by the goals of making eve online a group event. Why must you make me play with other player? I do not wish to login and wait. I want to login and compete vs other large groups SOLO. its almost like its an MMO... an MMO built around rewarding cooperation I'm a kid playing in this large SANDBOX. Why must I go over to your castle and ask for help to play in it.
you don't have to we can just build faster together
BLOPS Hauler
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
145
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 23:12:16 -
[1285] - Quote
Fozzy, supers should get a higher command bonus than carriers, but they don't currently.... |
aldhura
ThinkTank Phoenix TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
101
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 23:51:24 -
[1286] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Mining without boosts is no viable alternative since your income drops by 50% --> If you want to plex your accounts you need boosts --> ccp forces us to use boosts because otherwise we cannot play the game without RL money. simple as that You have a strange definition of viable. Laurens Punani wrote:Fielding billions of isks is not really the point, the point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that directly influence your productivity in PVE. I take it you aren't familiar with incursions? Laurens Punani wrote:some figures: numer of hours needed to pay for a plex while doing a PVE activity without boosts while others recieve boosts:
Ratting: about 20h Incursions : about 10h Exploration : about 15h ... Mining : about 80h
tell me again how mining boosts are optional! Seems the answer is clear, do something other than mine for PLEX. PLEXing an account isn't an entitlement and not an argument for a reason that the activity requiring the lowest level of interaction of those on your list should require more time to obtain it. So yes, it's still optional, because PLEXing is optional.
No one plexing, no plex sales, no money for CCP. Seems reasonable to ignore those that plex
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 00:24:51 -
[1287] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote: A solo player could have 10 accounts, he's still a solo player.
No, its one player taking the role of 10 people. True solo, 1 account and only 1 account running, would not have the abilities it has with the added support.
PVE: lets dual box a logi alt on the pve runner. My case a basilisk shooting large reps and large cap transfer (1 each) can have my rattler cap stable running large/xl SB and other active mods fulltime cap stable with no cap mods/rigs. NO CCC...rigs can be shooty rigs. Don't have that logi backup, that rattler needs some cap love, CCC, pdu, etc. Fit changes based on if 2nd account there or not.
PVP: lets be a **** and triple box, booster, combat and everyones fave...falcon alt. This is not "solo" pvp. That ship true solo would have issues not faced with the falcon jamming and the boosts.
+1 account is +1 account, doesn't matter if 1 player controlled or run by other people. That ship true solo would be different.
this change not even taking this away. Its just making it harder. have to time the bursts. Worst case...its the booster right click orbit the pvp/pve ship. Or work out a way to refresh the boosts some other way. Its making it less afk is all.
Not liking this change for other reasons. Hate the passive being removed. And for siege (soon to be shield) that shield HP boost will be a mod/charge. I liked getting this passively. it also replaced the shield boost I did like....hp boost knocked cap use reducing boost for shield boosters out of the box. this combo I will miss, oh well.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3098
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 00:26:58 -
[1288] - Quote
aldhura wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Mining without boosts is no viable alternative since your income drops by 50% --> If you want to plex your accounts you need boosts --> ccp forces us to use boosts because otherwise we cannot play the game without RL money. simple as that You have a strange definition of viable. Laurens Punani wrote:Fielding billions of isks is not really the point, the point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that directly influence your productivity in PVE. I take it you aren't familiar with incursions? Laurens Punani wrote:some figures: numer of hours needed to pay for a plex while doing a PVE activity without boosts while others recieve boosts:
Ratting: about 20h Incursions : about 10h Exploration : about 15h ... Mining : about 80h
tell me again how mining boosts are optional! Seems the answer is clear, do something other than mine for PLEX. PLEXing an account isn't an entitlement and not an argument for a reason that the activity requiring the lowest level of interaction of those on your list should require more time to obtain it. So yes, it's still optional, because PLEXing is optional. No one plexing, no plex sales, no money for CCP. Seems reasonable to ignore those that plex
but if this change does make it so few ppl use the boosts the price of ore will just go up to compensate meaning there will be no issue and if about the same number of ppl keep using them then there is also no issue
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1984
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 00:59:41 -
[1289] - Quote
aldhura wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Mining without boosts is no viable alternative since your income drops by 50% --> If you want to plex your accounts you need boosts --> ccp forces us to use boosts because otherwise we cannot play the game without RL money. simple as that You have a strange definition of viable. Laurens Punani wrote:Fielding billions of isks is not really the point, the point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that directly influence your productivity in PVE. I take it you aren't familiar with incursions? Laurens Punani wrote:some figures: numer of hours needed to pay for a plex while doing a PVE activity without boosts while others recieve boosts:
Ratting: about 20h Incursions : about 10h Exploration : about 15h ... Mining : about 80h
tell me again how mining boosts are optional! Seems the answer is clear, do something other than mine for PLEX. PLEXing an account isn't an entitlement and not an argument for a reason that the activity requiring the lowest level of interaction of those on your list should require more time to obtain it. So yes, it's still optional, because PLEXing is optional. No one plexing, no plex sales, no money for CCP. Seems reasonable to ignore those that plex Who said no one plexing? Maybe you should stop projecting people's inability to figure out how to make it work. There WILL be miners who still PLEX. It just won't be the ones who complain about fielding assets instead of fielding asset or investing more time. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 01:39:14 -
[1290] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:Fozzy, supers should get a higher command bonus than carriers, but they don't currently....
yeah it seems odd that they are getting nerffed is that intended?
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
30
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 02:36:11 -
[1291] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Ginger Naari wrote: A solo player could have 10 accounts, he's still a solo player.
PVP: lets be a **** and triple box,
Be a what? |
Zenta Carson
Apex Inc The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 02:50:00 -
[1292] - Quote
About the Rorqual, will it and the barges be able to warp out while in Nexus Mode? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 02:53:06 -
[1293] - Quote
Zenta Carson wrote:About the Rorqual, will it and the barges be able to warp out while in Nexus Mode?
lol no... you can't even move
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 03:34:17 -
[1294] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:Ginger Naari wrote: A solo player could have 10 accounts, he's still a solo player.
PVP: lets be a **** and triple box, Be a what?
Nickname for Richard, male sex organ.....always liked the filter on this forum for that word. As well....if I were to have a political discussion it filter out part of **** cheney's name. Or the old phrase every tom, **** and harry |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 03:56:03 -
[1295] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: but if this change does make it so few ppl use the boosts the price of ore will just go up to compensate meaning there will be no issue and if about the same number of ppl keep using them then there is also no issue
Basically. Adjust price to the work that be more involved now.
then you you enter market pvp realms. Old boy or girl undercuts you, take it up with your fellow miners on that one. Welcome to market pvp. I just place the (lowball) buy orders for my stuff. If a miner doesn't like my price, they can move on and that is cool...sell for your price and be firm, . Now if I get miners who will sell for lower to avoid isk warring in the markets for hours to days after order dropped....they made the call to fill my low ball order lol.
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 05:49:22 -
[1296] - Quote
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
ARE YOU GUYS ******* SERIOUS? EVE IS NOT FAIR; TOUGH ****; JUST DIE OR GET A BOOsTING ALT NOOB!!!!
just kidding, thought i'd post this since you guys gave me a bit of a shitstorm yesterday :D
If mining is no special snowflake, pvp isn't either. MAKE PVP MORE IMBALANCED SINCE WE ALSO WANT IMBALANCED PVE!!!!
IF SOLO PVP DOES NOT WORK; GET INTO A GANG!
SO: Noone is entiteled to FAIR pvp... if other people kill you because they've got an ogb right now... whats the point in changing that? if kyou dont trust yourself to kill him without boosts, get boosts. if you still dont trust yourself to kill him, go play project discovery and shut the **** up |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1876
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 05:52:54 -
[1297] - Quote
If serious, yes that's how eve is played
But in all liklihood, judging by your previous posts, you don't believe in any of that and you're one of those people who want instanced pvp arenas like AT
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 06:01:23 -
[1298] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:If serious, yes that's how eve is played
But in all liklihood, judging by your previous posts, you don't believe in any of that and you're one of those people who want instanced pvp arenas like AT
I'd love to have more balanced PVP for alliance turnaments, but actually, i do like the idea of forced PVP and dont think this change is good for any small gangs or solo pvpers.
I posted that because that guy posting about "fairness" in PVP posts that "Fairness" for miners is nothing we should hope for because miners are no special snowflakes :D
All we want is some balanced gameplay... a gameplay in which you can decide what you want to do freely....
You want to gank Jumpfreighters? - Good luck, i love those killmails :D You want to roam around in a small gang? - Take this small booster and have fun! You like Huge Fleets? - A new boosting system so its more fun for everyone!
You want to do solo PVP - We are running into a little bit of a problem here.. You want to solo mine? - Good joke :D Mining is only for those with more than 1 account. You can do it solo, but its not really worth your time. Go shoot some rats
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1876
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 06:11:28 -
[1299] - Quote
Nobody is stopping you from doing any of those things
The problem here is that you somehow want a solo player to be on equal terms with a group that's not how it works matey
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 06:20:49 -
[1300] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Fielding billions of isks is not really the point, the point is, that mining boosts are the only boosts that directly influence your productivity in PVE. I take it you aren't familiar with incursions? Laurens Punani wrote:some figures: numer of hours needed to pay for a plex while doing a PVE activity without boosts while others recieve boosts:
Ratting: about 20h Incursions : about 10h Exploration : about 15h ... Mining : about 80h
tell me again how mining boosts are optional! Seems the answer is clear, do something other than mine for PLEX. PLEXing an account isn't an entitlement and not an argument for a reason that the activity requiring the lowest level of interaction of those on your list should require more time to obtain it. So yes, it's still optional, because PLEXing is optional.
No one plexing, no plex sales, no money for CCP. Seems reasonable to ignore those that plex [/quote]Who said no one plexing? Maybe you should stop projecting people's inability to figure out how to make it work. There WILL be miners who still PLEX. It just won't be the ones who complain about fielding assets instead of fielding asset or investing more time.[/quote]
dude, plexing accounts is easy.... plexing accounts with mining takes more interaction than plexing accounts with ratting. In an Ishtar you dont need to produce, you dont need to sell.. you just have to deploy drones every 30 minutes:D I've done both, i will still be able to do both after whatever changes may come. People with 2 million SP, one account and 30 bucks of pocket money dont have the choice... They can either play something that pays enough to fund their eve-career or just dont play at all. Thats plain stupid. also: show me the incursion-boost, that boosts your incursion income by 100% :D:D:D
take it you are not familiar with common-sense? |
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1876
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 06:25:42 -
[1301] - Quote
Maybe if you only have 30 dollars to your name, figuring out how to plex should not be on the top of your list of priorities
Incursion boost: links allow You to fit less tank and more gank increasing your clear times by a significant amount
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 06:32:56 -
[1302] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Nobody is stopping you from doing any of those things
The problem here is that you somehow want a solo player to be on equal terms with a group that's not how it works matey
I dont want them to be equal, i want them to be close enough to each other, so that solo-play is still an option. 100% difference in income is just too far away.
I get that you guys think EVE has to be a horrible place, but when i started (not too long ago, thats probably why i dont see things 100% like you YET :D ) People helped me a lot :)
I got boosts so i could mine more profitably. I was given my first procurer for free and some random dude in provi even gave me 100m just so i could get started more easyly. I went on to rat after moving because i could not recieve boosts 23/7 and wanted to be able to play while the booster was not online. It could be that im projecting that onto the discussion as a whole, but in my eyes, mining would never have been an option without the boosts ( solo highsec in a venture... yay :D only 5 more months until i can buy something bigger :D ). When i started, i did not know what to do and enjoyed talking to people on teamspeak while mining. If CCP makes the way i took impossible for new players to take, they a taking away a big chunk of gameplay for newbros.
Most important for me was to get a stable isk.income so i could chose more freely what to do next and not be restircted by money and SP but only by experience. Mining was viable back then, why shoulnd't it be on november?
PS. Dont tell me it still is :D |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 07:13:42 -
[1303] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Maybe if you only have 30 dollars to your name, figuring out how to plex should not be on the top of your list of priorities
Incursion boost: links allow You to fit less tank and more gank increasing your clear times by a significant amount
Incursions will be interesting to see after this for a bit. Why not much empathy for the miners, other pve activities affected really. Will the herd of incursion cats be herded well for the boost pulse....question of the day there.
That and if they eye rat killing money with this much jealousy/envy a miner can switch over. I did years ago. Alt mined for 2 years. She went rat killing....never looked back. Got me orca, great boat to move a t3 and other small crap around changing agents up. Refine skills liked in the past for when loot worth melting down too.
I can give them some low work, decent output setups. Almost like mining. Have a tengu fit all you have to is start a fast orbit (speed/sig tank), turn on prop and sb (Resists are passive, no clicks for them lol) and done. Feed her targets, f1 on reloads, stuff dies, get paid. no where near the work of bs' I run lol. Think the rat is a rock...ssdd really lol. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1986
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 07:20:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:dude, plexing accounts is easy.... plexing accounts with mining takes more interaction than plexing accounts with ratting. In an Ishtar you dont need to produce, you dont need to sell.. you just have to deploy drones every 30 minutes:D I've done both, i will still be able to do both after whatever changes may come. People with 2 million SP, one account and 30 bucks of pocket money dont have the choice... They can either play something that pays enough to fund their eve-career or just dont play at all. Thats plain stupid. also: show me the incursion-boost, that boosts your incursion income by 100% :D:D:D
take it you are not familiar with common-sense? No, PLEXing with mining really doesn't take more interaction, it just takes more time. If you want to argue actually producing in addition to that we're now talking about something else, in which case ratters /mission runners/etc should be able to count their faction/deadspace loot/LP/etc for added interaction as well.
Also you haven't ratted much recently if you're only launching drones every 30 min. That or you're making isk for 2 min min and idling in space next to dead drones for the other 28.
I do like how you're trying to be selective and move goal posts though. Between turning "mining income" into an entire supply chain while ignoring market interactions that come from other forms of PvE now you're narrowing from saying no other form of PvE increases profit from boosts to it having to be a 100% increase to count.
I'm fully familiar with common sense, which says you can make isk mining without boosts. The 2 million SP new player solo mining doesn't have Orca boosts so you're hypothetical argument that it's for their sake is fundamentally a lie as well, but it still works for the one doing it. |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 07:30:04 -
[1305] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:dude, plexing accounts is easy.... plexing accounts with mining takes more interaction than plexing accounts with ratting. In an Ishtar you dont need to produce, you dont need to sell.. you just have to deploy drones every 30 minutes:D I've done both, i will still be able to do both after whatever changes may come. People with 2 million SP, one account and 30 bucks of pocket money dont have the choice... They can either play something that pays enough to fund their eve-career or just dont play at all. Thats plain stupid. also: show me the incursion-boost, that boosts your incursion income by 50% :D:D:D
take it you are not familiar with common-sense? No, PLEXing with mining really doesn't take more interaction, it just takes more time. If you want to argue actually producing in addition to that we're now talking about something else, in which case ratters /mission runners/etc should be able to count their faction/deadspace loot for added interaction as well. Also you haven't ratted much recently if you're only launching drones every 30 min. That or you're making isk for 2 min min and idling in space next to dead drones for the other 28. I do like how you're trying to be selective and move goal posts though. Between turning "mining income" into an entire supply chain while ignoring market interactions that come from other forms of PvE now you're narrowing from saying no other form of PvE increases profit from boosts to it having to be a 100% increase to count. I'm fully familiar with common sense, which says you can make isk mining without boosts. The 2 million SP new player solo mining doesn't have Orca boosts so you're hypothetical argument that it's for their sake is fundamentally a lie as well, but it still works for the one doing it.
wrong in so many ways :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAaWGE-QXG4
still works. switch out the damace control for another DDA, one power diagnostic system for a tracking enhancer... ger a drone navigation computer as well and TADAAA, 22 m/isk every 20 minutes ;)
also: are you serious? why should someone start mining for 10 million isk/h when he can simply fly a VNI for 50-70 million isk/h???
AND: income for solo miners WILL drop by 100% while people in big alliances still make just as much/even more money.
AND: There is no other income boost like the mining boosts... nowhere... if there is, please show me where so i can do that all day long:D :D:D
sometimes its even funny to read what you guys are saying... |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1986
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 08:05:22 -
[1306] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:wrong in so many ways :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAaWGE-QXG4 still works. switch out the damace control for another DDA, one power diagnostic system for a tracking enhancer... ger a drone navigation computer as well and TADAAA, 22 m/isk every 20 minutes ;) also: are you serious? why should someone start mining for 10 million isk/h when he can simply fly a VNI for 50-70 million isk/h??? Not everyone has access to secure null? Not everyone has the ability to park a VNI for 20 min without harassment? Drone aggro isn't a constant making that unreliable? Not everyone os so bad at mining that they only make 10m/h?
Also that undermines your argument about boosts as well. Why are you mining at 20 mill per hour when there's such great effortless isk out there? Why is anyone?
Either you're not willing to put in the minimal effort you say it takes or you just like making crap isk, which is crap specifically because of the non-existent barrier of entry and riskless boosts further devaluing minerals.
Laurens Punani wrote:AND: income for solo miners WILL drop by 50% while people in big alliances still make just as much/even more money.
AND: There is no other income boost like the mining boosts... nowhere... if there is, please show me where so i can do that all day long:D :D:D
sometimes its even funny to read what you guys are saying... Impossible unless those large alliances increase mining output to account for what you're losing of mineral consumption plummets by that same amount. Or are you under the mistaken impression that ore/mineral prices are determined in a vacuum?
Also who are these solo miners with boosts? If they're teaming with other players they aren't solo and if they're under 4 accounts, which vast majority of the playerbase is believed to be, they were better getting every ship in a barge instead. |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 08:30:32 -
[1307] - Quote
1.) works like a charm in any space with anomalies 2.) Go kill one of those every 2 hours, still more income than a procurer without boosts oh wait... you have to prak them for 20 minutes as well... dont know why you cant see that... 3.) Drone aggro is constant, making it very reliable... if you dont understand drone aggro you should probably read into that... 4.) You can calculate the income of a miner pretty easyly... a yield-fitted hulk with a dedicated hauler and max rorq. boosts mining 5% spodumain in Sov-Null anomalies and having about 7% DT due to asteroids running out makes about 47.5m isk per hour.
take away the boosts and that is 20 m/isk take away the hauler and that is 12 m/isk use a Skiff or Procurer because you are alone and need SOME tank and thats 7m isk/h
There is no skill involved in this, its just math. Your income is higher if you mine ice/bistot and other stuff, but on average it is 10million isk/h even in the nicest pieces of sov-null :))
You see: mining works out if you have a few accounts, full boosts and proper intel. All the stuff that big alliances have plenty of. If you have.. lets say... 15 accounts, 10 of which are extracting SP with a maximum remap and +4 implants and you are mining for 30 hours/month you make about 15 billion isk in minerals.
If you have ... lets say.... 1 account, you make 300 million in the same time if you mine and 1800 million if you use a vexor navy issue
+ Those numbers are for fully skilled pilots (miners using t1 lasers) which, in both cases, take about 5.5 million SP. A lot more for the hauler and booster of course, but that is a different subject.
Mining/ratting have exactly the same entry barrier
+ most people who start playing eve are solo players, most of which are introduced to mining via the "tutorial" and almost all of them DONT get into huge alliances. up until now they could recieve boosts anywhere. from november on they will rarely find anyone willing to risk his ship just to help noobs... or at least they wont be found as much as they are right now. |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1879
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 15:07:24 -
[1308] - Quote
It seems you are suffering from two very common afflictions that shitposters are often affected by:
1. Selectis readingum
The inane ability to somehow pick out all the points at support ones own argument while somehow repeatedly ignoring counterpoints that harm the shitposters own.
2. Tunnelvisionitis
Common disease where the victim is fixated on one point of contention ignoring all context and criticisms
So we've told you how none of your methods will fix mineral prices, the only way mining can become more profitable at this point is either more **** gets blown up, or less people mining.
That's how basic supply and demand works, bringing everyone up or down to one level will just **** people off who have worked to generate the infrastructure needed to operate efficient mining fleets.
You've detailed how terrible mining is for a new player attempting it solo, so this is a great place to pivot and swing them over to do things that ARENT mining and may possibly cause mineral consumption.
Your point about how a solo account will have 0 profit if using a boosting ship. Who's thought process is so damaged that their first step in mining would be to get a boosting ship with only one account?
I also like how you've attached a tangible number to a 'big' alliance to make sure the 0.05 increase seems insignificant enough and when speaking about a 'small' alliance you completely avoid that. Also again, how will not having boosts reduce their income to 0?
Also I chuckled a little when you spoke about risk. What is a rorqual pilot 'risking' at the moment when boosting from inside a pos shield? Of course they will be much more inclined now to invite people to fleet because there literally is ZERO risk.
i like how you've also somehow inserted sp extraction as something relevant to mining. You might as well add that all 15 characters can all set up PI and rat in VNIs at the same time as well. OH MY GOD ALL THE ISK FROM SOMEONE PUTTING APPROPRIATE INVESTMENTS INTO GETTING IT, CCPLEASE NERF
Also you keep toting this 50% number, where are you getting this from? Sure rorqual boosts with industrial core might be less prevalent, but it's not like mining boosts are being removed completely. There will be other sources small corps and solo players can take advantage of.
Due to your selectis readingum you seem to have missed what I said about incursions being significantly better isk when organised around boosts. Wormhole PVE can also get significantly affected since it may be the difference between having to risk 1 more ship on field and not, or just better clear times due to the ability to fit less tank.
I know a really good doctor that can help you with both of your conditions, he specialises in extracting bullshit from people.
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 16:17:05 -
[1309] - Quote
"It seems you are suffering from two very common afflictions that shitposters are often affected by:
1. Selectis readingum
The inane ability to somehow pick out all the points at support ones own argument while somehow repeatedly ignoring counterpoints that harm the shitposters own.
2. Tunnelvisionitis
Common disease where the victim is fixated on one point of contention ignoring all context and criticisms
So we've told you how none of your methods will fix mineral prices, the only way mining can become more profitable at this point is either more **** gets blown up, or less people mining."
Prices dont need fixing,never said that :D follow your own advices friend :)
"You've detailed how terrible mining is for a new player attempting it solo, so this is a great place to pivot and swing them over to do things that ARENT mining and may possibly cause mineral consumption."
at the moment mining is okay... cut the profit in half and its dogshit. how many people lose their ships while ratting? I dont see my mineral consumption rise if i decide to rat for a month or two instead of mining... not at all :D
Tsukino Stareine wrote: Your point about how a solo account will have 0 profit if using a boosting ship. Who's thought process is so damaged that their first step in mining would be to get a boosting ship with only one account?
I also like how you've attached a tangible number to a 'big' alliance to make sure the 0.05 increase seems insignificant enough and when speaking about a 'small' alliance you completely avoid that. Also again, how will not having boosts reduce their income to 0?
dude... think, for once... " Who's thought process is so damaged that their first step in mining would be to get a boosting ship with only one account" all the people in NRDS-space with only 1 account can not continue mining if they want to make anything close to what they made as soon as the boosters are on grid. they wont have one --> they wont bother mining for no money at all --> they will do other things
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Also I chuckled a little when you spoke about risk. What is a rorqual pilot 'risking' at the moment when boosting from inside a pos shield? Of course they will be much more inclined now to invite people to fleet because there literally is ZERO risk.
-.- really? there is no risk for the booster right now, but i would consider 12 hulks (400 million each) and a frighter a pretty big investment. if a caracal warps into the anomaly the chances of killing 1 or 2 hulks before dieing are pretty good. there is (as of now) no protection but running away before they come into the anomaly. thats the risk while mining
Tsukino Stareine wrote:i like how you've also somehow inserted sp extraction as something relevant to mining. You might as well add that all 15 characters can all set up PI and rat in VNIs at the same time as well. OH MY GOD ALL THE ISK FROM SOMEONE PUTTING APPROPRIATE INVESTMENTS INTO GETTING IT, CCPLEASE NERF
You might do some pi stuff.. people do it, but you cant multibox 25 VNI... there arent enough anomalies to do that. otherwise you might be right. still, my point was, that other professions dont NEED multiboxing to be 6 times as efficient as solo mining. sorry if you misunderstood that.
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Also you keep toting this 50% number, where are you getting this from? Sure rorqual boosts with industrial core might be less prevalent, but it's not like mining boosts are being removed completely. There will be other sources small corps and solo players can take advantage of.
IF MINING BOOSTS WERE REMOVED COMPLETLY THE INCOME WOULD NOT DROP; YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!!! lets take a look at the dev blog, shall we? right now, most of the people in NRDS-space are recieving full rorqual boosts. you already statet, that if everyone recieves boosts the income wont change since everyone gets more minerals.
-57.13%
That is the cycle time bonus from november on. Do the math and see, that with a boost you get 230% of what an unboost char gets. Considering that deep-sov null CAN provide those boosts the overall amount of ore mined wont change much... if it did not change at all a normal miner would drop down to 40-45% of his current income. Considering that the prices MIGHT go up i went the modest way and said those people would only lose 50% of their income. I left school quite some time ago, but i am still pretty sure the formula for things like these is x=1/(1-57,13) where x is the relative amount of ore mined by a boosted char and 1 is the amount of ore mined by an unboost char. correct me if i am wrong)
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Due to your selectis readingum you seem to have missed what I said about incursions being significantly better isk when organised around boosts. Wormhole PVE can also get significantly affected since it may be the difference between having to risk 1 more ship on field and not, or just better clear times due to the ability to fit less tank.
I know a really good doctor that can help you with both of your conditions, he specialises in extracting bullshit from people.
i read that... how much do you think is that? 10, maybe 20% ? those numbers sound fair! 130-150% ? thats just plain bullshit :D
im not reading this anymore. if you just want to attack me personally because you cannot deny that i am right i might as well assume
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 16:32:03 -
[1310] - Quote
CCP can you please add to the highsec graph of incursions for each site type (except scout sites) either +1 or +2 before reducing payout.
Because Boosts are going to have to be ongrid not offgrid the change adversely affects the efficiency of the fleets as well as increase the risks for the fleets.
This negative unforseen external effect should be equally compensated. (it's unforseen because people don't take PVE into account when they make new features.)
|
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1885
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 16:46:46 -
[1311] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Prices dont need fixing,never said that :D follow your own advices friend :)
at the moment mining is okay... cut the profit in half and its dogshit. how many people lose their ships while ratting? I dont see my mineral consumption rise if i decide to rat for a month or two instead of mining... not at all :D
dude... think, for once... " Who's thought process is so damaged that their first step in mining would be to get a boosting ship with only one account" all the people in NRDS-space with only 1 account can not continue mining if they want to make anything close to what they made as soon as the boosters are on grid. they wont have one --> they wont bother mining for no money at all --> they will do other things
-.- really? there is no risk for the booster right now, but i would consider 12 hulks (400 million each) and a frighter a pretty big investment. if a caracal warps into the anomaly the chances of killing 1 or 2 hulks before dieing are pretty good. there is (as of now) no protection but running away before they come into the anomaly. thats the risk while mining
You might do some pi stuff.. people do it, but you cant multibox 25 VNI... there arent enough anomalies to do that. otherwise you might be right. still, my point was, that other professions dont NEED multiboxing to be 6 times as efficient as solo mining. sorry if you misunderstood that.
IF MINING BOOSTS WERE REMOVED COMPLETLY THE INCOME WOULD NOT DROP; YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!!! lets take a look at the dev blog, shall we? right now, most of the people in NRDS-space are recieving full rorqual boosts. you already statet, that if everyone recieves boosts the income wont change since everyone gets more minerals.
-57.13%
That is the cycle time bonus from november on. Do the math and see, that with a boost you get 230% of what an unboost char gets. Considering that deep-sov null CAN provide those boosts the overall amount of ore mined wont change much... if it did not change at all a normal miner would drop down to 40-45% of his current income. Considering that the prices MIGHT go up i went the modest way and said those people would only lose 50% of their income. I left school quite some time ago, but i am still pretty sure the formula for things like these is x=1/(1-57,13) where x is the relative amount of ore mined by a boosted char and 1 is the amount of ore mined by an unboost char. correct me if i am wrong)
i read that... how much do you think is that? 10, maybe 20% ? those numbers sound fair! 130-150% ? thats just plain bullshit :D
im not reading this anymore. if you just want to attack me personally because you cannot deny that i am right i might as well assume
1. The whole point of your terrible ideas are about fixing mineral prices to make mining more attractive for new players. Just because you're too short sighted to summarise it in this way does not make it untrue.
2. If indeed these changes go through and we see a reduction in rorqual use because of the risk attached. How many people will just either
A: use an orca instead B: boost without the core
The yield will lower, only the large alliances who can afford to field and protect their rorquals will continue. Minerals will go up in price and the big alliances get a bigger cut of he pie BECAUSE THEY EARN IT
3. Again your ego is taking over, not everything is about you. If we see a general increase of VNIs then we will see an increase of VNIs being killed, making more demand for them and of course driving up the costs of minerals to build them, making mining more profitable. See where I'm going with this? People choosing not to mine is what's going to fix mineral prices, not your half baked ideas about how to remove mining boosts or give them to everyone.
4. So we've moved from a rorqual in a NRDS zone giving out free boosts to random people to a full on solo multi box operation of 12 hulks. Make up your mind please.
5. Other sources of income don't get more efficient with multi boxing? I'm sorry are we playing the same game? Some aspects of PVE are completely not doable unless you're multi boxing or running with a fleet. Try high class wormholes, smartbombing anoms and level 5 missions.
Mining is possibly one of the WORST scaling professions for multi boxing.
6. So you literally have no idea of how much mineral prices will shift and how much less ore will be mined and just throwing out random numbers that you feel are right.
Ok
6. Again just pulling numbers from absolute thin air. I'm not sure how much faster an incursion group will be with boosts and I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to slap a number on it, however what I do know is that pretty much every incursion fleet will run with links. It's that important.
You can stop reading what I'm writing, doesn't make it any less right and the people will see that.
Art of Explosions
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
30
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 16:59:34 -
[1312] - Quote
So a single player now will have a harder time at running command boost with an alt vs a group of players. How dose this balance for the small guy.
Tell me CCP as you're claiming this will help the little guy. More fairness to your command link restructuring, or just a ploy to blob more in hopes of membership subscriptions. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1987
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 17:46:29 -
[1313] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:1.) works like a charm in any space with anomalies Yeah, but most space with anomalies is crap to rat is because of most other sites having frig spawns wich do agress drones more often, and most other anoms being crap in general so you need decent sov to farm hubs 2.) Go kill one of those every 2 hours, still more income than a procurer without boosts oh wait... you have to park them for 20 minutes as well... dont know why you cant see that...YGiven your numbers below you'd have to be doing it wrong as the desparity betwen yield on the 2 isn't that great when accounting for the fact that a proc/skiff/ret/mac can all stay in belts longer than a hulk 3.) Drone aggro is constant, making it very reliable... if you dont understand drone aggro you should probably read into that...No, it really isn't because of observed behaviors where NPCs WILL switch aggro a fixed 2 min after launching. You can try warping out and back in to see if it resets, but each new wave seems to have a chance to trigger that behavior. Also if in a site with elite frigs and cruisers you can just forget it. 4.) You can calculate the income of a miner pretty easyly... a yield-fitted hulk with a dedicated hauler and max rorq. boosts mining 5% spodumain in Sov-Null anomalies and having about 7% DT due to asteroids running out makes about 47.5m isk per hour.
take away the boosts and that is 20 m/isk take away the hauler and that is 12 m/isk use a Skiff or Procurer because you are alone and need SOME tank and thats 7m isk/h
There is no skill involved in this, its just math. Your income is higher if you mine ice/bistot and other stuff, but on average it is 10million isk/h even in the nicest pieces of sov-null :)) - Why would you compare a yield fitted hulk to a tank fitted proc? Sure you weren't alone in that hulk, but you were still in a wet paper bag with less than the base tank of a proc. That's a stacked comparison. Probably an intentional one
You see: mining works out if you have a few accounts, full boosts and proper intel. All the stuff that big alliances have plenty of. If you have.. lets say... 15 accounts, 10 of which are extracting SP with a maximum remap and +4 implants and you are mining for 30 hours/month you make about 32 billion isk in minerals and skill injectors. (-15 b for pelx)
If you have ... lets say.... 1 account, you make 300 million in the same time if you mine (-1b for plex?!?!?!?) and 1800 million if you use a vexor navy issue
+ Those numbers are for fully skilled pilots (miners using t1 lasers) which, in both cases, take about 5.5 million SP. A lot more for the hauler and booster of course, but that is a different subject. - Mining "works" regardless of what you have. You could mine in a venture solo and have it work. What you're talking about isn't it working, it's earning PLEX with it which isn't an entitlement or base evaluation of whether something works.
Mining/ratting have exactly the same entry barrier - They really don't, take it from someone who mines AFK. A Proc and some awareness every few min is all the solo miner needs. You can get more complex with alts/haulers, but that's well beyond barrier of entry. In fact the barrier of entry is even lower at a single venture. Getting any ratting results from a T1 frig doesn't really hold true conversely but a venture can actually beat my procurer in yield
+ most people who start playing eve are solo players, most of which are introduced to mining via the "tutorial" and almost all of them DONT get into huge alliances. up until now they could recieve boosts anywhere. from november on they will rarely find anyone willing to risk his ship just to help noobs... or at least they wont be found as much as they are right now. - Which is fine first off, and 2nd means the way is open for them to learn how to safely pilot boosting ships and offer that help themselves in the future. Maybe even for a profit. If someone want to offer boosts they'll find a way.
Edit: A huge alliance with 500 mining chars does not really care if they mine 1 trillion isk or 1.05 trillion isk per month. A small alliance does care if it mines 50 billion per month or nothing at all :D:D:D . If prices go up by 10%, mining without boosts is still a big pile of bullcrap while mining deep in SOV-Null will a huge blue donut becomes 10% more profitable. Dont tell me "people can get a small boosting ship" -- They could, but if they only have 1 account their income just dropped to 0 - Hyperbolic and contradictory BS. Either those alliances were carrying the whole of the weight of mineral production and the random solo miners didn't matter and truly weren't making a dent in demand AND were all using boosts down to the last to make that happen or they were and were pulling significant ore and will continue to afterwards because they can still boost or will go unchanged because a significant portion aren't using boosts as is |
TheRageCarrier
Unstable Reaction Inc. Takahashi Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 17:47:16 -
[1314] - Quote
Guess a lot of small corps like mine will be selling off their roquals and not running boosts on orcas. Not worth 3 bil in losses to keep that monster in grid in an easily probed down colossal belt. Way to f the little guy devs. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
288
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 18:23:39 -
[1315] - Quote
TheRageCarrier wrote:Guess a lot of small corps like mine will be selling off their roquals and not running boosts on orcas. Not worth 3 bil in losses to keep that monster in grid in an easily probed down colossal belt. Way to f the little guy devs.
This is it in a nutshell.
Corporations on the smaller size won't be providing boosts, even for neutrals in system to help those in NPC corps, or corps that are smaller than their own.
We're already planning to sell off the extra couple of Orca's and Orca BPC's. We can't see a 1.5b ISK loss with having an Orca sitting in a belt, "shooting" boosts and flagging a suspect timer, because CCP forgot about the smaller corps like mine.
Forgotten again. Thanks Fozzie.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
TheRageCarrier
Unstable Reaction Inc. Takahashi Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 18:31:08 -
[1316] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:TheRageCarrier wrote:Guess a lot of small corps like mine will be selling off their roquals and not running boosts on orcas. Not worth 3 bil in losses to keep that monster in grid in an easily probed down colossal belt. Way to f the little guy devs. This is it in a nutshell. Corporations on the smaller size won't be providing boosts, even for neutrals in system to help those in NPC corps, or corps that are smaller than their own. We're already planning to sell off the extra couple of Orca's and Orca BPC's. We can't see a 1.5b ISK loss with having an Orca sitting in a belt, "shooting" boosts and flagging a suspect timer, because CCP forgot about the smaller corps like mine. Forgotten again. Thanks Fozzie.
Should just trade in all our mining ships for Anom Domi`s and let the markets crash. Not much sand left in the box these days.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 18:33:08 -
[1317] - Quote
TheRageCarrier wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:TheRageCarrier wrote:Guess a lot of small corps like mine will be selling off their roquals and not running boosts on orcas. Not worth 3 bil in losses to keep that monster in grid in an easily probed down colossal belt. Way to f the little guy devs. This is it in a nutshell. Corporations on the smaller size won't be providing boosts, even for neutrals in system to help those in NPC corps, or corps that are smaller than their own. We're already planning to sell off the extra couple of Orca's and Orca BPC's. We can't see a 1.5b ISK loss with having an Orca sitting in a belt, "shooting" boosts and flagging a suspect timer, because CCP forgot about the smaller corps like mine. Forgotten again. Thanks Fozzie. Should just trade in all our mining ships for Anom Domi`s and let the markets crash. Not much sand left in the box these days.
so smaller groups may no longer be able to use the end game booster and npc toons will have a harder time getting boosts?
the horror
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 18:53:54 -
[1318] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:So a single player now will have a harder time at running command boost with an alt vs a group of players. How dose this balance for the small guy.
Tell me CCP as you're claiming this will help the little guy. More fairness to your command link restructuring, or just a ploy to blob more in hopes of membership subscriptions.
The blob has the same issues as (not) solo (already covered, dual boxing is not solo a fleet booster self run or player run is stll a second ship running), they have to keep track of boost timers and be in range of the next cycle. In theory you will get lucky and fast tackle is out of range for the burst. His boosts fade, no new ones...easier tackle kill.
this change gets boosters out of deep safes and/or dancing around structure shields. they are on the field and killable now. Its an improvement. As in current setup your (not) solo pilot was dealing with boosters they could never see anyway. Now if the (not) solo player can't drop the booster when on grid in a ball of ships about to spread the x km's of aoe boost that's how it goes. SSDD for the solo player really and not much change. As is now, that booster was untouchable anyway as solo couldn't scan this down and scare it off anyway. Its now touchable....lack of dps/alpha to drop it that's another issue.
And CCP has stuff in here to support this (non) solo stuff. the boosts only go away on docking and structure shield entry as I read it. Gate jumps keep the boosts in play. Put another way know your timers. Know they are good, jump jump jump. Think they will run out soon, stand by on outbound (or a celestial aligned to outbound) wait for old boost expiration, splash the boost then jump all newly boosted.
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
30
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 18:58:31 -
[1319] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Donmadefy wrote:So a single player now will have a harder time at running command boost with an alt vs a group of players. How dose this balance for the small guy.
Tell me CCP as you're claiming this will help the little guy. More fairness to your command link restructuring, or just a ploy to blob more in hopes of membership subscriptions. The blob has the same issues as (not) solo (already covered, dual boxing is not solo a fleet booster self run or player run is stll a second ship running), they have to keep track of boost timers and be in range of the next cycle. In theory you will get lucky and fast tackle is out of range for the burst. His boosts fade, no new ones...easier tackle kill. this change gets boosters out of deep safes and/or dancing around structure shields. they are on the field and killable now. Its an improvement. As in current setup your (not) solo pilot was dealing with boosters they could never see anyway. Now if the (not) solo player can't drop the booster when on grid in a ball of ships about to spread the x km's of aoe boost that's how it goes. SSDD for the solo player really and not much change. As is now, that booster was untouchable anyway as solo couldn't scan this down and scare it off anyway. Its now touchable....lack of dps/alpha to drop it that's another issue. And CCP has stuff in here to support this (non) solo stuff. the boosts only go away on docking and structure shield entry as I read it. Gate jumps keep the boosts in play. Put another way know your timers. Know they are good, jump jump jump. Think they will run out soon, stand by on outbound (or a celestial aligned to outbound) wait for old boost expiration, splash the boost then jump all newly boosted. Like I keep saying. CCP claims this will help the small dude. However I ask how?
This change is limiting the smaller groups to compete vs the unfair mob. I'm not out looking for fair fights. I'm looking for a fight where I have a chance. By letting that larger group which I so love to engage have a boosting alt on grid. Vs me with no booster because I have no support to keep it alive unlike the said larger group which I fight.
So how is this balance? |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
763
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 20:59:49 -
[1320] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote: Like I keep saying. CCP claims this will help the small dude. However I ask how?
Depends on how you define "the small dude". Back when I was a small(er) dude, I got annoyed by offgrid boosted roflstomp mobiles in novice FW plexes.
Now, such a smaller dude will get a real brawl, and you'll both get more fun out of your ships.
Dualboxing an OGB by definition rules you out for 'Solo' or 'small dude' arguments I'm afraid... although I do see your point. Ironically, the same scales as the numbers at both ends go up a little: our 5 man gang vs your 5 man gang would give you a fight -- unless it's a 4 man + OGB kitefest; then you pretty much shut us out of the picture.
When neither party has links, balance is restored.
What you're trying to do is go up against a much larger gang with ongrid links, and under those circumstances balance would suggest the one guy loses. Even with links, there'd be logistics and EWAR to contend with ... such endeavours may be out of your league with or without links. |
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 21:05:56 -
[1321] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:This change is limiting the smaller groups to compete vs the unfair mob. I'm not out looking for fair fights. I'm looking for a fight where I have a chance. By letting that larger group which I so love to engage have a boosting alt on grid. Vs me with no booster because I have no support to keep it alive unlike the said larger group which I fight.
So how is this balance?
You boost before the jump, unless I missed a change boosts stay on ship after gate jumps. Docking and structure shield only remove them as I read it. Your booster is on the other side of the gate. It only gets shot if you jump it.
The change is the booster is on grid to kill now. You boost before jump, now you can see their booster and try to kill it if there. Your booster is on the other side of the gate if so desired. As I read the changes if trained up these boosts are a few minutes. Lets be honest...if the fight is that bad 5-10 people will drop you long before your boost timers run to need a new burst.
Its not grrr cloaky boost t3 hiding somewhere in space. what was asked for...well we got it. Can't kill it that's on the player(s). And we don't even have test files to pyfa/eft yet to see how hard or easy to kill yet to see where this is going. T3 I am not sure if this will keep them in check or not as an example. That switch to rigs for +1 boost mod....could or could not hurt some fits since t3 can rely on rigs for their edge.
This game is an mmo. Its designed around group play not solo. game can't balance on the solo player having a chance against 5 players (all skills equal and all play to an average level at least).
Its a case of scaling dilemma. A game that makes solo easier, makes group play even easier.
Poof, magic balance pass. Your solo ship can now passably tank and shoot at a 5 man gate camp with better success. Guess what....so do theirs now. They have 5 ships just like yours....SSDD only now with more EHP and DPS.
Inb4 other MMO's do pvp lake boosts to lower level players to raise some stats to not be cannon fodder to the uber max levels. A. even with buffers cannon fodder still happens. B. you'd have people not join fleet and be solo too. If solo "buff" good enough, its just the headache of coordination. Also worth noting not much of a headache on gate camps or fights by structures. Former you are all right there. latter...is a bm the game always drops you to the same area anyway. |
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 21:35:30 -
[1322] - Quote
i think what most industrial people upsets with the Rorqual Boost changes is following.
"The Rorqual needs love" was a long time used joke thrown around.
What people hoped: 1. Give it NEW functions cause many got "lost" cause of new moduls/changes/bugs/etc. Compressing Ore --- now can be done in a Pos everywhere and anytime (even standing is not counting anymore) Create Jumpclones --- since the "Standing bug" hit, its not needed anymore The cheap JF --- Jumprange and Fatique killed that
2. DO NOT EVER GET US TO PUT IT INTO THE BELT --- Never ever Especially since the Mining Anos are "1 click warp" now. And even more cause "Industrial Core" is a dead trap (an interceptor travel 30 systems in 5 minutes including Dscan-Warp to belt / an Interdictor makes 15+ System etc.) -- there is NO Intel that reaches this far out.
What we actualy get: 1. Put it into the Belt 2. NO new function --- that "stopwatch until death" is NOT a new function its a Modul with no real benefit. Its like "if a Rorqual is in a Pos you have to wait 5minutes until you can shot it freely" And NO ... i dont believe the talking "oh null sov holders have so many people ready all the time to save miners" thats completly negating the reality. 3. And please use MANY of them ... everything gets better with MANY ? and PLEASE Cuddle up as near as possible ... give the roaming gangs a clear info where "all the easy prey" sits. 1 Dscan - 1 click "warp to belt" and you at least have a Rorqual.
What could help: 1. Make the "Hidden Mining Belts" in 0.0 and Lowsec hidden again ... there shouldn`t be a "warp to the Jackpot" button with this changes. 2. Make the Rorqual not Scanable with probes when in Industrial Mode (7 seconds until pinned down cause of its insane signature would negate the "Hidden Mining Belts" completly ) 3. Change the "5 minutes safety Burst" to a "Microjumpfield-burst" which involves any now "secured" ship, to get shoot in the actual direction they are heading in this very moment ... like a fishswarm dashing out of the center when it gets attacked. And make the regeneration time of this funtion to 1+hour or Burn out completly after one use.
I too would realy like to see some "Mningprotection fleets" BUT that will not happen ... not anymore with the accutal amount of accounts in eve online in the same Timezone/Alliance/Region AND the capability to react fast enough. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 22:01:46 -
[1323] - Quote
all the ppl who think the invuln is a death trap obviously don't have enough ppl to support using a rorq
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 22:12:03 -
[1324] - Quote
Alexis Ford wrote:2. Make the Rorqual not Scanable with probes when in Industrial Mode (7 seconds until pinned down cause of its insane signature would negate the "Hidden Mining Belts" completly ).
2 was removed from the game long ago. CCP controls this via math. namely sig radius/sig strength. they changed the floor of that function so you can't bottom it out like in the past. magic value used to be 1.4 iirc...below this and my tengu can and did disappear from probes.
Lowest value the equation will support is the value a max skill prober, sisters gear with virtues can still generate for scna strengths. You can go below it....but the equation(s) stopped counting at that uber probers max value point.
They'd have to do something to have that function recognize an unprobable ratio again. I have a few fit/implant combo's on standby for when they adjust that function to work like the old days. Many would.
CCP actually doesn't make things immune. they boost stats to play with the math. Example: bastions jam proofing comes from they max the hell out of sig strength. It shoots up to like 300+, well above any known way (player or NPC) to get that high a jam strength. Worth noting its probably also why in bastion sig radius goes to crap. Otherwise you'd have hard to probe bs's real easy and real fast lol. |
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 22:39:43 -
[1325] - Quote
@Lugh Crow-Slave
You can only talk of "obviously not a death trap" if you ever have experienced the function of such a modul in live state on the server. there IS no ship or modul now in existance ... but you insist you know that everyone which warns that this can be seen as Deathtrap should never own the ship he used for years now ?
So then let us take a fictional look from the other side: Okay ... DPS for ships needs a Booster now on grid: Without it your "guns" have doubled Cycle times ... halfed optimal and fall off ... Volleydamage gets reduced to 85%. ... All Guns for annos are "special marked" and cant be used against attacker. ... you will get a tiny dronebay to fight with these instead ... but your lookrange is reduced to "Forget it" ... oh fitting a cyno on your DPS ship is also not possible to cal in help.
You need too bring now a 3Bil ship into every single Anomaly which cant move for 5 minutes to get back your DPS ? And the anomaly you do is 1 of only 3 in the whole system on d-scan. And only this Boostership can lite a cyno when in an Anno.
Now the comparison to the reality in: Anno runner in 0.0 Sov space with upgrade @L5 have aprox 30-50 possible signatures they can use. with 10-15 with good Isk for the Bang and can be hold @L5 with 3-4 chars easily
Miner have 5 signatures absolut maximum ... need weeks with 15+ Max boosted Miners to reach it AND hold it ... and only 2 are worth it do be done (L1-L3 much to small) ... and you now have 15 miners already in system ... which have to to cuddle near the bosster in one place ... and cant change system cause the L5 Belt is hard to get and to Hold ... and now we get a ship in it that sits up to 5 minute in its industrial mode and cant move
The change for Anno hunters is minor (if it was boosted). Maybe loose 5-9% effective killspeed
The change for the Miner is hughe. Risk 3bil in Trapmode or lose 50% of Miningyield
And now think what would happen to be introduced in the same manner but only for Anno hunting PVE pals. may i than get you answer that its "obviously" you should not do ratting in annos ? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 23:04:14 -
[1326] - Quote
so you are telling me that you should be able to safely use the end game mining booster w/o having to have people to defend it?? at the point that you should be using the end game rorq you should have enough people in your alliance to show up and defend it in five minutes. if not use one of the lower level boosters OR use the rorq w/o the core and have an E-cyno set up. you want the reward of max boosts you are going to need to take the risk
just because you have always just been given these HUGE boosts for free does not mean that was balanced
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
829
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 23:49:36 -
[1327] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
just because you have always just been given these HUGE boosts for free does not mean that was balanced
this really. CCP has been aware of the long ass mining ops for years. Kind of too long. Not accusing of botting but...if appearances are there that for some is all you need.
Some deep in the blue ball (you know, the jump fatigue rants as people still go but ccp we need to use 3 jb's to clear our system to have fights...these timers suck), those who don't set up in empire near code heavy systems....had their fun. All parties must end. Its now met mr. nerf bat. Not much empathy here. My hopefully funny take on this....
first they came for the unprobable CA tengus...and the miners said nothing since they did not run unprobable tengu.
then they came for the afk drone boats with npc aggro shift, and the miners said nothing since they did not run "afk" domi/rattler
then they came for can be safer mining boost setups...and there was no one left to speak for them.
Sure as hell not rat killers speaking up. Some bitter still to some level about loot table nerfs to make miners happy. Now they want sympathy....and find none. They can find that sympathy in the same place drone poop loot went. In the trashcan lol. Should have let us rat killers keep that...we'd be in their corner then.
|
Gyrr Sie
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 00:14:48 -
[1328] - Quote
I read posts up into the 500's then skipped ahead to the second dev post when it became clear that nothing new was really going to be added to the conversation. What I have not seen mentioned yet though is that CCP is not following the boost structure for miners that they are for combat pilots. I could argue that mining boosts != combat boosts but seeing as they are being treated the same way lets really treat them the same way.
The Rorqual, as a capital class ship should be giving less of a boost over a wider area than the Orca does. The Orca is the "Command Ship" equivalent in this scenario and should actually be the one applying max boost. This would open up the Rorqual to become something completely different and dare I say epically cool instead of the trailer queen that it currently is. Make it the mining equivalent to a ratting carrier and be done with it. You want risk vs reward... make the thing actually get some reward for being actively piloted instead of giving it all away for free to the exhumers/barges/ventures in the fleet. I don't know... maybe make it act like a capital ship or something... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 00:19:56 -
[1329] - Quote
says nothing new was going to be added... adds nothing new
BLOPS Hauler
|
Gyrr Sie
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 00:28:43 -
[1330] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:says nothing new was going to be added... adds nothing new
for some reason hasn't been banned from this thread for trying to sound intellectual when in actuality has only been trolling people the whole time. Also has yet to add any content worth reading for the initial 500+ posts as well as the last 200 where I picked it back up again. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 00:59:27 -
[1331] - Quote
Idk i have pointed out many ways to use the rorq in these changes. as well as how to deal with standard boosts when solo
BLOPS Hauler
|
Gyrr Sie
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 01:47:32 -
[1332] - Quote
Didn't give myself enough credit... I only skipped ahead around 100 posts or so. Read more than I thought I did while I was at "work".
My opinion is still along the lines of radically changing the Rorqual from being an afk alt whose only job is to increase other characters mining output to something that would actually be fun to fly. Just like you can't assign your carrier fighters to ratters and then go afk anymore you shouldn't be able to give it all away (boost) while you sit there doing nothing in your Rorqual. You should just like in a carrier have to actually be piloting the thing to get any benefit from it. Give them boosts with a bigger range but less affect than an Orca just like the command ship / carrier relationship they have for combat boosts. Don't treat the Rorqual any more or less special than the other capital ships. if you want the additional output from flying a Rorqual make the pilot actually mine for his m3 instead of leaching off his minions.
I'll give you a little credit for having some useful posts along the way Lugh Crow-Slave however most of your posts come across as elitist trolling and its really rather pathetic especially in a thread this long. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 02:58:53 -
[1333] - Quote
Gyrr Sie wrote: if you want the additional output from flying a Rorqual make the pilot actually mine for his m3 instead of leaching off his minions.
You mean like the new High yield mining drones? something like that?? the ones only the rorqual gets to use?
as for your idea of don't treat them any different than other capitals that is just a dull and boring way to go about things. look at the carriers you want to compare them too they are now way to similar to HAW dreads that there are very few areas in eve that they are worth using in over a dread
BLOPS Hauler
|
Gyrr Sie
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:04:44 -
[1334] - Quote
Other areas that have been mentioned but should be mentioned again regarding mining boosts just to give weight where I think it really needs to be.
1. Bumping macharials in the HS ice belts. Skiffs can orbit at 500 to mostly avoid these d-bags or fit an afterburner to your procurer and they generally can't get a good hit on you anymore. However an Orca is going to be their play toy until they let it go or they invite their gank fleet to finish it off. The only fix to this is going to also have a bumping macharial on standby to bump the other boosters / freighters off field as well... which happens to be my current stategy... they mess with my HS miners I return the favor. Had the last guys freighter on lockdown for two hours because I wouldn't let him warp off until he apologized for screwing with my Orca pilot. Of course that cost me 400 Million to buy the Macharial and fit it for bumping... but well worth it just for the salt.
2. Range of boost in NS belts, completely inadequate. Mining boosts != combat boosts... bring them on grid for obvious risk vs reward reasons but there is no reason not to give mining boosts a much larger range than the combat boosts. I don't hear the roids complaining about going pop too easily and forcing the miners into a furball is just making them an even easier target than they already are. I can see the Bombers Bar trailers now as they warp in click click boom...
3. Leadership/WC/FC skill points refund... There's way too much change in the mechanics to not refund these to people who skilled them up. If they want to put those points back into those skills for the range boost let them do so but they are no way the same or even close to what they were originally used for and saying otherwise is being disingenuous.
|
Gyrr Sie
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:09:44 -
[1335] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Gyrr Sie wrote: if you want the additional output from flying a Rorqual make the pilot actually mine for his m3 instead of leaching off his minions. You mean like the new High yield mining drones? something like that?? the ones only the rorqual gets to use? as for your idea of don't treat them any different than other capitals that is just a dull and boring way to go about things. look at the carriers you want to compare them too they are now way to similar to HAW dreads that there are very few areas in eve that they are worth using in over a dread
exactly like the high yield mining drones... but go a step further and nerf their boosts. Capital pilots get enough advantage for themselves without taking the OP nature of being a capital pilot and compounding that affect exponentially across an entire fleet. Whether you consider that boring gameplay or not at least its actual gameplay which is a cut above mashing the button on boost and refilling the fuel bay every once in a while. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:10:07 -
[1336] - Quote
I will agree with number two i see no real reason there should be a "range" on mining boosts if they were built in code that means they need range just set it to 10000k
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:11:23 -
[1337] - Quote
Gyrr Sie wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Gyrr Sie wrote: if you want the additional output from flying a Rorqual make the pilot actually mine for his m3 instead of leaching off his minions. You mean like the new High yield mining drones? something like that?? the ones only the rorqual gets to use? as for your idea of don't treat them any different than other capitals that is just a dull and boring way to go about things. look at the carriers you want to compare them too they are now way to similar to HAW dreads that there are very few areas in eve that they are worth using in over a dread exactly like the high yield mining drones... but go a step further and nerf their boosts. Capital pilots get enough advantage for themselves without taking the OP nature of being a capital pilot and compounding that affect exponentially across an entire fleet. Whether you consider that boring gameplay or not at least its actual gameplay which is a cut above mashing the button on boost and refilling the fuel bay every once in a while.
how is simply lowering the boosts adding any gameplay? it will be just the same in its mining but weaker boosts. and capitals are supposed to be fleet force multipliers the best way to do that in a mining capital is boost yield
BLOPS Hauler
|
Gyrr Sie
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:25:37 -
[1338] - Quote
My reasoning for lowering the boost rate on the Rorqual is for balancing purposes. Command ships get better boosts than capitals... Orca is the industrial Command ship... You shouldn't have to have a capital in that case to get the best boosts. The capital pilot will be able to do more than any other miner but also being the max boost puts an unequal pressure on the smaller corps / alliances that can't field one.
I thought the whole point of reworking boosts was to make them counterable and equitable across the board. Granted mining boosts don't really need to be counterable but they should be equitable across the board for smaller corps / alliances. They might not be able to get to the best spots to mine but at least they should be on even footing with the big power blocks when it comes to the actual mechanics of mining. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:34:44 -
[1339] - Quote
the point of reworking boosts was to get them on grid and un break some of the broken ones...
(would also like to point out that orca is a capital as well....)
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 05:58:27 -
[1340] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:the point of reworking boosts was to get them on grid and un break some of the broken ones...
(would also like to point out that orca is a capital as well....)
so.... i guess a 130% dps boost for missiles would be a good thing to add? You sound stupid as **** to be honest :D
broken mining boosts have not been fixed, they have only been brought onto grid. I really think giving the Orca the strongest boosts is not a bad idea. If you dont have to siege your capital in 1 out of 5 anomalies in a system but bring it there in order to mine tons of ore with fighter sized mining drones, WHILE recieving boosts from a command ship --> now that would be a huge change for every single rorqual pilot :D
let the shitstorm continue....
Lugh Crow-Slave, you are actually my favourite shitposter because you keep it short! I really like that :) There arent many things that are more useful than i proper troll .. except maybe someone who is interested in helping :D
since my first post some of my ideas have been buried ins ****, so here it goes again:
1)remove indu core , or at least the sieging - Mining fighters should be enough of a reason to field a rorqual. if they are not, tough...
2) DECREASE the difference between the raw ore-yield of ppl recieving boosts and people not recieving them - 132% maximum boost. You kiddin me CCP?
3)Someone tell those guys that this update is not a buff for the industrial sector please :D |
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1886
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 09:47:21 -
[1341] - Quote
You're actively contributing to the game while boosting on grid and a valid target, something that the rorqual never had to deal with.
I think the reward is appropriate to the risk
Art of Explosions
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
23
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 10:13:56 -
[1342] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:You're actively contributing to the game while boosting on grid and a valid target, something that the rorqual never had to deal with.
I think the reward is appropriate to the risk
In other words, you've become a valid target.
The risk far outweighs the reward.
Another troll for those who need more squishy targets.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
830
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 11:58:15 -
[1343] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:You're actively contributing to the game while boosting on grid and a valid target, something that the rorqual never had to deal with.
I think the reward is appropriate to the risk In other words, you've become a valid target. The risk far outweighs the reward. Another troll for those who need more squishy targets.
Thing is we really don't know this yet since it hasn't even been tested. Unless 0.0 mining ops changed out there since I left SSDD way of things was exhumers jets can mine, rorq boosts somewhere and flies by once in a while to clean out the jet cans. Ops planned and coordinated with these exposed never really practiced in at least 3 homes I was in.
Here is my only empathy for the miners. Us combat pilots (pve and/or pvp) even though no sisi, or data dumps for the kind people who make test data files for fitting tools for us, can at least draw up some plans for when this hits. Some like me whined and moaned (we all have to vent lol), accepted and moved on. I just need test files to see wth I can do with this mess to make the best of it (not happy with a few changes myself, oh well what I settled upon in time).
Miners...yeah, you can't plan strategies well since not in testing even yet. Since most played hide the rorq games for years some learning curve there. But its only empathy. Hide the rorq became a long stayed practice, that was a choice made. Choice not viable soon.
Also for those going but but my isk making backbone. Lose that argument and find a better one. Some tried this before. When they put in NPC aggro shift. Initially we even had good data it was flawed initially. rats hopped on drones like fiends. We even had backing from pvp pilots who hated it. Rats were on them like white on rice when jumping pve'ers. CCP did not care about our isk hits, or any of this. TBH your best bet is to hope and pray when on test server people pop rorq's like a pop star pops pills.
Want this to change some of you all need to organize the grandest hulkaggedon of all time on test server to prove your fears valid. Barring that this change will happen. |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 12:46:00 -
[1344] - Quote
A properly organized mining op consists of a frighter, a carrier/super as a belttank, 10-30 hulks, a few enourmoous fright containers and a rorqual sitting in a pos.
moving the rorqual into a belt wont change anything for sov-null miners. they've got 10-15b sitting in a belt anyway and since the rorqual can be insured to only lose some hundred million isk when shot, it does not matter. --> Mining fighters will increase the income further.
Sieging the rorqual is kind of different. you would only do that if you had "enough" backup. If you dont feel thats the case most of the time, you just stop mining because you've got 6 titans anyways.
So far for the well organised miners :D
other minig ops consist of 1 procurer. alone.... and an afk rorqual. remove that afk rorqual and those miners are ******. big industrialists dont give a ****. they dont neet empathy and they dont risk more than 30 minutes of income when sieging a rorqual.
i know its hard for "bitter vets" to imagine what its like to only have a few million SP, but right now, i dont see how someone, interested in industry, starting in november, can aktually "make it" with these changes
EDIT: If you feel like those people dont deserve it... dont bother answering, just quote me and add "Dumb'a's's" |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2683
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 12:51:33 -
[1345] - Quote
I'm really looking forward to when this hits Sisi - to see if I can put a Higgs anchor on my Rorqual and mine while aligned using the new mining Fighters. It could be like Carrier ratting.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1888
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 13:34:17 -
[1346] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:You're actively contributing to the game while boosting on grid and a valid target, something that the rorqual never had to deal with.
I think the reward is appropriate to the risk In other words, you've become a valid target. The risk far outweighs the reward. Another troll for those who need more squishy targets.
The more rorquals that blow up the higher mineral prices will go
Them becoming valid targets actually helps miners
Powwwwww mind blown
Art of Explosions
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
830
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 13:34:22 -
[1347] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I'm really looking forward to when this hits Sisi - to see if I can put a Higgs anchor on my Rorqual and mine while aligned using the new mining Fighters. It could be like Carrier ratting.
lots of us waiting. Was not a fan of how this will be implemented, kind of on the fence now, but I think once we see this work in test and get test data to theory craft in fitting tools it could win some people over. Or at least quiet things down a bit. Won't ever make 100% people happy but could have some go meh, not what I wanted but its doable for the most part. |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
23
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 15:51:09 -
[1348] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:You're actively contributing to the game while boosting on grid and a valid target, something that the rorqual never had to deal with.
I think the reward is appropriate to the risk In other words, you've become a valid target. The risk far outweighs the reward. Another troll for those who need more squishy targets. The more rorquals that blow up the higher mineral prices will go Them becoming valid targets actually helps miners Powwwwww mind blown
More like a mind wasted.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1889
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 16:20:18 -
[1349] - Quote
Like all you angry miners (some one needs to make a phone game for this or something) seem to think that all your problems will go away if you get more ore.
Do you know what your ore turns into? Like honestly think to yourself and REALLY dig deep. Don't worry I have time, don't strain yourself.
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 16:35:34 -
[1350] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Like all you angry miners (some one needs to make a phone game for this or something) seem to think that all your problems will go away if you get more ore.
Do you know what your ore turns into? Like honestly think to yourself and REALLY dig deep. Don't worry I have time, don't strain yourself.
noone wants more ore... i never said i wanted more ore... nore did the others. we would accept having less ore and we are not happy with big alliances getting a lot of ore while small alliances are getting less ore.
|
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1889
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 16:41:41 -
[1351] - Quote
So you're unhappy about basic economy
Ok
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 17:34:39 -
[1352] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:So you're unhappy about basic economy
Ok
are you ********?
somhow the forum replased the slang word for mentally handicapped with stars. nevertheless it is a serious question. if you are, i am really sorry :( |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3112
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 17:52:36 -
[1353] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:It's so terrible more people can gather more resources than less people this is injustice to the fullest extent
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zenta Carson
Apex Inc The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 18:13:59 -
[1354] - Quote
I need more stats of the Rorqual so I know what to expect in the changes, like what are the downsides and the up, so far I see no other info other than the very little that the DEV put out
Also might I ask what is the point of being able to mine in Nexus Mode when you can't even move?
So far I think that the whole command burst and Nexus Mode is a bad idea if it doesn't help the miners. |
TheRageCarrier
Unstable Reaction Inc. Takahashi Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 18:59:19 -
[1355] - Quote
Zenta Carson wrote:I need more stats of the Rorqual so I know what to expect in the changes, like what are the downsides and the up, so far I see no other info other than the very little that the DEV put out
Also might I ask what is the point of being able to mine in Nexus Mode when you can't even move?
So far I think that the whole command burst and Nexus Mode is a bad idea if it doesn't help the miners.
Agreed. Roquals and orcas are dead to all small corps now. Good game devs, way to cause in increase in market prices and simultaneously turNing more people off to Eve. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 19:13:17 -
[1356] - Quote
how are orcas and rorquals dead to small corps?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 19:28:44 -
[1357] - Quote
"200+ mill exhumed with no defenses getting hot dropped (another stupid mechanic u invented) gone in seconds. We already risk those.
Now we have to put 3 to 4 bill of camp bait on grid cause u got some idea no one wanted into ur butts.
So one gank and ya potentially lose what 5 bill? No small corps gonna be able to defend the fn Rorqual no matter what invuln timer u Wana give it. "
explaines it pretty well...
Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose. quite simple |
TheRageCarrier
Unstable Reaction Inc. Takahashi Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 19:40:08 -
[1358] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:"200+ mill exhumed with no defenses getting hot dropped (another stupid mechanic u invented) gone in seconds. We already risk those.
Now we have to put 3 to 4 bill of camp bait on grid cause u got some idea no one wanted into ur butts.
So one gank and ya potentially lose what 5 bill? No small corps gonna be able to defend the fn Rorqual no matter what invuln timer u Wana give it. "
explaines it pretty well...
Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose. quite simple
Ur an idiot. |
Zenta Carson
Apex Inc The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:07:49 -
[1359] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:"200+ mill exhumed with no defenses getting hot dropped (another stupid mechanic u invented) gone in seconds. We already risk those.
Now we have to put 3 to 4 bill of camp bait on grid cause u got some idea no one wanted into ur butts.
So one gank and ya potentially lose what 5 bill? No small corps gonna be able to defend the fn Rorqual no matter what invuln timer u Wana give it. "
explaines it pretty well...
Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose. quite simple
well if industrial corps start losing too much prices on things will sky rocket, just think about the repercussions and how it will affect you. the command bursts and Nexus Mode are a mistake, unless we are able to warp out while in Nexus Mode which would drastically lower hot drop situations and lower costs on everything for you and others, but what they are imposing will cause economic issues in EVE. |
Zenta Carson
Apex Inc The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:11:28 -
[1360] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:how are orcas and rorquals dead to small corps?
They will be dead if they implement the Nexus and Command Bursts, cause the Orca and Rorqual will then have to be on grid to provide boosts which then make them a giant target to hot drops, it will also cause prices in the market to go up because the price of losing a Rorqual or an Orca is too high. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:12:30 -
[1361] - Quote
because you cant get a def fleet together when using nexus? because you can't use the rorq outside of indust mode with an e-cyno? because you can't have webs ready to warp out an orca? because you now have to risk to get a reward? because you can no longer 24/7 afk boosts?
BLOPS Hauler
|
TheRageCarrier
Unstable Reaction Inc. Takahashi Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:25:15 -
[1362] - Quote
[quote=Lugh Crow-Slave]because you cant get a def fleet together when using nexus? because you can't use the rorq outside of indust mode with an e-cyno? because you can't have webs ready to warp out an orca? because you now have to risk to get a reward? because you can no longer 24/7 afk boosts?[/quote
Because you can't read I'll explain it to you. It screws the little guy. Period. Which is what I started with. No one's going to be able to form a defense fleet vs what people will hot drop against you knowing what u have in system. It doesn't happen. If you think it does ur a liar or a moron or both. You'd get locked and scrammed before it even mattered by a bunch of strategic cruisers and black ops battleships spewing out of cynos before that thing went anywhere. Too easy to just fly in warp to colossal drop cyno. Done. We're already risking quite a bit without having to add that much more on top of it. Especially when we didn't have to risk it previously and again small corps it's not even that great of a reward. (Another stupid thing that slid out of ur mouth). You either don't mine, don't care, are part of a large corp, or just enjoy hot dropping small mining gangs when ur bored and don't want an actual fight. Pick any of the above. We also don't mine 24/7 afk in null sec. (yet another stupid thing that slid our of ur mouth). Next time properly read a post before making stupid half-wit replies. Thanks. I'm done with your nonsense. Have a good one. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:33:55 -
[1363] - Quote
if you have managed to get a neutral through your space into your mining system and into your belt before warping/jumping you already messed up... Yes it will be harder for small corps but thats not a bad thing. in a game built around working together numbers are everything. I didn't say mine afk i said boost. Just because you have always gotten the reward of these large boosts does not mean you are entitled to them. The fact that they have existed in such a state for so long is the issue.
I also enjoy how you label me in ways to try and dismiss what i say as if it some how devalues it. if you must know i lead a new player alliance. in that alliance most people mine in either HS or NS based on the players comfort level with a bit of gas from WH.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
291
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 22:04:14 -
[1364] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:if you have managed to get a neutral through your space into your mining system and into your belt before warping/jumping you already messed up... Yes it will be harder for small corps but thats not a bad thing. in a game built around working together numbers are everything. I didn't say mine afk i said boost. Just because you have always gotten the reward of these large boosts does not mean you are entitled to them. The fact that they have existed in such a state for so long is the issue.
I also enjoy how you label me in ways to try and dismiss what i say as if it some how devalues it. if you must know i lead a new player alliance. in that alliance most people mine in either HS or NS based on the players comfort level with a bit of gas from WH.
Quite simply, you cannot dismiss the mining corporations with less than 50 players the way Fozzie has done.
Rorquals aren't coming to high-sec, and even if they could there is a good chance you won't be able to e-cyno out due to jump distance (again a Fozzie nerf) into a low sec system. Most small corporations will not want a Rorq loss on a kill mail because they can't afford the loss and embarrassment of that kind of kill mail, and don't want to give up the intel that the kill mail provides.
Orcas have been the choice for boosting high sec and low sec mining ops for small corporations. I would venture to say at least 80% of the high sec mining corporations have an industry alt that sits in an Orca at a POS and does nothing but boost.
While I'm not lucky enough to have a boosting alt, I have a RL friend that's in my corp that doesn't mind logging in, setting up a fleet, sitting in a POS, and providing boosts. He makes me the fleet boss and I can send invites so that we can give anyone boosts that wants them, including the new players. The excitement I hear from them puts a smile on my face; "My God, that's what mining boosts do?!?" is the most common question I've heard.
Now we're not going to be able to do that.
This isn't about entitlement. This is about a simple phrase:
Mining boosts are not logi boosts are not combat boosts.
If you want a legitimate fix for boosting, then separate the boosts into Combat, Logistics, and Industrial skills.
While I agree the insta-lock Loki sitting on the gate in Tama is a pain in the arse, screwing over industry to fix that problem is not a solution.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 22:14:48 -
[1365] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Quite simply, you cannot dismiss the mining corporations with less than 50 players the way Fozzie has done.
Rorquals aren't coming to high-sec, and even if they could there is a good chance you won't be able to e-cyno out due to jump distance (again a Fozzie nerf) into a low sec system. Most small corporations will not want a Rorq loss on a kill mail because they can't afford the loss and embarrassment of that kind of kill mail, and don't want to give up the intel that the kill mail provides.
i doubt they will be put in HS no one said they would
Quote: Orcas have been the choice for boosting high sec and low sec mining ops for small corporations. I would venture to say at least 80% of the high sec mining corporations have an industry alt that sits in an Orca at a POS and does nothing but boost.
While I'm not lucky enough to have a boosting alt, I have a RL friend that's in my corp that doesn't mind logging in, setting up a fleet, sitting in a POS, and providing boosts. He makes me the fleet boss and I can send invites so that we can give anyone boosts that wants them, including the new players. The excitement I hear from them puts a smile on my face; "My God, that's what mining boosts do?!?" is the most common question I've heard.
Now we're not going to be able to do that.
like i said afk boosting. you should not get the benefits of just having a toon logged in
Quote: This isn't about entitlement.
kinda sounds like you are entitled to afk risk less boosts
Quote: This is about a simple phrase:
Mining boosts are not logi boosts are not combat boosts.
??
Quote:
If you want a legitimate fix for boosting, then separate the boosts into Combat, Logistics, and Industrial skills.
While I agree the insta-lock Loki sitting on the gate in Tama is a pain in the arse, screwing over industry to fix that problem is not a solution.
there was also the issue of people logging in going afk and giving huge bonuses to people with no risk. my corp was using a rorqual in under 3 months. that is just dump that we had reached end game boosting at that rate. The fact that you need people to use them is not a bad thing and fozzi has not ignored smaller groups that will be what that new booster is for.
there are now tiers of boosts
porpoise -> orca -> rorq -> industrial core
you will need to be able to secure these assets in order to use them or be willing to risk losing them. You can no longer just get top tier boosts all day just because you have an orca that was unbalanced. having rorqs and orcas hid in POS was never the intent that is just how players found best to use them
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zenta Carson
Apex Inc The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 22:51:12 -
[1366] - Quote
well the reason Orca and Rorqual were used this way is because they have 0 defenses, they need better defense capabilities otherwise they will continue to be huge targets with these Command Bursts |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 23:02:53 -
[1367] - Quote
they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary...
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
831
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 23:36:38 -
[1368] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:like i said afk boosting. you should not get the benefits of just having a toon logged in
They really need to stop using this line of reasoning. It as you are calling it, and I'd I agree, is why they are getting this change. The perma run mining setups with no risk and almost no interaction. I did this myself when I ran 3+ accounts...set it up and mine for hours in empire alt tabbed to the 0.0 main on pos bash or some other crap op.
Throw in haulers and that orca never, ever, eva... had to be exposed. Only time my orca really exposed was on the jita runs. And usual hauling precautions in place for that. And eventually I charon'd that in time tbh.
This is the setup run by botters. You know how some of you miners said ccp...I can't compete with the bot miners please fix this. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Buried in this is a subtle anti-botting reason. Boosts are more player interactive. And the booster is exposed. CCP is not just busting your real player miner's balls here, this is also busting the botters balls as well.
CCP been doing this to rat killers for years. We said ccp its not fair we keep rat aggro when jumped. CCP said okay...rats shift aggro, look they attack the pvp'ers now too. Also attacked your drones, a pita for drone boat pve. Buried in all this was the subtle attempt to shutdown afk domi farmers. The war on botting has a high collateral damage rate, some drone pve'ers didn't afk and we took the same "punishment" as botters. Welcome to eve.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
152
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 23:58:51 -
[1369] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:if you have managed to get a neutral through your space into your mining system and into your belt before warping/jumping you already messed up...
Lets talk nullification and wormholes. Then we'll talk about being able to lock down a system or set of systems such that a 5 minute siege and response time becomes viable outside of your little world down in Provi.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Yes it will be harder for small corps but thats not a bad thing. in a game built around working together numbers are everything.
Nearly every patch since at least Phoebe CCP has been taking actions to favor small gang/groups within their game. This one directly hurts the solo/small group industrial crowd who were using these boosts for non-combat activities. Many cases introducing new players to the need to form groups and connections within EVE to accomplish greater things.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I didn't say mine afk i said boost. Just because you have always gotten the reward of these large boosts does not mean you are entitled to them. The fact that they have existed in such a state for so long is the issue.
Nobody with a sense of balance and fair play is complaining about the need to risk these assets. Just the imbalance between the reward and the risk involved. Grid wide boosts, return of hidden belts, as well as the removal of the siege effect from the industrial core would all work to balance out the added risk for these rewards.
Another person put it best when comparing the static isk income of ratting to that of the indirect value obtained via mining. As well as the value of said assets put at risk to obtain it. This is another problem we should likely be discussing.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I also enjoy how you label me in ways to try and dismiss what i say as if it some how devalues it. if you must know i lead a new player alliance. in that alliance most people mine in either HS or NS based on the players comfort level with a bit of gas from WH.
Nobody has to dismiss of devalue what you say. It already has such little value through your lack of experience and knowledge it handles that on it's own. While I applaud you in leading new players as I have done, you're own views when it comes to balance and fair play are misguided and skewed by your small view of the game.
Not every group, even larger ones, have players willing to sit on their hands or keep a close range to mining fleets or bridge titans on the off chance they need help. In fact the larger the alliance the less a chance of getting a response fleet to save you. You possibly may see a response fleet form to kill them as they try to escape, but rescue? Not likely.
The simple reason is this, responding to a threat already exists allows you to form proper numbers and ship types to handle the situation. Prior to being jumped on your standing defense fleet will only consist of those willing to do that - stand around, meaning the fleet that jumps on you may outnumber you from the get go. If your standing fleet is doing their own roaming to keep active then they are already dedicated to a ship type to respond with the limited window to save you and unlikely to pick up enough players in a proper composition to take on your attackers.
This is why expecting response fleets for each mining operation is unreasonable and will never happen without proper reward for either party both standing fleet and miners (whose income is already far less than that of a casual ratter by player)
PS- there's a reason I stopped posting a while back. You really aren't worth arguing with because you talk in circles and refuse to look at anything from any standpoint than your own. Try it some time, you might find people will hate you less. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
291
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 00:39:10 -
[1370] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary...
Explain to everyone how you give up mining yield on a boosting ship like the Orca.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 00:40:48 -
[1371] - Quote
lol even with nullification and WHs you can see ppl coming. for one close existing WHs and watch your scanner for new sigs to pop up. If we can manage mining in WH space where we don't even get local you should be able to manage in null. That 5 min lock down is only if you want MAX boosts you still get a significant boost with the bare rorq after these changes.
as for mining sigs becoming anoms i have voiced my opinion on that stupid change since ccp announced it as being "beneficial" to miners
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 00:42:08 -
[1372] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary... Explain to everyone how you give up mining yield on a boosting ship like the Orca.
well its really quit simple.... you don't try re-reading this again
Quote: you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship
now take care to notice that you are not doing anything to an orca but rather changing ships you may be using in your mining fleet
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1896
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 01:51:56 -
[1373] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Lets talk nullification and wormholes. Then we'll talk about being able to lock down a system or set of systems such that a 5 minute siege and response time becomes viable outside of your little world down in Provi. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Yes it will be harder for small corps but thats not a bad thing. in a game built around working together numbers are everything. Nearly every patch since at least Phoebe CCP has been taking actions to favor small gang/groups within their game. This one directly hurts the solo/small group industrial crowd who were using these boosts for non-combat activities. Many cases introducing new players to the need to form groups and connections within EVE to accomplish greater things. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I didn't say mine afk i said boost. Just because you have always gotten the reward of these large boosts does not mean you are entitled to them. The fact that they have existed in such a state for so long is the issue. Nobody with a sense of balance and fair play is complaining about the need to risk these assets. Just the imbalance between the reward and the risk involved. Grid wide boosts, return of hidden belts, as well as the removal of the siege effect from the industrial core would all work to balance out the added risk for these rewards. Another person put it best when comparing the static isk income of ratting to that of the indirect value obtained via mining. As well as the value of said assets put at risk to obtain it. This is another problem we should likely be discussing. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I also enjoy how you label me in ways to try and dismiss what i say as if it some how devalues it. if you must know i lead a new player alliance. in that alliance most people mine in either HS or NS based on the players comfort level with a bit of gas from WH. Nobody has to dismiss of devalue what you say. It already has such little value through your lack of experience and knowledge it handles that on it's own. While I applaud you in leading new players as I have done, you're own views when it comes to balance and fair play are misguided and skewed by your small view of the game. Not every group, even larger ones, have players willing to sit on their hands or keep a close range to mining fleets or bridge titans on the off chance they need help. In fact the larger the alliance the less a chance of getting a response fleet to save you. You possibly may see a response fleet form to kill them as they try to escape, but rescue? Not likely. The simple reason is this, responding to a threat already exists allows you to form proper numbers and ship types to handle the situation. Prior to being jumped on your standing defense fleet will only consist of those willing to do that - stand around, meaning the fleet that jumps on you may outnumber you from the get go. If your standing fleet is doing their own roaming to keep active then they are already dedicated to a ship type to respond with the limited window to save you and unlikely to pick up enough players in a proper composition to take on your attackers. This is why expecting response fleets for each mining operation is unreasonable and will never happen without proper reward for either party both standing fleet and miners (whose income is already far less than that of a casual ratter by player) PS- there's a reason I stopped posting a while back. You really aren't worth arguing with because you talk in circles and refuse to look at anything from any standpoint than your own. Try it some time, you might find people will hate you less.
God forbid there's a way past all your security cameras and gates with hundreds of bubbles anchored on them. That's another issue for another time though. Wormholes are hardly permanent either, they're also within your control to close. An interceptor fleet will also be caught by security cameras well before they reach anything they can tackle.
Evidence of these patches favouring smaller groups? Any Dev comments even stating That is the intention?
I keep seeing this risk/reward thing pop up a boosting rorqual costs around 2.5bil, it's not exactly a staggering amount of money and for the fleet size that CCP looks like the rorqual is intended for I would bet that they can make it back if one gets popped pretty easily.
If you feel that the risk involved is too much for you because you are a small Corp with no defence capabilities ( seems to be a common theme revolving around this whine) then there's other options like not using the core and keeping it aligned or just use an orca.
You can't compare isk from mining to ratting because ore price is determined by players and ratting bounties are static. If you're concerned about your isk from mining then something has to happen within the economy to stimulate that. Mining won't ever become more profitable without either something happening with the supply or demand and your incessant chatter about rorqual boosts can only hurt the supply by potentially over producing.
Plenty of null alliances have hundreds of station spinners and ping warriors, people literally just waiting around for content. Those that aren't doing nothing will be ratting or doing something nearby systems because let's face it: nullbears don't stray that far from their staging systems because it's dangerous.
With the advent of a ping of: help my rorqual is tackled. You can bet your bottom dollar you will get swarms of people logging in logging alts getting to jump bridges, Titans and readying capitals to jump to a cyno that any smart rorqual pilot should have fitted (even if you do not have a fleet waiting, I've seen people literally run away from an empty cyno before)
With the introduction of a proposed 5 minute invulnerability, you will have that plus the however million ehp a rorqual gets to get a fax on grid to deter most people.
Art of Explosions
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 01:56:06 -
[1374] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:With the introduction of a proposed 5 minute invulnerability, you will have that plus the however million ehp a rorqual gets to get a fax on grid to deter most people.
This remember the rorq is supposed to also get a hull balance pass at the same time these changes hit. I would not be surpirsed to see their tank get the carrier treatment
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 05:49:41 -
[1375] - Quote
Could Lugh Crow-Slave and Tsukino Stareine please stop shitposting? :D
We get it, you dont understand our point ;)
Lets look at some scenarios:
Lets say i am an industrialist, i know my corp and alliance is online and i've got enough backup so i decide to field a rorqual, a frighter to empty the containers, 12 Hulks, each costing 420 million (including the fit) and a thanatos as a belttank. If: A solo-roamer comes into my belt -- I dont care, if he is too slow, my fighters will kill him -- If he has a bigger ship i activate the PANIC mode and wait for him to leave -->My carrier will most certainly be too much to chew on, so he will leave, if he brings in a super or more blops, we just bring bigger ships.
If: There is a known cloaky camper or a gang of hotdroppers around, a wh in some system close by -- I dont mine since risk/reward does not work out
Lets say i am a new player. I have started playing eve 2 months ago. I've can fly barges and two different t1 cruisers and a very nice corp in NRDS-Space has invited me to paly with them. I Like mining and i feel like i can afford some nice things because i get the income boosts, directly connected to the cycle-time-boost. Only 30 minutes a day tho, because when i come home from work the booster just leaves and goes to work 30 minutes later.
If: A solo-roamer comes into my belt: Gosh, if the rorqual is there i MIGHT have a chance to survive, but if he brings in more BLOPS, we definitly die. All of us
-->The rorqual is now dead, i can either play 6 times as much as a ratter in order to make the same ISK or find someone else with a boost.We have a purpoise now. that thing gives boosts, but they are so low, that i STILL have to play 4 times as much as a Ratter in order to make the same isk he does. A shame, i liked mining. I liked the guys in my corp. This is not fun anymore, i'm gonna play minecraft!
If this is what you want for New players, go ahead. When i started not too long ago i loved being able to make 20m/hour while taltking on TS and learning new stuff. I would not have gotten boosts with this system, so i would have had to play the way of a Ratter in order to get where i am now. I dont know if i would have done that...
New players and Small Alliances should not be limited to very few FEASABLE options.. I know, they could mine without boosts, but come on... Take a look at the numbers and tell me again how thats not a lot worse.
This is not about me losing ore-yield. This is not about me wanting more minerals, this is about a Patch artificially disrupting a working economy; heavily in favor of big entities |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:15:55 -
[1376] - Quote
Do i feel bad that a new player may not be able to take full advantage of end game boosts?
no not at all. It also seems that in your scenario the poor sod got tricked into joining a group that is not active when he is.
EVERY THING IN EVE FAVORS LARGE GROUPS
and again if suddenly no one is mining with boosts ore prices will rise.
mining makes as much isk as miners are willing to say it makes. miners set the price of the ore not the game so if veld is worth x then the miner says his time it took to mine that or was worth x boost or no boost
Will new players probably make less isk after this if they join a corp unable to field these ships? yes. but our hands have been held for to long with what were essentially free boosts its time they were rained back in. You are also not looking at how the orca and the rorq got their boosts buffed with these changes meaning that if you can use them you do get better. You also seem to keep forgetting you no longer need to lock your rorq down to get better boosts than an orca
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:44:23 -
[1377] - Quote
Its not about getting better boosts than an orca... you dont seem to be getting the point. I am totally willing to sell the ships i build and the minerals taht are left over for the same prices as before... does that mean people with worse boosts get paid significantly less for the same amount of work, risking way more because they dont have enough people to hback them up? Yes! Is this a good way of bringing more people into the game? Only a moron would say yes!
This patch (in the form it is presented right now) just promotes Care-bearing. Rule number 1: Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose --> Less mining in dangerous space --> More mining where noone dares to attack them
If you really think you are right, shouldn't Pirate Bounty and LP prices change, depending on how many people generate them out of thin air? Meaning: If all the miners went ratting the ratting income would drop from 60m isk/hour to 16m isk/hour ?
That would be logical... If a lot of people want to shoot rats, concord does not have to pay as much to get them removed. Same for incursions... Also: If you dont like that, go **** yourselves, eve is not here to make you happy :D (actually it is... we are paying CCP to make the game fun for us... if this means balancing things for smaller alliances they should really do that :D ) |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1896
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:54:02 -
[1378] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Could Lugh Crow-Slave and Tsukino Stareine please stop shitposting? :D
We get it, you dont understand our point ;)
Lets look at some scenarios:
Lets say i am an industrialist, i know my corp and alliance is online and i've got enough backup so i decide to field a rorqual, a frighter to empty the containers, 12 Hulks, each costing 420 million (including the fit) and a thanatos as a belttank. If: A solo-roamer comes into my belt -- I dont care, if he is too slow, my fighters will kill him -- If he has a bigger ship i activate the PANIC mode and wait for him to leave -->My carrier will most certainly be too much to chew on, so he will leave, if he brings in a super or more blops, we just bring bigger ships.
If: There is a known cloaky camper or a gang of hotdroppers around, a wh in some system close by -- I dont mine since risk/reward does not work out
Lets say i am a new player. I have started playing eve 2 months ago. I've can fly barges and two different t1 cruisers and a very nice corp in NRDS-Space has invited me to paly with them. I Like mining and i feel like i can afford some nice things because i get the income boosts, directly connected to the cycle-time-boost. Only 30 minutes a day tho, because when i come home from work the booster just leaves and goes to work 30 minutes later.
If: A solo-roamer comes into my belt: Gosh, if the rorqual is there i MIGHT have a chance to survive, but if he brings in more BLOPS, we definitly die. All of us
-->The rorqual is now dead, i can either play 6 times as much as a ratter in order to make the same ISK or find someone else with a boost.We have a purpoise now. that thing gives boosts, but they are so low, that i STILL have to play 4 times as much as a Ratter in order to make the same isk he does. A shame, i liked mining. I liked the guys in my corp. This is not fun anymore, i'm gonna play minecraft!
If this is what you want for New players, go ahead. When i started not too long ago i loved being able to make 20m/hour while taltking on TS and learning new stuff. I would not have gotten boosts with this system, so i would have had to play the way of a Ratter in order to get where i am now. I dont know if i would have done that...
New players and Small Alliances should not be limited to very few FEASABLE options.. I know, they could mine without boosts, but come on... Take a look at the numbers and tell me again how thats not a lot worse.
This is not about me losing ore-yield. This is not about me wanting more minerals, this is about a Patch artificially disrupting a working economy; heavily in favor of big entities
Tsukino Stareine : Just read your BS post :D:D:D If ore-prices go up by 500%, so that unboost mining is on par with unboost ratting --> Dont you think i would get... lets say... another 35 accounts just to make 1 trillion isk per month? So ore prices would not stay up for long :D:D
Your Arguments contradict themselves :D:D:D:D:D
Debatable who is shitposting but here goes:
We do understand your point, much better than you do it seems.
Your hypothetical situations are completely irrelevant and only serve your own point. You speak about a solo roamer in both situations and then magically he has a blops fleet conveniently in the situation of the lone miner. The guy with the rorqual, would he be boosting for some random guys after the change? I'm going to say no.
What's that? A player has to actually make some effort to set up some infrastructure or join a Corp that has it to take full advantage of the best boosts? BLASPHEMY
I'm going to try and explain toddler level economics to you one last time:
We loves oranges, but even sometimes you can get sick of oranges so you buy enough to satisfy yourself and then stop buying oranges.
Oranges are a set price because other people also love oranges and because some people are willing to pay more for them they go up in price to match what the average person will pay for them.
Right now we have too many oranges and the orange farmers are sad because they don't get as much money per orange as they would like. This is largely due to too many people farming oranges because it's the easy thing to do and they've not really thought about anything else. The situation is further exacerbated by the big orange farmers spraying everyone's fields with fertiliser using an expensive plane because they might as well since the small orange farms are dotted around the big farms already.
New legislation is being passed telling the big orange farmers that they can no longer spray fertiliser from the air as this is causing water pollution, they have to do it another way using tractors. Now it's not so convenient to fertilise the small farms so they stop doing this.
Thing is there's TONS of small farms and only a few big farms, orange supply goes down and people start realising they can grow oranges in their back garden and sell them for decent prices on the local market. Now the smaller producers are happier because their contribution to the orange market is bigger and even if they can't get a big tractor to fertilise their fields they can feasibly do this by hand or even if they felt adventurous they could buy a horse to help.
Initially the small farms are sad because the free fertiliser is gone, however they realise that because supply was outstripping demand, orange farming was pretty poor income to begin with and only the big farms were really making good money out of it.
Some of the less dedicated farmers moved onto other things. Some made orange juice stalls since they realised oranges are so cheap that they could get a decent mark up by processing them into a different product. People began to be more innovative and think again. Eventually we will have tons of people creating products out of oranges instead of becoming the lowest common denominator in an economy. We made oranges great again
Art of Explosions
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3117
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:54:45 -
[1379] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Its not about getting better boosts than an orca... you dont seem to be getting the point. I am totally willing to sell the ships i build and the minerals taht are left over for the same prices as before... does that mean people with worse boosts get paid significantly less for the same amount of work, risking way more because they dont have enough people to hback them up? Yes! Is this a good way of bringing more people into the game? Only a moron would say yes!
This patch (in the form it is presented right now) just promotes Care-bearing. Rule number 1: Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose --> Less mining in dangerous space --> More mining where noone dares to attack them
If you really think you are right, shouldn't Pirate Bounty and LP prices change, depending on how many people generate them out of thin air? Meaning: If all the miners went ratting the ratting income would drop from 60m isk/hour to 16m isk/hour ?
That would be logical... If a lot of people want to shoot rats, concord does not have to pay as much to get them removed. Same for incursions... Also: If you dont like that, go **** yourselves, eve is not here to make you happy :D (actually it is... we are paying CCP to make the game fun for us... if this means balancing things for smaller alliances they should really do that :D ) ... LP prices do change based on how many people run them. did you just sleep through economics back in HS?
and do i think adding a goal to work for rather than putting players at end game almost imminently is a good thing? yes that is how you keep people playing.
balancing the game for smaller alliances does not mean small alliances can do everything just as efficiently as large ones. you don't see people complaining that there are not enough titans in the hands of the little guy so ccp should make them easier to build.
this isn't going to be less mining in dangerous space. if these changes do put a major halt on rorq boosts we will see more mining in null do to a lower supply of null ore coming out. It may not be the same people and it may be more ninja mining but the added reward will draw people there.
how about this we are literally going in circles. neither of us will change our minds and we are not adding new points for other people to form opinions off of. how would you say ccp should do this so there is actual risk for the HUGE reward of using a rorq
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1896
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:57:00 -
[1380] - Quote
And just to respond to your final comment, this actually reinforces my argument, it doesn't contradict. If ore prices went up and then someone decides to start 35 accounts to take advantage of it, he's killing his own economy and emulating what we have now with the increased yields and driving prices down again
Art of Explosions
|
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 07:16:25 -
[1381] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:And just to respond to your final comment, this actually reinforces my argument, it doesn't contradict. If ore prices went up and then someone decides to start 35 accounts to take advantage of it, he's killing his own economy and emulating what we have now with the increased yields and driving prices down again
yes... so basically ore prices wont change a lot, right? if they are too high someone will exploit that and drive them back down? |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1896
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 07:31:56 -
[1382] - Quote
No, ore prices will change. You're not measuring ore price in discrete terms of 1 veldspar = 5 isk you are measuring the effort to obtain it.
If it becomes harder to mine, the amount you get for your ore will be the same but you're most likely going to be selling less of it since it became harder to obtain. That's how economies work. A practical real life example would be fruits being more expensive or cheap depending on the season. In summer strawberries are plentiful and cheap in the UK because they grow naturally during that period. In winter they're almost double the price because they're either grown in greenhouses or imported. Simple supply and demand.
If the change meant that somehow people will get less isk for their ore and they're still mining he same amount, then we have a problem, but changing rorquals to be on grid is a global change and will apply to everyone so the entire economy will shift with it after an adjustment period.
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 07:46:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:No, ore prices will change. You're not measuring ore price in discrete terms of 1 veldspar = 5 isk you are measuring the effort to obtain it.
If it becomes harder to mine, the amount you get for your ore will be the same but you're most likely going to be selling less of it since it became harder to obtain. That's how economies work. A practical real life example would be fruits being more expensive or cheap depending on the season. In summer strawberries are plentiful and cheap in the UK because they grow naturally during that period. In winter they're almost double the price because they're either grown in greenhouses or imported. Simple supply and demand.
If the change meant that somehow people will get less isk for their ore and they're still mining he same amount, then we have a problem, but changing rorquals to be on grid is a global change and will apply to everyone so the entire economy will shift with it after an adjustment period.
how is mining becoming harder for me? not at all... i have enough backup to field a rorqual and yield for hulks is 5% up... also i get mining fighters... if all: its less effort. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3117
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 12:29:38 -
[1384] - Quote
Yet if the end is nigh people are to be believed on average obtaining ore is going to be harder.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 13:53:47 -
[1385] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Yet if the end is nigh people are to be believed on average obtaining ore is going to be harder.
Which is the point... for some it gets a lot easier and for some it gets a lot harder. Right now, having a safe place to mine, getting huge anomalies and having enough paying customers, so you dont actually have to export are the perks of being an industrialist in a big alliance.
The proposed changes, as far as we know, will also add having significantly better boosts. Remember : dont fly what you cant afford to lose --> no indu-core for miners in 50 person alliances.
This is just too much of a benefit for us. --> Remove the need to siege the rorqual, so even smaller alliances can field them IF they either work on some intel or do the things you proposed earlier, like webbing them or having a cyno ready.
Fact is: small alliances cant defend a rorqual once it's tackled (they cant defend anything to be fair...) , so at least, give them a chance to run before getting tackled :D
ps. If you are fast or catch someone unprepared you might still get a Rorqual-killmail. I found one during WWB, it was a lot of fun ;) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3119
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 15:29:34 -
[1386] - Quote
how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 15:56:49 -
[1387] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe
well... i dont really see any semi-aktive PVE alliance without any Sov or any ambitions to get any overroll Pandemic Legion anytime soon :D BUUUUUT for one of the first times in this thread i am close to agreeing with you :-P
The idea is great! Make the rorqual something entirely different from the boosting path! It has mining fighters and can possibly protect the whole Fleet with the PANIC mod. If it mines more than a hulk i might even get 13 of those and put them in a belt. thats something to work towards to, right?
Ratters dont NEED a supercapital, but they WANT one because its cool and does stuff... Why would you connect something as essential as a direct income boost to the, as you like to call it, endgame ship? Those boosts are something everyone should be able to work with. I dont see a reason why my hulk in safe space should be "better" than some small corps hulk. Having a capital mining ship is something completly different! It is cool, and it does stuff, but it really isn't essential for your mining op:)
ps. There are quite a few titans in this game, but i guess most of them dont get used regularly ;) BUT THEY ARE COOL AND THEY DO STUFF.... SOMETIMES ;) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3119
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:01:59 -
[1388] - Quote
... by making the rorq a miner you actually nerf it. let it mine as much as 13 hulks it is now slower than if it was boosting 12 hulks.
there is nothing wrong with this being a booster.
ps i hope you are not disappointed when the excavater drones are not fighters in any way
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:15:10 -
[1389] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... by making the rorq a miner you actually nerf it. let it mine as much as 13 hulks it is now slower than if it was boosting 12 hulks.
there is nothing wrong with this being a booster.
ps i hope you are not disappointed when the excavater drones are not fighters in any way
Put the booster into the porpoise and exchange the hulks with something that mines more (a rorqual mining twice as much as a hulk! AWESOMESAUCE #YOLO #IWANTABIGGERSHIP)... not a nerf in my eyes ;)... just a completly different use. if people dont like that, they can still sell the rorqual and continue mining. I bet there are plenty of people who would love to fly nothing but rorquals into a mining anomaly... just picture it. AWESOME! (and something to work towards to)
ps. when they were announced, they were called "fighter-sized mining-drones" hence : mining-fighters ... like fighter-bombers or support-fighters
i know that they wont be able to deal damage ;) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3119
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:21:46 -
[1390] - Quote
but its not a different use both just add m3 to a fleet. your way just means people now need several 2.5 bill ships rather than one and a few 200mill ships to get the same effect.
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1895
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:24:45 -
[1391] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe grow bigger? That would solve many problems
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
292
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:30:13 -
[1392] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary... Explain to everyone how you give up mining yield on a boosting ship like the Orca. well its really quit simple.... you don't try re-reading this again Quote: you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship
now take care to notice that you are not doing anything to an orca but rather changing ships you may be using in your mining fleet
We were discussing the Orca. Read my post again, then explain how decreasing yield on a ship, that has minimal defenses to begin with, that doesn't mine, whose sole purpose in life is to provide boosts and move ore, will get more defenses.
Now I understand CCP wants to balance risk and reward, but instead of shifting to a more balanced game play from what you call "no risk/total reward" (AKA, afk boosting in a POS) it's shifted 100% in the other direction (72km boosting range, and Orca sits in mining anom/belt; Orca cannot defend itself; it suffers from a suspect flag due to "shooting boosts" so it can now be shot at).
This is why I call it a horrible patch. It also reinforces my belief that there are individuals, both players and devs, that are not in touch with in game industry.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1898
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 19:45:27 -
[1393] - Quote
He clearly didn't read my orange story
Art of Explosions
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3126
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 03:42:55 -
[1394] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary... Explain to everyone how you give up mining yield on a boosting ship like the Orca. well its really quit simple.... you don't try re-reading this again Quote: you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship
now take care to notice that you are not doing anything to an orca but rather changing ships you may be using in your mining fleet We were discussing the Orca. Read my post again, then explain how decreasing yield on a ship, that has minimal defenses to begin with, that doesn't mine, whose sole purpose in life is to provide boosts and move ore, will get more defenses. Now I understand CCP wants to balance risk and reward, but instead of shifting to a more balanced game play from what you call "no risk/total reward" (AKA, afk boosting in a POS) it's shifted 100% in the other direction (72km boosting range, and Orca sits in mining anom/belt; Orca cannot defend itself; it suffers from a suspect flag due to "shooting boosts" so it can now be shot at). This is why I call it a horrible patch. It also reinforces my belief that there are individuals, both players and devs, that are not in touch with in game industry.
since when does just boosting give it a suspect flag? and we were talking about defending the orca. the orca does not need to defend itself. these ships were already balanced to be put in belts players just opted not to because why risk if you didn't have to. in fact before the mtu orcas were a common sight in belts. So the risk is obviously not to high
EDIT:
with that said should these ships need to be balanced either with RR bonuses or some other form of defense that is fine but lets SEE if that is needed first and not change based on fear mongering speculations
BLOPS Hauler
|
S3ND3TH
Czerka.
22
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 03:45:48 -
[1395] - Quote
I'm with Balder
Balder Verdandi wrote:Using a quote from the Dev Blog: Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its powerAnd this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations. Generally in a mining fleet you have:
- One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.
- One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.
- At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.
Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca. Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles. Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals. I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost. At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3126
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 03:56:53 -
[1396] - Quote
S3ND3TH wrote:I'm with Balder Balder Verdandi wrote:Using a quote from the Dev Blog: Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its powerAnd this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations. Generally in a mining fleet you have:
- One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.
- One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.
- At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.
Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca. Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles. Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals. I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost. At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.
if you don't have enough to feel safe using it use the new one they are adding. it's only a what 5% dip?
also why are you becoming suspect fozzie even said they are not sure if combat boosts will flag you....
BLOPS Hauler
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
293
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 04:25:46 -
[1397] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: if you don't have enough to feel safe using it use the new one they are adding. it's only a what 5% dip?
It's quite a bit more than that. The numbers have been posted already and we're talking on the order of roughly 10% to 20% loss compared to what we were previously getting. The range boost loss is a good example:
Previous: 25.7km
Now: 23km
25.7-23=2.7 or roughly a 10.5% loss in range.
Now if this is supposed to HELP miners, and new players that want to mine, I want the devs to explain how the loss is supposed to help. The numbers and math don't lie.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also why are you becoming suspect fozzie even said they are not sure if combat boosts will flag you....
These are active boosts, which means you're basically "shooting" them from the new high slot boosting device. Now the way I understand this is if you shoot the boosts, it's a form of combat the way current game mechanics work, and will flag you as suspect. Even Fozzie isn't sure that you won't get flagged suspect, so that tells you:
1. This new boosting mechanic has NOT been the subject of serious thought.
2. This new boosting mechanic has NOT been prepared for testing, and has clearly NOT been tested otherwise Fozzie and the groupies would know.
3. The balance of game play using an Orca has gone from no risk/high reward to high risk/low reward. Unless the Orca gets a major update, no one will use the Orca for boosts because no one wants to lose a boost fitted Orca worth at least 1.5b ISK. In effect, CCP has done to the Orca what it's done to the Rorqual.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3126
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 04:36:10 -
[1398] - Quote
yet people already use boost fit orcas in belts -.-
and by "not sure" its not they don't know how the server will treat it but that they are not sure if they are going to make it so you go suspect.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 06:21:34 -
[1399] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yet people already use boost fit orcas in belts -.-
and by "not sure" its not they don't know how the server will treat it but that they are not sure if they are going to make it so you go suspect.
they do... in HIGH SEC which is only a small part of all mining ops. In Low- or Nullsec, people dont field them .(partly because there is no point right now...)
But Balder Verdandi in not completly right... in Sov-Null and Highsec people are gonna field Rorquals and Orcas. It's just not feasable to do it in Lowsec or NRDS space or ANYWHERE you are not completly sure you are safe or can be safed.
as i said earlier (it must have been 10 pages ago :D ) if there was no need to siege the rorqual, people might be able to safe it and therefore field it. (if they dont watch the intel or dont warp off if a WH pops up you can still kill them tho) (same goes fot the orca... thats why i said Balder is not right ;) )
- T2 Industrial Core (while active)
+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength combine that with 15% overall bonus from skills and people being boosted by a porpoise might have to mine significantly longer than rorqual boosted people, who will ALSO be able to mine more ore due to Mining-Fighters
--> More work for less minerals. a great way to promote the industrial part of the game for new players :D Well Played CCP :D |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1901
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 07:31:49 -
[1400] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: if you don't have enough to feel safe using it use the new one they are adding. it's only a what 5% dip?
It's quite a bit more than that. The numbers have been posted already and we're talking on the order of roughly 10% to 20% loss compared to what we were previously getting. The range boost loss is a good example: Previous: 25.7km Now: 23km 25.7-23=2.7 or roughly a 10.5% loss in range. Now if this is supposed to HELP miners, and new players that want to mine, I want the devs to explain how the loss is supposed to help. The numbers and math don't lie. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also why are you becoming suspect fozzie even said they are not sure if combat boosts will flag you....
These are active boosts, which means you're basically "shooting" them from the new high slot boosting device. Now the way I understand this is if you shoot the boosts, it's a form of combat the way current game mechanics work, and will flag you as suspect. Even Fozzie isn't sure that you won't get flagged suspect, so that tells you: 1. This new boosting mechanic has NOT been the subject of serious thought. 2. This new boosting mechanic has NOT been prepared for testing, and has clearly NOT been tested otherwise Fozzie and the groupies would know. 3. The balance of game play using an Orca has gone from no risk/high reward to high risk/low reward. Unless the Orca gets a major update, no one will use the Orca for boosts because no one wants to lose a boost fitted Orca worth at least 1.5b ISK. In effect, CCP has done to the Orca what it's done to the Rorqual.
All this speculation no facts
He said that they're not sure if they want it to yet which means it could be implemented that way but it also might not.
I love your arbitrary descriptions too, instead of using bland words like low high and medium, let's have some numbers?
Art of Explosions
|
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1901
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 07:33:27 -
[1401] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yet people already use boost fit orcas in belts -.-
and by "not sure" its not they don't know how the server will treat it but that they are not sure if they are going to make it so you go suspect.
they do... in HIGH SEC which is only a small part of all mining ops. In Low- or Nullsec, people dont field them .(partly because there is no point right now...) But Balder Verdandi in not completly right... in Sov-Null and Highsec people are gonna field Rorquals and Orcas. It's just not feasable to do it in Lowsec or NRDS space or ANYWHERE you are not completly sure you are safe or can be safed. as i said earlier (it must have been 10 pages ago :D ) if there was no need to siege the rorqual, people might be able to safe it and therefore field it. (if they dont watch the intel or dont warp off if a WH pops up you can still kill them tho) (same goes fot the orca... thats why i said Balder is not right ;) ) - T2 Industrial Core (while active) +30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength combine that with 15% overall bonus from skills and people being boosted by a porpoise might have to mine significantly longer than rorqual boosted people, who will ALSO be able to mine more ore due to Mining-Fighters --> More work for less minerals. a great way to promote the industrial part of the game for new players :D Well Played CCP :D
As I've tried to explain to you multiple times already, more work for less minerals means prices go up. People pay for the effort required to mine the minerals, not the actual mineral itself.
Art of Explosions
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3128
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 07:59:39 -
[1402] - Quote
What do you mean ppl didn't use orcas in belts out in null? That is where I was talking about before the mtu we would use them all the time. After the mtu was added there was no need anymore so they stayed in the position.
Like I said I have no issue with the orca/rorqual getting a buff if it is needed, however we will need to see if that is the case
BLOPS Hauler
|
TrinityNZXT
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 10:02:11 -
[1403] - Quote
Just so I understand correctly that the leadership skills are going away, does this mean I know longer need to have the following skills to get maximum boost for range, yield, and cycle time:
Mining Foreman 5 Mining Director 5 Ware Link Specialist 5
Just want to understand this a tad more, and if I will no longer need these skills will CCP refund the SP associated with them?
Thanks much,
Trinity |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1821
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 10:12:01 -
[1404] - Quote
TrinityNZXT wrote:Just so I understand correctly that the leadership skills are going away, does this mean I know longer need to have the following skills to get maximum boost for range, yield, and cycle time:
Mining Foreman 5 Mining Director 5 Ware Link Specialist 5
Just want to understand this a tad more, and if I will no longer need these skills will CCP refund the SP associated with them?
Thanks much,
Trinity
Leadership, Wing Commander and Fleet Commander for maximum range! |
TrinityNZXT
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 10:14:25 -
[1405] - Quote
So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3128
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 10:25:45 -
[1406] - Quote
TrinityNZXT wrote:So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry.
Yes You will.
Leadership wing command and fleet command are no longer needed to boost a fleet but they will boost your range
The yield bonus from mining Forman is being removed but you still need the skill to use the boosts
BLOPS Hauler
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1821
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 10:34:41 -
[1407] - Quote
TrinityNZXT wrote:So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry.
Have you read this already?
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/command-bursts/?utm_source=discussion&utm_medium=eveforum&utm_campaign |
TrinityNZXT
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:01:13 -
[1408] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrinityNZXT wrote:So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry. Yes You will. Leadership wing command and fleet command are no longer needed to boost a fleet but they will boost your range The yield bonus from mining Forman is being removed but you still need the skill to use the boosts
what about warfare link specialst for the 10% bonus to the mining boosts will i need that still? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3129
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:08:54 -
[1409] - Quote
TrinityNZXT wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrinityNZXT wrote:So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry. Yes You will. Leadership wing command and fleet command are no longer needed to boost a fleet but they will boost your range The yield bonus from mining Forman is being removed but you still need the skill to use the boosts what about warfare link specialst for the 10% bonus to the mining boosts will i need that still?
if you want 10% bonus to your.... you know what go read the blog there is a table at the bottom that shows you what skills do what after the change
But if you are just using it for mining probably not iirc it's just cycle time
BLOPS Hauler
|
TrinityNZXT
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:09:52 -
[1410] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrinityNZXT wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrinityNZXT wrote:So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry. Yes You will. Leadership wing command and fleet command are no longer needed to boost a fleet but they will boost your range The yield bonus from mining Forman is being removed but you still need the skill to use the boosts what about warfare link specialst for the 10% bonus to the mining boosts will i need that still? if you want 10% bonus to your.... you know what go read the blog there is a table at the bottom that shows you what skills do what after the change
It doesn't say anything about the warfare link specialist skill |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3129
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:11:22 -
[1411] - Quote
TrinityNZXT wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrinityNZXT wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TrinityNZXT wrote:So i will no longer need the 3 skills i listed above for cycle time and yield per cycle? I don't understand this sorry. Yes You will. Leadership wing command and fleet command are no longer needed to boost a fleet but they will boost your range The yield bonus from mining Forman is being removed but you still need the skill to use the boosts what about warfare link specialst for the 10% bonus to the mining boosts will i need that still? if you want 10% bonus to your.... you know what go read the blog there is a table at the bottom that shows you what skills do what after the change It doesn't say anything about the warfare link specialist skill
Yes it does 10%reduction to cycle time
BLOPS Hauler
|
TrinityNZXT
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:13:15 -
[1412] - Quote
Ok so I still need that skill at 5. sorry im only 13 its hard to understand this.
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 12:15:16 -
[1413] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:yet people already use boost fit orcas in belts -.-
and by "not sure" its not they don't know how the server will treat it but that they are not sure if they are going to make it so you go suspect.
they do... in HIGH SEC which is only a small part of all mining ops. In Low- or Nullsec, people dont field them .(partly because there is no point right now...) But Balder Verdandi in not completly right... in Sov-Null and Highsec people are gonna field Rorquals and Orcas. It's just not feasable to do it in Lowsec or NRDS space or ANYWHERE you are not completly sure you are safe or can be safed. as i said earlier (it must have been 10 pages ago :D ) if there was no need to siege the rorqual, people might be able to safe it and therefore field it. (if they dont watch the intel or dont warp off if a WH pops up you can still kill them tho) (same goes fot the orca... thats why i said Balder is not right ;) ) - T2 Industrial Core (while active) +30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength combine that with 15% overall bonus from skills and people being boosted by a porpoise might have to mine significantly longer than rorqual boosted people, who will ALSO be able to mine more ore due to Mining-Fighters --> More work for less minerals. a great way to promote the industrial part of the game for new players :D Well Played CCP :D As I've tried to explain to you multiple times already, more work for less minerals means prices go up. People pay for the effort required to mine the minerals, not the actual mineral itself.
You really are as stupid as i thought :D
More work for less minerals in Lowsec und NRDS space while Sov-Null gets MORE minerals for LESS work means the price will stay roughly the same. Since its less effort for me and other sov-null industrials and more effort for Lowsec and NRDS Industrialists i will get paid more and Lowsec and NRDS-Industrialists will get paid less...
not that difficult, he? |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1904
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 12:36:47 -
[1414] - Quote
No, they get the SAME minerals for MORE work
Solo miners get LESS minerals for the SAME work
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 13:51:46 -
[1415] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:No, they get the SAME minerals for MORE work
Solo miners get LESS minerals for the SAME work
They dont siege rorquals --> LESS minerals I siege a rorqual --> More minerals
--> Lowsec and NRDS get less money for more work
solo miners dont get any boosts --> Almost no minerals for the same amount of work. get your facts right son |
TrinityNZXT
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 14:08:09 -
[1416] - Quote
I mine in null with 7 toons and a rorq booster. I like billions. |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1907
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 18:21:36 -
[1417] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:No, they get the SAME minerals for MORE work
Solo miners get LESS minerals for the SAME work They dont siege rorquals --> LESS minerals I siege a rorqual --> More minerals --> Lowsec and NRDS get less money for more work solo miners dont get any boosts --> Almost no minerals for the same amount of work. get your facts right son
how is the current 97% yield bonus from a sieged rorqual LESS than the maximum proposed boost of 57% ???
Like do you know what you're talking about, AT ALL?
Art of Explosions
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1821
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 18:35:33 -
[1418] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:No, they get the SAME minerals for MORE work
Solo miners get LESS minerals for the SAME work They dont siege rorquals --> LESS minerals I siege a rorqual --> More minerals --> Lowsec and NRDS get less money for more work solo miners dont get any boosts --> Almost no minerals for the same amount of work. get your facts right son how is the current 97% yield bonus from a sieged rorqual LESS than the maximum proposed boost of 57% ??? Like do you know what you're talking about, AT ALL?
The roqual bonus will be more, with a T2 industrial core than now. But the effect of the Mining Mindlink will be lost (so around 85 % without the imp, but a little bit more with a T2 rorqual). |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1907
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 19:06:18 -
[1419] - Quote
I was under the impression that the table CCP provided were theoretical maximums with everything taken into account including T2 core stats
Art of Explosions
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1821
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 19:11:33 -
[1420] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:I was under the impression that the table CCP provided were theoretical maximums with everything taken into account including T2 core stats
Good point.
Well, I hope we will be able to check it out as soon as possible on SiSi. |
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 19:14:53 -
[1421] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:No, they get the SAME minerals for MORE work
Solo miners get LESS minerals for the SAME work They dont siege rorquals --> LESS minerals I siege a rorqual --> More minerals --> Lowsec and NRDS get less money for more work solo miners dont get any boosts --> Almost no minerals for the same amount of work. get your facts right son how is the current 97% yield bonus from a sieged rorqual LESS than the maximum proposed boost of 57% ??? Like do you know what you're talking about, AT ALL?
the guy above me i right ;)
PLUS i get fighter sized mining drones ...
So basically, i am right and you are an A*****e |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 19:18:36 -
[1422] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:I was under the impression that the table CCP provided were theoretical maximums with everything taken into account including T2 core stats
It's 57% cycle time, which is a 130% yield bonus. do the math ... posted this on page 62 i think ;)
1/(1-0,5713) = 2,33 which is 233%, so its even 133% boost. You knew that while you where shitposting, right? |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1907
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 20:44:21 -
[1423] - Quote
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
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 21:13:27 -
[1424] - Quote
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 |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1907
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 21:27:59 -
[1425] - Quote
I was wrong about boosts being lower after this change yes.
However you're still blind to the fact that sov null miners do not account for as much mining you think it does. Vast majority of minerals that get on the market comes from high sec. Unless you're trying to tell me they haul ore to jita and not sell it locally?
The standard of mining yield currently is that you find some free boosts and go mine with them, this has artificially deflated mineral prices for years because there's just such a vast quantity that demand can't keep up with supply.
For the life of me I don't understand why people wouldn't move to better sources of income, but instead just complain about everything that makes mining difficult like gankers and now this new boosting mechanic.
Now that only dedicated mining ops will be mass harvesting minerals and the rest of the people won't be getting as much, it should in theory raise the ISK/unit of ore up. This won't change the income much for those who just sit in high sec mining alone and relied on neutral boosts previously but for those who have some ambition and drive it could propel them into a new level.
And trust me not even the biggest alliances are safe, if and when rorquals come on grid, you'll be damn sure I'll be hunting them. More explosions more mineral demand, overall healthier economy.
Art of Explosions
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 21:50:03 -
[1426] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:I was wrong about boosts being lower after this change yes.
However you're still blind to the fact that sov null miners do not account for as much mining you think it does. Vast majority of minerals that get on the market comes from high sec. Unless you're trying to tell me they haul ore to jita and not sell it locally?
The standard of mining yield currently is that you find some free boosts and go mine with them, this has artificially deflated mineral prices for years because there's just such a vast quantity that demand can't keep up with supply.
For the life of me I don't understand why people wouldn't move to better sources of income, but instead just complain about everything that makes mining difficult like gankers and now this new boosting mechanic.
Now that only dedicated mining ops will be mass harvesting minerals and the rest of the people won't be getting as much, it should in theory raise the ISK/unit of ore up. This won't change the income much for those who just sit in high sec mining alone and relied on neutral boosts previously but for those who have some ambition and drive it could propel them into a new level.
And trust me not even the biggest alliances are safe, if and when rorquals come on grid, you'll be damn sure I'll be hunting them. More explosions more mineral demand, overall healthier economy.
Orcas will still be fielded in HIGHSEC, thats what i said... like 5 pages ago... practically no change in highsec, practically no boosts in lowsec/nrds and a mining paradise for big alliances. technically, you are not wrong, but cant we agree, that 133% maximum boost is just too much?! This boost is broken... if they just removed the indu core we'd end up with something better! people feeling like they can still compete and fielding orcas, porpoises and if they feel really safe, rorquals. You'd still get killmails, but ccp woulnd't **** over people who cannot "safely" field a rorqual... ( i know i know, they are never truely safe... but i'm sure you understand what i mean). Right now people might think " just give it up, there is no point, we'll do something else where we are safe and make more money" which gives a)everyone less people to play with b) less targets for you to kill
PLUS: There are far more valuable targets than rorquals in sov space, you must know that ;)
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 22:20:19 -
[1427] - Quote
Quote: but does not persist through docking and undocking or through system changes.
if this is for balance and not technical i would say it would be better if boosts lasted through system changes. I think this would add more to tactics and choices. boosting your fleet and not following them through the gate could leave the booster vulnerable and give your fleet a timer on their engagement if they are relying on the boosts. however i'v really only thought of this in regards to WH can some one come up with a reason this would be unbalanced in other areas of the game?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
31
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 01:54:48 -
[1428] - Quote
I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 02:31:42 -
[1429] - Quote
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 a buff to the small guy now I don't have to worry if everyone I '1v1' is actually 2v1
BLOPS Hauler
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
31
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 02:41:13 -
[1430] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave 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 a buff to the small guy now I don't have to worry if everyone I '1v1' is actually 2v1
We know your agenda. Stop posting in here. you are a large group of baddies who just want other smaller groups to stop picking on you. You don't want smaller groups to nija mine no more. You just want to hog the game for yourself. GTFO |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 02:54:10 -
[1431] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave 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 a buff to the small guy now I don't have to worry if everyone I '1v1' is actually 2v1 We know your agenda. Stop posting in here. you are a large group of baddies who just want other smaller groups to stop picking on you. You don't want smaller groups to nija mine no more. You just want to hog the game for yourself. GTFO
.... how am I part of a large group. I think the biggest fleet I have been in the past year was 10ppl. As for not wanting ninja mining check my signature. Even if I was in a large group that would not mean I didn't also spend a good deal of my time in Caldari fw and almost always solo
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 07:27:45 -
[1432] - Quote
If boosts were removed completly you'd never have to worry about a 1v1 situation actually being 2v1 ;)
we've established that small mining groups get a nerf. ( and that there are 2 people in this thread who actually like that ;) )
We've also established, that "solo" pvpers will probably not get boosts since multiboxing those two chars is now too difficult.
This is a nerf if you want to engage groups of 4-10 ppl who will probably have boosts while you cant have them. This is also a Buff if you want to engage other solo players since they will also not have boosts (of what you can be sure due to timers and visual effects.)
SO: You are both right ;)
And please Lugh, stop posting the same stuff over and over again. If people take the time to put their concerns into text, you should not be dismissing all of that with "Dude, you are wrong, you are getting a buff"
There might be a second point of view to what you are posting :) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 07:42:31 -
[1433] - Quote
Only times I repeat myself is when I'm responding to the same points.
This isn't really even a nerf when going up against groups of 4-10 either as you can now split members away from their boost. Something you could not do before. The only way this is a nerf is if you really on ogb.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1913
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 18:26:26 -
[1434] - Quote
It's a direct nerf yes but people can't see the big picture. Overall this will help the game imo.
Art of Explosions
|
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 18:56:22 -
[1435] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18055
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 19:16:48 -
[1436] - Quote
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.
Ridiculous hyperbole does not advance your cause.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18055
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 19:21:04 -
[1437] - Quote
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?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
3562
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 19:21:56 -
[1438] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Ridiculous hyperbole does not advance your cause.
New to Eve forums?
Yeah, well reasoned arguments are kinda hard to come by, here. End of the game breakage, aplenty, though. Enjoy your stay.
m
Mike Azariah GöźGöÇGöÇGöźn++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18056
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 19:30:09 -
[1439] - Quote
Hey Mike, good to see you posting. You're always weclome in my mining fleet GÖŃ
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1914
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 23:34:51 -
[1440] - Quote
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.
Art of Explosions
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2685
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 00:28:08 -
[1441] - Quote
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
427
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 00:44:34 -
[1442] - Quote
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
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
52
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 02:22:54 -
[1443] - Quote
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? 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 'scram-immune' Nightmare gangs?
Yes, all these changes apply to everyone equally but theyre clearly going to reward the F1 conga-line Cerb fleets even more.
Would CCP prefer if EVERYONE in the game forms a big blue donut and the only fights are Cerb vs Cerb, or T3 vs T3 or Cap vs Cap 100-man slugfests?
Small gang pilots like me will evolve and adapt, but these are very shortsighted changes. Very odd. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3138
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 02:27:26 -
[1444] - Quote
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
BLOPS Hauler
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 14:51:01 -
[1445] - Quote
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.
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. |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:59:37 -
[1446] - Quote
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
La Luna Negro inPanic
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:05:58 -
[1447] - Quote
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
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 06:08:32 -
[1448] - Quote
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... |
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 06:09:52 -
[1449] - Quote
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!
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 11:45:52 -
[1450] - Quote
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
La Luna Negro inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 13:13:30 -
[1451] - Quote
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
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1916
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 20:51:41 -
[1452] - Quote
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.
Art of Explosions
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:24:44 -
[1453] - Quote
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.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:28:56 -
[1454] - Quote
so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
832
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:14:40 -
[1455] - Quote
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
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:18:05 -
[1456] - Quote
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.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:19:09 -
[1457] - Quote
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
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:20:18 -
[1458] - Quote
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?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
832
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 01:15:58 -
[1459] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: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
I get the time sink factor....its just its looking like CCP painted themselves in a corner here. A prior change is not making as much sense now.
Its me getting hung on the passives lol....they made the pain of leadership trains tolerable imo. Passives gone, now they are time killers with no good reason in at least 2 out of 4 cases for a potential CS booster. I like to make lemons into lemonades...not getting that here with passive removal.
Caveat I am thinking is you get the CS skill with just 2 leaderships. The ones a race would boost. Problem is complexity of having the game recognize player A can fly NH and wouldn't need the say armour. Or the armour booster not having shields but rest. Complex but not impossible. Its requirements just have a bit if then else code tacked on.
If siege and info 5 then CS okay else if siege and skirmish then CS okay etc....
A related concern is I actually want CS as booster to be viable. Been an issue for years. CCP seems to be aware but changes just cement T3's spot as preferred booster. easier CS may be the lesser of 2 evils. yes its more CS on the field since easier to get combat wise. Evil 1 here.
Other evil as I see it its just spam t3 booster even more and CS as booster gets ignored even more.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face a phrase that comes to mind here. And I am usually I walked up the hill for 3 miles in snow with no shoes to school so the youngins can too grumpy old bitter. In this case...not going that route.
T3 is just looking good, if not better in this change. Can't find the exact boosts but iirc CS just gets just mere % increase over t3. CCP tried this in CS rebalance...it didn't work. T3 bonused less and people didn't trade in their boost tengu's for NH's post change. No real reason too. Its the side stuff of t3 and t3 boosts let you pick and choose 1 by 1...or just the 1.
Way I read these changes, this not helping. Range or duration is what these skills give. a few seconds more or a few km's more....t3 is still looking better for the ease of train really. Oh no... I only burst 35 kms and not 38, emo rage quit over this right now as t3 boosts are now crap. Not happening as I can see it. I won't sweat a few km's. Many won't. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 01:22:10 -
[1460] - Quote
lowering the train time will not have a noticeable effect on how many are on field. The big problem with T3 is you take a small 5% hit but can use 3 types of links. that utility is why it is king for boosters. tbh I have no idea why CCP thought it was a good idea to give them this but i can't figure out why they did a lot with T3s
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
832
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 04:14:33 -
[1461] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lowering the train time will not have a noticeable effect on how many are on field. The big problem with T3 is you take a small 5% hit but can use 3 types of links. that utility is why it is king for boosters. tbh I have no idea why CCP thought it was a good idea to give them this but i can't figure out why they did a lot with T3s EDIT that is why everyone flys t3s and this is why even after the changes still no one will fly Command ships
Yeah I know. Just looking for angles to change that. More I think about, more I know the outcome. Which is fine...I like t3. Just be nice if it wasn't the only viable option.
Like 2 rigs for t2 and 3 for t3 would be the other nail on the coffin. And I don't see this new +1 rig being more than 200 calibration (so many t3 fits as is will just be pull 1 rig if needed). It hurt CS if so. With booster on grid...t3 having 3 slots another why bother with boost running CS really I predict (shooty or tanky rig options among others limited on CS). Is this being looked at CCP? (knows what asking will get me but oh well).
Maybe they have some ace up the sleeve for this. Not betting the farm on it. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3163
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 04:32:06 -
[1462] - Quote
what CCP needs to do is a pass on the CBCs they were skipped when they did the T1 BCs they should have more tank (even shield CBCs are losing tank now that the processor is a rig) Would be nice if the caldari/amarr were just bricks some tank and spank then gal/minm just a bit less tanky but fast enough to keep pace with ABCs. the current hulls currently have these themes just not to a level that makes them a viable choice (well i'm sure we will still see sleipnir out of all of them probably the most viable)
EDIT:
as well the damnation probably doesn't need much more tank but it could use a bit of DPS if it want to be picked over a t3
BLOPS Hauler
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
606
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 11:47:32 -
[1463] - Quote
Just for those who haven't seen this yet.......
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=493696&find=unread
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.
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 16:46:22 -
[1464] - Quote
Raivi was a blober CCP Fozzie is a carebear in other words.
The blob, CCP just loves the blob. No idea how to give love to anything but NPC and blobwarfare |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 16:51:07 -
[1465] - Quote
nice -.- so mining with maximum boost (the only proper way of mining) will only be something for the big alliances then...
i mean, you could get two citadels to save a few billions on the rigs, but otherwise you'll need to invest more than 50 billion just to keep mining :D
wp CCP |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3167
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 18:20:19 -
[1466] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:
nice -.- so mining with maximum boost (the only proper way of mining)
and that type of thinking is your problem.
also please remember large industrial arrays and drilling platforms will not be near as expensive as citadels
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 19:12:57 -
[1467] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:
nice -.- so mining with maximum boost (the only proper way of mining)
and that type of thinking is your problem. also please remember large industrial arrays and drilling platforms will not be near as expensive as citadels
dude... try in mine in a venture without boosts :D you'd be happy to make 1 million isk per hour. you clearly dont know what you are talking about .
+ where did you see the price for those platforms? i did not see any on the market... and until i see them i wont believe that they are cheap. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3168
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 19:48:17 -
[1468] - Quote
i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 06:47:45 -
[1469] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort
so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D
I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts. |
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
429
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 08:46:25 -
[1470] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts.
Maybe people mining don't need top dollar, just a way to eat away time, who says it has to compete with other game elements?
"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 =-
|
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 09:37:15 -
[1471] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts. Maybe people mining don't need top dollar, just a way to eat away time, who says it has to compete with other game elements?
yeah sure, you just want to pay 500Géź a month to shoot rocks. get it. you are stupid |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1138
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 10:15:18 -
[1472] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts. Maybe people mining don't need top dollar, just a way to eat away time, who says it has to compete with other game elements? yeah sure, you just want to pay 500Géź a month to shoot rocks. get it. you are stupid What's stupid is someone telling someone else they are playing "their" game wrong. Eg; as requested, 4 characters mining ice = roughly 180 mil p/h, without boosts. It's just under 300 mil p/h with max boosts (and I watch netflix while earning isk)
You may pay 500 p/m to run your missions at 40 mil p/h - I plex my miners and still have enough isk to buy what I want for my other characters.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1920
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 11:22:17 -
[1473] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts. Maybe people mining don't need top dollar, just a way to eat away time, who says it has to compete with other game elements? yeah sure, you just want to pay 500Géź a month to shoot rocks. get it. you are stupid
If you want to be as competitive as other methods then you have to put the effort in.
Again, you don't understand the concept of economics. If mining because easy or "standardised" for everyone as you want it to be, you would not get more ISK per unit of effort you put into the game, so literally your ideas will do nothing.
Art of Explosions
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
429
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 11:58:51 -
[1474] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts. Maybe people mining don't need top dollar, just a way to eat away time, who says it has to compete with other game elements? yeah sure, you just want to pay 500Géź a month to shoot rocks. get it. you are stupid
Lol, are we playing the same game?
"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 =-
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1990
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 19:58:26 -
[1475] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:yeah sure, you just want to pay 500Géź a month to shoot rocks. get it. you are stupid Isn't your entire argument predicated on the idea of shooting rocks for several hours so you can buy the item that gives you more time to shoot rocks? How can you even attempt anything resembling an intellectual high ground over someone who actually plays the game to enjoy it, as is the intent of the game? |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 05:46:55 -
[1476] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:
yeah sure, you just want to pay 500Géź a month to shoot rocks. get it. you are stupid
I had hoped you wouldn't stoop to name calling, and clearly I was wrong.
This is why I said good day to you in a previous post. Now I will tell you what my friends from the UK would say:
Jog on.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18075
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 07:29:13 -
[1477] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what CCP needs to do is a pass on the CBCs they were skipped when they did the T1 BCs they should have more tank (even shield CBCs are losing tank now that the processor is a rig) Would be nice if the caldari/amarr were just bricks some tank and spank then gal/minm just a bit less tanky but fast enough to keep pace with ABCs. the current hulls currently have these themes just not to a level that makes them a viable choice (well i'm sure we will still see sleipnir out of all of them probably the most viable)
EDIT:
as well the damnation probably doesn't need much more tank but it could use a bit of DPS if it want to be picked over a t3
One might note that there are two Command Ships for each race. There's space for a "tanky" minmatar and a "fast" amarr CS.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3172
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 08:16:53 -
[1478] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what CCP needs to do is a pass on the CBCs they were skipped when they did the T1 BCs they should have more tank (even shield CBCs are losing tank now that the processor is a rig) Would be nice if the caldari/amarr were just bricks some tank and spank then gal/minm just a bit less tanky but fast enough to keep pace with ABCs. the current hulls currently have these themes just not to a level that makes them a viable choice (well i'm sure we will still see sleipnir out of all of them probably the most viable)
EDIT:
as well the damnation probably doesn't need much more tank but it could use a bit of DPS if it want to be picked over a t3 One might note that there are two Command Ships for each race. There's space for a "tanky" minmatar and a "fast" amarr CS.
I would rather one be tank the other be DPS.
so slep would be speedy but the cyclone would pack a bigger punch type thing
each should be able to do both but shine better in one of the two similar to how HACs work.
otherwise you won't see the "fast" amarr/caldari be used because fast for a cal/amarr ship is still slow lol
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 08:26:49 -
[1479] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts.
You really need to realise something..
Not everyone plays just to chase isk, if that's what you do then you can't do much else in game...I do a bit of everything, it keeps the game fresh.
I mine, and enjoy it, maybe the secret is that I have never done it to plex, also, I make isk out of it even without boosts.
Yes boosts are nice to have, maybe we should all mine today without the Rorq boosts and get used to it (just in case) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3172
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 08:31:58 -
[1480] - Quote
O.o since these are going to take a more active role can we get drugs for the boosters O.o
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
h4kun4
Gang Bang Pandas Snuffed Out
66
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 10:56:04 -
[1481] - Quote
I still think this change is neccessary, altough i used and still use offgrid boosting like a madman, in whatever activity i do. I belive it is very overpowered now, i have virtually no threat for my booster T3. It is already hard to scan down a specially fit Loki or Proteus and can only be achieved by a skilled pilot with implants, and even if they scan me down, I burn with an Afterburner at all times, so even if the enemies land an me, they will likely be out of normal point range off me and i can just cloak and warp off before they reach me as long as i notice them, cloakies are virtually pointless to try to catch a boosting T3 because of limited cloaked speed and decloak lock delay.
About the new mechnics: The base ranges are a bit tight, I would raise them all by 25%. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3174
|
Posted - 2016.09.24 06:51:33 -
[1482] - Quote
... mining drone velocity boost?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1140
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 04:35:03 -
[1483] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what CCP needs to do is a pass on the CBCs they were skipped when they did the T1 BCs they should have more tank (even shield CBCs are losing tank now that the processor is a rig) Would be nice if the caldari/amarr were just bricks some tank and spank then gal/minm just a bit less tanky but fast enough to keep pace with ABCs. the current hulls currently have these themes just not to a level that makes them a viable choice (well i'm sure we will still see sleipnir out of all of them probably the most viable)
EDIT:
as well the damnation probably doesn't need much more tank but it could use a bit of DPS if it want to be picked over a t3 One might note that there are two Command Ships for each race. There's space for a "tanky" minmatar and a "fast" amarr CS. Something I always thought would be interesting;
Fixing - Changing; Tanking bonuses on Command ships. Right now we have 2 races with resist bonus and 2 with active bonus.
Why not 1 from each race with a resist bonus and the other with an active tank bonus.
This would open up more choice with the upcoming on grid boosting - A Tanky Minmatar (Claymore) with resist bonus and a Fast/er Amarr (Absolution) with active bonus, a relatively small but meaningful change.
Then for the other 2, an Astarte with resist bonus, Vulture with active.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3180
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 04:44:12 -
[1484] - Quote
Again the problem comes in where racial flavors favor one type over the other so that command ship will pull ahead for that race leaving the other one as lack luster.
Basically do to racial flavor the minm active tank will simply be better than tbf Caldari one when it comes to tanking. So if active tank is what you want out of your ship you will train minmatar. At the same time the Caldari buffer boat will tank better than the active rep one
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1140
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 06:12:24 -
[1485] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Again the problem comes in where racial flavors favor one type over the other so that command ship will pull ahead for that race leaving the other one as lack luster.
Basically do to racial flavor the minm active tank will simply be better than tbf Caldari one when it comes to tanking. So if active tank is what you want out of your ship you will train minmatar. At the same time the Caldari buffer boat will tank better than the active rep one I agree but that's where Devs could use their skills and add something extra to make using one over the other a viable choice, depending on "how" it is to be used.
Ok so minmatar active would outshine Caldari Active in tanking (they have smaller sig, are faster and have better agility) - Give the Caldari a speed buff, increase agility or, my choice, be really daring and give the Vulture a 1% role bonus to hybrid turret damage application.
Give each CS a (small) role bonus to missiles, lasers, etc (drone speed or similar for the Eos), fleets can then make a choice as to which booster/s they bring to a fight, depending on what ship types are in fleet. It also gives the class an extra option / advantage over T3's.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3181
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 08:17:37 -
[1486] - Quote
i would rather they play to the strengths of their race (similar to blops) rather than be altered to just be slightly different clones
BLOPS Hauler
|
Jasper Binchiette
The church of Evil Justice Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 11:13:43 -
[1487] - Quote
I don't post in forums normally but will make an exception for this.
These changes sound great for the Gankers and really bad for the miners who are the backbone of Eve. I fear this will really destroy the game. I'm not an expert but I know people who are. It appears that no one I've spoken to will want to take their Rorquals out to the belts as it will be suicide. As for the whole timed invulnerably, great, give the hot droppers 5 mins to bring in their fleet. This seems to be the common opinion from what I can work out. I hope the devs are reading all these posts and listening to people and taking on board what is being said. Definitely quite concerned about some of the coming changes... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3182
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 11:46:33 -
[1488] - Quote
and why exactly are you not using the 5 min to bring your fleet? and pro tip it is possible to mine w/o a rorq if you are to afraid to use it.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
838
|
Posted - 2016.09.26 12:09:25 -
[1489] - Quote
Jasper Binchiette wrote: These changes sound great for the Gankers and really bad for the miners who are the backbone of Eve. I fear this will really destroy the game. .
psst, ccp can revert all the changes made to castrate rat killers if you are fearing doom and gloom. The reprocessing nerf, the drone poop loot nerf.....it can all be rolled back if mineral markets get that bad. We rat killers held up the markets good before. we get our mins back in mission loot we can again. We'd gladly fill this void again .
That and tinfoil hat is telling me some Russian and friends crew(s) still have stockpiles from the good old days of mineral bearing drones in bot....err drone space. its been a few years i know, some of them botters were really busy farmers. That stuff can't all be used up. |
no form
Pink Pounders
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 14:24:12 -
[1490] - Quote
Although I get the need to remove off-grid boosting but this is a much more extreme change than I imagined.
I think my main concern is for the casual player in High-Sec. Its bad enough for them already with the constant War Decs, bypassing/almost non existent Concord. There is a lot of solo players out there who rely on boosting as some kind of defense and now they will have to not only be on field but also constantly active on 2/3 characters.
I've been playing on grid passive boosting for quite some time now, but I don't think this new mechanic will make it viable at all. I've always supported CCP by paying for my accounts, but I can see me cancelling my other two now.
I'm not salty its just the way it is as there are other games to play after all. It's just a shame after so many years and CCP not addressing the main reasons why most people don't stick with this game. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 20:10:11 -
[1491] - Quote
no form wrote:Although I get the need to remove off-grid boosting but this is a much more extreme change than I imagined.
I think my main concern is for the casual player in High-Sec. Its bad enough for them already with the constant War Decs, bypassing/almost non existent Concord. There is a lot of solo players out there who rely on boosting as some kind of defense and now they will have to not only be on field but also constantly active on 2/3 characters.
I've been playing on grid passive boosting for quite some time now, but I don't think this new mechanic will make it viable at all. I've always supported CCP by paying for my accounts, but I can see me cancelling my other two now.
I'm not salty its just the way it is as there are other games to play after all. It's just a shame after so many years and CCP not addressing the main reasons why most people don't stick with this game. This seems like a strange claim considering the number of players believe to have only a single account. Additionally, when it comes to highsec solo players, most draw greater benefit from using the second account to enhance whatever their activity is directly rather than have it off grid boosting. If it's players like that you're claiming to watch out for or drop accounts because of then allow rest assured no one needs the gesture as we're likely the least affected group.
For what it's worth, I never trained any boosters until the news that on grid boosting was coming because of some group activities that will likely desire that role in the near future. |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 20:35:28 -
[1492] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok let's answer some other questions and update the plan a bit more!
After some concerns raised about the strength of Command Destroyer boosts for smaller/faster fleets, we've decided to bump the magnitude of the burst effect strength bonuses on the Command Destroyers and the Porpoise back up to 2% per level. We're also going to add a 1% per level Shield Command Burst strength bonus to the Orca, as a smaller mirror of the bonus on the Rorqual.
We're taking the concerns about the strength of the Evasive Maneuvers link into heavy consideration. We completely agree that the link is quite powerful. However the switch to AoE is already a very consequential change for this link and some of the proposals floating around (such as switching it to agility) would be a quite significant nerf to the link. We're not 100% sure that such a change is warranted at this time. We have some alternatives in mind in case we need to change the link further, but we'll probably wait at least until we get some playtesting before making further changes in this particular area.
We've been seeing some questions about whether you'll be able to set your command burst to auto-cycle (largely due to the fact I used the wording "reactivation delay" in the dev blog). We had needed to do a bit more technical investigation before conclusively answering this, but we're now happy to say that players will be free to set their command bursts to auto-cycle or to manually cycle, just like most modules.
Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
As for test servers, we plan to start mass testing of the new bursts for performance profiling soon (probably within the next two weeks) and the burst modules will be available in a usable state on sisi starting at that time. The new bursts are actually working just fine (other than some of the ship bonuses not being finished yet) on our internal servers right now but we need to focus SISI on testing the earlier releases (such as the release next week) so at the moment we can't put that build on sisi quite yet. We'll keep you posted as we get closer.
Like I said above, we're working hard on the next dev blog (focusing on the Mining Foreman gameplay role and the Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual) and we hope to get that out to you all soon. Thanks everyone for the continued feedback!
Ok so this new ghost fitting is nice and all but I could care less about that where is the Rorqual changes for Singularity? you announced the Rorqual well in advance of this ghost fitting thing yet it makes it to Sisi first? wtf? Seriously seems like you all are trying to get us to focus on something else instead of Rorqual changes. You said probably "within" two weeks well its now going on more then 2 weeks so what gives |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 21:31:05 -
[1493] - Quote
^ This.
Keep the mining boosts as they currently are and limit them solely to the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I never saw a need for mining preservation since crystals are easily made and relatively inexpensive on the market. Any miner worth his skill always has spare crystals and BPO's/BPC's to make more.
As for the mining boosts, you could easily treat them the same as you treat the T2 cloak and a bomber, and it solves that problem.
And we still need more info on the Rorqual changes ..... hint hint.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 02:56:02 -
[1494] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:^ This.
Keep the mining boosts as they currently are and limit them solely to the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I never saw a need for mining preservation since crystals are easily made and relatively inexpensive on the market. Any miner worth his skill always has spare crystals and BPO's/BPC's to make more.
As for the mining boosts, you could easily treat them the same as you treat the T2 cloak and a bomber, and it solves that problem.
And we still need more info on the Rorqual changes ..... hint hint. Well no. It doesn't solve the issue of getting boosts risklessly at all. It just makes it such that the only platforms you could use for that purpose were the same ones you'd be using anyways.
So literally no change save another hull to do the exact same thing (which also renders the porpoise obsolete with the option of the no risk orca). |
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 06:26:14 -
[1495] - Quote
Let me see if I understand whats happening.
Miner flying a Exhumer, Booster in an Orca. Max Skills, implants...
Yield no longer boosted 15%
Cycle Time minimally reduced. (Not sure I did the math right on that. Lotta boosts and bonuses to figure.)
Have to be on grid, within range for the boost to take effect. Lasts for a minute, up to just over 2 minutes depending on skills, implants, ship.
Is this right? It will reduce my yield, but also reduce cycle time to compensate? At least as long as the booster is on grid? |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 14:27:39 -
[1496] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Well no. It doesn't solve the issue of getting boosts risklessly at all. It just makes it such that the only platforms you could use for that purpose were the same ones you'd be using anyways.
So literally no change save another hull to do the exact same thing (which also renders the porpoise obsolete with the option of the no risk orca).
Mining is a different style of game play, which is what really surprises me that a lot of people cannot grasp ... including the devs.
If you can tell me how mining boosts are equal to combat boosts and logi boosts, then let's discuss it. I have yet to see anyone present legitimate talking points on this topic, other than whining that it gives miners "no risk/all reward". Command boosts from a Nightmare are the same way; the Nightmare safes up and you never see it in combat, but it's providing combat boosts to a fleet. Where is the outrage? I haven't seen it.
For the Orca .... this ship needs a lot of love for this change and I don't see it coming at all, except in the form of another ship (the Porpoise) which doesn't address the concerns the mining community is posting.
Fly an Orca on a regular basis and you'll see how much risk there is with an 800 million ISK giant flying bath tub, that needs another 500 million in fittings, has minimal offensive/defensive capabilities, and it's still a giant flying bath tub.
Meanwhile, no one wants to discuss how to make the Orca able to defend itself if it's going to be sitting in a mining anom or belt, but we get the Porpoise instead? This doesn't make any sense at all.
The devs still haven't really addressed the "shooting" of bursts/boosts and not going suspect. Again, this doesn't make any sense because if you're going to replace one system of providing boosts with another that now provides bursts you shouldn't have to worry about losing a 1.5 billion ISK fitted Orca to a suspect timer. This flips the "no risk/all reward" to "all risk/minimal reward".
Let's have an adult discussion about this since CCP made it so we could boost from a POS, and now they want to change the way the game is played but won't fix the booster ships.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3191
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 14:36:47 -
[1497] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote: If you can tell me how mining boosts are equal to combat boosts and logi boosts, then let's discuss it. I have yet to see anyone present legitimate talking points on this topic, other than whining that it gives miners "no risk/all reward". Command boosts from a Nightmare are the same way; the Nightmare safes up and you never see it in combat, but it's providing combat boosts to a fleet. Where is the outrage? I haven't seen it.
O.o you're getting links on a nightmare teach me what you know!
and the outrage of ships safly boosting came from combat links its been all over the forums for years
as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something
and i love how you keep bringing up the suspect timer thing even though CCP stated that at the moment they are not planning to add any criminal timer to them
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 15:11:40 -
[1498] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something
Pretty sure, my 300 mil ship sitting in a belt mining counts as a risk. How about increased risk/penalties to gankers to balance this out? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3194
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 15:15:15 -
[1499] - Quote
Ollyander wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something
Pretty sure, my 300 mil ship sitting in a belt mining counts as a risk. How about increased risk/penalties to gankers to balance this out?
that 300mil ship is not added risk for the added reward of the boost
if you want to add risk to the gankers put alts/friends in combat ships and give up some yield for the added safety
BLOPS Hauler
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 17:39:29 -
[1500] - Quote
Back to yield again?
We're not talking about yield with a barge or exhumer. We're discussing putting an Orca into a belt or mining anom.
No one is going to bring ganking Catalysts when they know a properly fit exhumer can tank the DPS.
The Orca, on the other hand, might be able to tank ganking Catalysts, but I don't see how it's going to tank a few frigs with webs and scrams while Tier 3 BC's (Tornado, Naga, Oracle, Talos) can sit at 100km and just start blapping it once CONCORD arrives for the frigs.
As for the Nightmare, my bad I haven't had my coffee ... it's the Nighthawk. When's the last time you saw one of those actually in combat? Or how about any T2 BC Command Ship? You don't see any of the command ships actually in combat because the kill mail would be trolled until TQ was shut down.
As for the suspect flag, this is taken from the dev blog post:
Quote: Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect.
Weapons timers have always thrown a suspect flag, so CCP needs to address that.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18130
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 20:54:24 -
[1501] - Quote
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but a boosting Orca only needs to be in belt for as long as it takes to warp out again.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
darrtan
IronClad Victory Slightly Sexual
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 21:06:51 -
[1502] - Quote
the way it stands as of now on SISI, is best. If they would leave it where you had to pick and chose two bust boosters, and one+ passive, and just add new skills to the leadership skill list to buff the Burst modules. then the off grid booster for the miners would not be effected, but if you wanted to highers boost then put a boosting desi (or bigger) on field to boost yield. as far as big fleets good, with current ranges 50km with no skill boost, if you are further than that you have bigger issues than boosting. the math works out that on grid boosting is going to be better for fleet fights than off grid. and i agree with dropping the buffs on Titans, as if you have a Titan in system" you win". so please CCP keep as is and just add in the new boosters, people in boosters now would not mind to much to learn a few new skills for on grid. and the miners would love to still be able to use off grid. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18130
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 21:34:58 -
[1503] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote: As for the Nightmare, my bad I haven't had my coffee ... it's the Nighthawk. When's the last time you saw one of those actually in combat? Or how about any T2 BC Command Ship? You don't see any of the command ships actually in combat because the kill mail would be trolled until TQ was shut down.
Wut?
I can tell you for a fact that the Sleipnir is absolutely viable as a doctrine fleet ship. It's pretty good! And it's trivial to modify the standard doctrine fit into a boosting ship with only a minor modification of the mods (drop from 5 to 4 turrets, replace 1 gyro with a power diag, from memory).
The Nighthawk is bad, but I've seen Vulture fleets, and I've also seen Absos in smaller gangs.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 23:27:01 -
[1504] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ollyander wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something
Pretty sure, my 300 mil ship sitting in a belt mining counts as a risk. How about increased risk/penalties to gankers to balance this out? that 300mil ship is not added risk for the added reward of the boost if you want to add risk to the gankers put alts/friends in combat ships and give up some yield for the added safety
Lets consider risk vs reward. Presently as a Miner I am risking my 300 mil ship, in exchange for small amounts of ore. My Orca does not need to be risked currently, this is being changed, thus adding risk, while not increasing reward.
Gankers currently risk their ship, for a Catalyst, at best its going to be 10 mil, 2 gankers 20 mil max. Their reward a 300 mil killmail. This puts the risk/reward entirely on the side of the gankers. With the changes, their risks are not increasing, just their potential rewards. Again, lets talk risk/reward. With these changes, shouldn't the risk/reward equation be adjusted from the other side for balance?
How about adjusting the mining barges and ships to require more then just 2 gankers, but an actual gang? Require them to invest more gank ships, more people, more time for their killmail reward. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3207
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 01:59:26 -
[1505] - Quote
lol the problem is that you were getting to much reward for no risk. and it already takes more than 2 gankers to kill a proc
BLOPS Hauler
|
Bowbndr
Vogon Innovation Warped Intentions
15
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 02:33:52 -
[1506] - Quote
Ok let me get this straight. Off grid mining boosts are so disruptive to game play you have to patch the game for it , but in 5 years you cant figure out how to fix cloaky camping???
And you STILL want everyo e to believe your not Targeting the miners. CCP is extreamily dence for a bunch of suposedly "smart" people.
So when accounts start dropping again what is the next option nuki g industry all together?
I have a novel idea, how about CCP stop tring to kill mining and industry, and put the game back to ho it was when there was 35k plus logged in o. A regular basis and 50 to 60k on the weekends. Then you MIGHT swing back towards profitable instead of the slow death the game is currently on.
Say what you will but you dident have to "CREATE" drama back then, just lat the players play the gane. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 02:51:19 -
[1507] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Mining is a different style of game play, which is what really surprises me that a lot of people cannot grasp ... including the devs. Yet the differences really have no meaning here. We're not changing mining. What being changed is boosting. And boosting functions the same either way. You're providing a series of benefits to a group of ships, which is no different between mining or other boosts.
Balder Verdandi wrote:If you can tell me how mining boosts are equal to combat boosts and logi boosts, then let's discuss it. I have yet to see anyone present legitimate talking points on this topic, other than whining that it gives miners "no risk/all reward". Command boosts from a Nightmare are the same way; the Nightmare safes up and you never see it in combat, but it's providing combat boosts to a fleet. Where is the outrage? I haven't seen it. Then you haven't been looking, and are willfully blind regarding the scope of the very thread you're currently reading because CHANGING THAT MECHANIC IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHANGE IS ABOUT.
Balder Verdandi wrote:For the Orca .... this ship needs a lot of love for this change and I don't see it coming at all, except in the form of another ship (the Porpoise) which doesn't address the concerns the mining community is posting.
Fly an Orca on a regular basis and you'll see how much risk there is with an 800 million ISK giant flying bath tub, that needs another 500 million in fittings, has minimal offensive/defensive capabilities, and it's still a giant flying bath tub. You're confusing the word "needs" with "can be fit with." There's no need to spend 500mill on a fit. Regarding the complaints, what's being brought up is largely just wanting an exception to maintain the current state of operation in both terms of utility and safety. That's not really a reason not to do it.
Balder Verdandi wrote:Meanwhile, no one wants to discuss how to make the Orca able to defend itself if it's going to be sitting in a mining anom or belt, but we get the Porpoise instead? This doesn't make any sense at all.
The devs still haven't really addressed the "shooting" of bursts/boosts and not going suspect. Again, this doesn't make any sense because if you're going to replace one system of providing boosts with another that now provides bursts you shouldn't have to worry about losing a 1.5 billion ISK fitted Orca to a suspect timer. This flips the "no risk/all reward" to "all risk/minimal reward".
Let's have an adult discussion about this since CCP made it so we could boost from a POS, and now they want to change the way the game is played but won't fix the booster ships. The orca is a mining booster and hold. It's ok for it not to be a combat ship just like the ships it boosts aren't necessarily geared for combat.
Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 02:54:59 -
[1508] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:Ok let me get this straight. Off grid mining boosts are so disruptive to game play you have to patch the game for it , but in 5 years you cant figure out how to fix cloaky camping???
And you STILL want everyo e to believe your not Targeting the miners. CCP is extreamily dence for a bunch of suposedly "smart" people.
So when accounts start dropping again what is the next option nuki g industry all together?
I have a novel idea, how about CCP stop tring to kill mining and industry, and put the game back to ho it was when there was 35k plus logged in o. A regular basis and 50 to 60k on the weekends. Then you MIGHT swing back towards profitable instead of the slow death the game is currently on.
Say what you will but you dident have to "CREATE" drama back then, just lat the players play the gane. This posts would totally make sense if it were just related to mining boosts. Nevermind the changes to combat boosts. That's just collateral damage we're dealing with to target those pesky miners. |
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:04:41 -
[1509] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lol the problem is that you were getting to much reward for no risk. and it already takes more than 2 gankers to kill a proc
Depends on the skills and the fit. If you have the skills, and the proc is fitted for maxmining, then yes 2 skilled pilots can kill it. Tank fit, takes more. Covetor though, is a thin skin, takes 1.
Regardless though, risk/reward equation, the risk is being significantly boosted, without a corresponding boost to reward. And my earlier point stands, lets have some balance. If you must boost risk, then either increase the reward, or increase the risk for those trying to gank. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3208
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:08:37 -
[1510] - Quote
lol if the risk/reward was not balanced then you will not see added reward for added risk. right now there is too much reward for too little risk
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
464
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:12:16 -
[1511] - Quote
Not sure if this is the best place for this since its feedback about something on SiSi
I was there looking at the new boosts for tomorrow's test - and noted that all of the ammo charges for bursts have the same artwork icon - looks like iron hybrid charges iirc.
I hope that CCP is planing on making something so its a bit easier to spot these quickly either by color or some type of icon/artwork, since its likely that someone may have several different types on board now and reading is .... well.... hard....
Cheers
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3209
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:16:47 -
[1512] - Quote
you want to know what would be a great place for that regan? the test server feed back section. in fact they have a sticky thread just for it with a little "known issues" section that covers your concerns
BLOPS Hauler
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
464
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:18:57 -
[1513] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:you want to know what would be a great place for that regan? the test server feed back section. in fact they have a sticky thread just for it with a little "known issues" section that covers your concerns
Ohh perfect just went there ... thx |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 19:07:37 -
[1514] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?
See my quote of the dev blog:
Quote:Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect.
CCP hasn't addressed this since it's not updated the blog, which is one of the bigger issues/complaints that I have with the new bursts.
If you're going to be hit with a weapons timer, that means you're going to go suspect just like if you shot someone with guns, lasers, missiles, drones, webs, scrams, etc..
This is why I'm saying this "concept" hasn't been thought out, tested properly, or even remotely ready for testing on SiSi. My biggest fear is this will turn into another "User Inventory" fiasco where testers told CCP it was bad and it got pushed to TQ anyway.
Then CCP spent another 9 months fixing it.
It doesn't matter if you're a casual miner like myself, or a high speed low drag industrialist sitting behind a giant blue donut. If it's not right, it's not right.
At this point, it's clearly not right.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 19:15:47 -
[1515] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?
See my quote of the dev blog: Quote:Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect. CCP hasn't addressed this since it's not updated the blog, which is one of the bigger issues/complaints that I have with the new bursts. If you're going to be hit with a weapons timer, that means you're going to go suspect just like if you shot someone with guns, lasers, missiles, drones, webs, scrams, etc.. This is why I'm saying this "concept" hasn't been thought out, tested properly, or even remotely ready for testing on SiSi. My biggest fear is this will turn into another "User Inventory" fiasco where testers told CCP it was bad and it got pushed to TQ anyway. Then CCP spent another 9 months fixing it. It doesn't matter if you're a casual miner like myself, or a high speed low drag industrialist sitting behind a giant blue donut. If it's not right, it's not right. At this point, it's clearly not right. No, you've got weapons timer mechanic completely wrong. I get a weapons timer every time I activate a bastion module but I'm most definitely NOT suspect.
They have addressed going suspect specifically in a subsequent post with a leaning towards not doing it, but the quote from the blog in no way suggest going suspect because again, weapons timers and going suspect are NOT the same thing. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3218
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 19:24:59 -
[1516] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?
See my quote of the dev blog: Quote:Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect. CCP hasn't addressed this since it's not updated the blog, which is one of the bigger issues/complaints that I have with the new bursts. If you're going to be hit with a weapons timer, that means you're going to go suspect just like if you shot someone with guns, lasers, missiles, drones, webs, scrams, etc.. This is why I'm saying this "concept" hasn't been thought out, tested properly, or even remotely ready for testing on SiSi. My biggest fear is this will turn into another "User Inventory" fiasco where testers told CCP it was bad and it got pushed to TQ anyway. Then CCP spent another 9 months fixing it. It doesn't matter if you're a casual miner like myself, or a high speed low drag industrialist sitting behind a giant blue donut. If it's not right, it's not right. At this point, it's clearly not right.
please learn crime watch and any other game mechanic before posting about it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Mr Justice T
The Graduates The Initiative.
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 20:00:04 -
[1517] - Quote
We need: (i) timers by burst icon separate for every kind of boost, (ii) separate menu for person in fleet who will coordinate burst with: - timers for every boost, - info who is probiding boost, - info how may ppl in fleet are under the boost, - some alert that boost is ending - maybe 10 sec before its end.
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1821
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 20:01:05 -
[1518] - Quote
https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203208932-Weapon-and-Logoff-Timers
Also known as Weapons Flag, this flag becomes active when you activate any offensive module (weapons, stasis webifier etc.) upon another player.
Some non-targeted modules, such as smartbombs or Bastion Modules, will also cause a weapons flag when activated.
Regardless of the Security status of the solar system, having an active Weapons Flag will prevent you from docking in any station, jumping through stargate, ejecting from or boarding another ship while in space, and storing a ship in a corporation or fleet hangar.
This flag lasts for 60 seconds, starting from the moment you open fire, and will renew each time you take further offensive action GÇô meaning that you will have to wait a full 60 seconds after the last offensive action before being able to dock, jump etc. (even if you lose your ship). |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 05:02:42 -
[1519] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:Mining is a different style of game play, which is what really surprises me that a lot of people cannot grasp ... including the devs. Yet the differences really have no meaning here. We're not changing mining. What being changed is boosting. And boosting functions the same either way. You're providing a series of benefits to a group of ships, which is no different between mining or other boosts. What should have happened is that when the Combat Boosts were changed, Mining should not have been excluded. It has generated a sense of self-entitlement that could have been avoided.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:For the Orca .... this ship needs a lot of love for this change and I don't see it coming at all, except in the form of another ship (the Porpoise) which doesn't address the concerns the mining community is posting.
Fly an Orca on a regular basis and you'll see how much risk there is with an 800 million ISK giant flying bath tub, that needs another 500 million in fittings, has minimal offensive/defensive capabilities, and it's still a giant flying bath tub. Meanwhile, no one wants to discuss how to make the Orca able to defend itself if it's going to be sitting in a mining anom or belt, but we get the Porpoise instead? This doesn't make any sense at all. You're confusing the word "needs" with "can be fit with." There's no need to spend 500mill on a fit. Regarding the complaints, what's being brought up is largely just wanting an exception to maintain the current state of operation in both terms of utility and safety. That's not really a reason not to do it. The orca is a mining booster and hold. It's ok for it not to be a combat ship just like the ships it boosts aren't necessarily geared for combat. 500mil is hyperbole. But I would still challenge that why the rorqual getting precidence over the Orca, when the Orca is the lower tier ship? And why does a Command Ship have the slot layout of a mere frigate?! It's a PvP game so they keep telling me - so how it is not a combat ship which at a minimum should have good option for defence plus some ulitity. Plus because the range of the Orca boost is a premium, it will be become relatively easily to disrupt a mining fleet by bumping the orca away from the ice/belt. I do not think anybody would be happy if Orca pilots drop a dozen giant secure containers, which are anchored in a sphere to counter bumping. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3219
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 05:28:53 -
[1520] - Quote
You do understand PvP does not mean combat right? As for being bumped you can either gank or bump the bumper you are not helpless
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 18:27:47 -
[1521] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:500mil is hyperbole. But I would still challenge that why the rorqual getting precidence over the Orca, when the Orca is the lower tier ship? And why does a Command Ship have the slot layout of a mere frigate?! It's a PvP game so they keep telling me - so how it is not a combat ship which at a minimum should have good option for defence plus some ulitity. Plus because the range of the Orca boost is a premium, it will be become relatively easily to disrupt a mining fleet by bumping the orca away from the ice/belt. I do not think anybody would be happy if Orca pilots drop a dozen giant secure containers, which are anchored in a sphere to counter bumping. An orca really isn't a command ship in the sense of Eve's definition of the words. It's an industrial mini-freighter with a mining specific boosting function. That's a definitively non-combat role thus the non-combat focused hull (still, enough grid to fit a T2 500mn mwd and another couple of slots isn't asking too much IMHO). I agree it would be nice to get something a kin to what the skiff is to the hulk for a counterpart to the orca, and really hope that's what the porpoise turns out to be on some level.
And as already stated, yes, it's a sandbox game that inherently means everything becomes PvP the moment someone else is doing it, thus your Orca is PvP'ing whenever in use. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
29
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 19:45:43 -
[1522] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote: 500mil is hyperbole. But I would still challenge that why the rorqual getting precidence over the Orca, when the Orca is the lower tier ship? And why does a Command Ship have the slot layout of a mere frigate?! It's a PvP game so they keep telling me - so how it is not a combat ship which at a minimum should have good option for defence plus some ulitity. Plus because the range of the Orca boost is a premium, it will be become relatively easily to disrupt a mining fleet by bumping the orca away from the ice/belt. I do not think anybody would be happy if Orca pilots drop a dozen giant secure containers, which are anchored in a sphere to counter bumping.
first of all not "Command ship" but "Industrial Command ship", may seem like "mere semantics" but thats where the differences originates
as for non-combat ships having all the means of defence... Retriever, Covetor, Mackinaw, Hulk, Noctis, orca, rorqual, all freighters all jump freighters factional industrials shuttles
all of these have two common traits first of them is that they are CIVILIAN SHIPS second is that because of that thay have little to no defensive tools on their own
not sure how you, but I do see here a connection....
Tyberius Franklin wrote: An orca really isn't a command ship in the sense of Eve's definition of the words. It's an industrial mini-freighter with a mining specific boosting function. That's a definitively non-combat role thus the non-combat focused hull (still, enough grid to fit a T2 500mn mwd and another couple of slots isn't asking too much IMHO). I agree it would be nice to get something a kin to what the skiff is to the hulk for a counterpart to the orca, and really hope that's what the porpoise turns out to be on some level.
And as already stated, yes, it's a sandbox game that inherently means everything becomes PvP the moment someone else is doing it, thus your Orca is PvP'ing whenever in use.
agreed, orca is not command ship it is industrial command ship :P it is basically pricey industrial ship with bonuses for mining boosts which again falls under "industrial" gameplay which is in eve and is quite different from "combat" gameplay
like you know guys remember those posters with "possible career tracks" in EvE? someone used to make those
the very first "split" in gameplay was: 1. Industrial careers 2. Combat careers
ships used for both of these are meant for different roles and falls under totaly different paradigms
sure there are some few odd ships like procurer or some "uberskilledplayerz" who have won PvP encounters while piloting industrial ships but these are more of exception than the rules and by basics of design, if you are flying industrial type vessel and here is possibility of getting under attack of combat ships, you better get some escort ships....
[PS. as for porpoise I have two hopes for it - firstly for it being an industrial escort type akin to procurer, secodn for it to have an ability to mine on its own - something slightly below the procurer leel of yield/hour would be nice, and should not break tha balance....] |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
612
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 10:51:31 -
[1523] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:You do understand PvP does not mean combat right? As for being bumped you can either gank or bump the bumper you are not helpless
Will you ever stop trolling every post?
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.
|
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 11:16:19 -
[1524] - Quote
Good day
If you make the rorq/orca ongrid boosters and max range is 100 Km , make the belts smaler (ice belt) . Now the roids are 150 +á 200 km distributed in de belt.
And we need a BC hull industrial booster a rorq and orca are to big(slow) and expensive in comparison with the command ships.
And a rig so you can fit a extra mining Forman burst = crap, we need the rig slots for resist / cap rigs if the rorq need to be on grid .
And why would we use a +2 bil ship in a belt that can not move when boosting i dont see a comand ship stuck for 10 min on grid. And yes the panic button u be able to use on a rorq WOW make you mining fleet stuck (pilots) even more in the belt .
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3228
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 14:26:24 -
[1525] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:You do understand PvP does not mean combat right? As for being bumped you can either gank or bump the bumper you are not helpless Will you ever stop trolling every post?
but i wasn't q.q
BLOPS Hauler
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1022
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 16:12:18 -
[1526] - Quote
Was just looking for this info again and Im not sure if its been added or talked about.
The one passive boost that doesnt seem accounted for is the agility from the basic skirmish boost. Everything else seems to have an active counterpart with it. I would suggest the possibility of adding it to the Evasive Maneuvering booster bonus so that you are well "evasive." Sig radius reduction, though decent, isnt worth enough on its own.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2712
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 20:13:05 -
[1527] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:Was just looking for this info again and Im not sure if its been added or talked about.
The one passive boost that doesnt seem accounted for is the agility from the basic skirmish boost. Everything else seems to have an active counterpart with it. I would suggest the possibility of adding it to the Evasive Maneuvering booster bonus so that you are well "evasive." Sig radius reduction, though decent, isnt worth enough on its own.
Signature radius reduction is one of the most powerful bonuses in the game.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Vasili Zaitsez
Malleus Clusores Brothers of Tangra
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 15:55:19 -
[1528] - Quote
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:Penance Toralen wrote: 500mil is hyperbole. But I would still challenge that why the rorqual getting precidence over the Orca, when the Orca is the lower tier ship? And why does a Command Ship have the slot layout of a mere frigate?! It's a PvP game so they keep telling me - so how it is not a combat ship which at a minimum should have good option for defence plus some ulitity. Plus because the range of the Orca boost is a premium, it will be become relatively easily to disrupt a mining fleet by bumping the orca away from the ice/belt. I do not think anybody would be happy if Orca pilots drop a dozen giant secure containers, which are anchored in a sphere to counter bumping. first of all not "Command ship" but "Industrial Command ship", may seem like "mere semantics" but thats where the differences originates as for non-combat ships having all the means of defence... Retriever, Covetor, Mackinaw, Hulk, Noctis, orca, rorqual, all freighters all jump freighters factional industrials shuttles all of these have two common traits first of them is that they are CIVILIAN SHIPS second is that because of that thay have little to no defensive tools on their own not sure how you, but I do see here a connection.... Tyberius Franklin wrote: An orca really isn't a command ship in the sense of Eve's definition of the words. It's an industrial mini-freighter with a mining specific boosting function. That's a definitively non-combat role thus the non-combat focused hull (still, enough grid to fit a T2 500mn mwd and another couple of slots isn't asking too much IMHO). I agree it would be nice to get something a kin to what the skiff is to the hulk for a counterpart to the orca, and really hope that's what the porpoise turns out to be on some level.
And as already stated, yes, it's a sandbox game that inherently means everything becomes PvP the moment someone else is doing it, thus your Orca is PvP'ing whenever in use.
agreed, orca is not command ship it is industrial command ship :P it is basically pricey industrial ship with bonuses for mining boosts which again falls under "industrial" gameplay which is in eve and is quite different from "combat" gameplay like you know guys remember those posters with "possible career tracks" in EvE? someone used to make those the very first "split" in gameplay was: 1. Industrial careers 2. Combat careers ships used for both of these are meant for different roles and falls under totaly different paradigms sure there are some few odd ships like procurer or some "uberskilledplayerz" who have won PvP encounters while piloting industrial ships but these are more of exception than the rules and by basics of design, if you are flying industrial type vessel and here is possibility of getting under attack of combat ships, you better get some escort ships.... [PS. as for porpoise I have two hopes for it - firstly for it being an industrial escort type akin to procurer, secodn for it to have an ability to mine on its own - something slightly below the procurer leel of yield/hour would be nice, and should not break tha balance....]
Its simple folks, Rorqual is the only command ship immobilized while boosting. Industrial Core is a compression engine inappropriately tied to boosting. Propulsion is diverted to compress rock.
With 150km+ boosting range on grid, putting Rorqual on field makes sense.
PvPers, what is your reaction to immobilizing ALL command ships? BCs, Capitals, Super Capitals, all immobilized while boosting just like Rorqual?
Hey if were looking for fish in a barrel to shoot, I want in on some 100b killmails when Titans get immobilized while boosting. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
693
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 16:38:52 -
[1529] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Its simple folks, Rorqual is the only command ship immobilized while boosting. Industrial Core is a compression engine inappropriately tied to boosting. Propulsion is diverted to compress rock.
With 150km+ boosting range on grid, putting Rorqual on field makes sense.
PvPers, what is your reaction to immobilizing ALL command ships? BCs, Capitals, Super Capitals, all immobilized while boosting just like Rorqual?
Hey if were looking for fish in a barrel to shoot, I want in on some 100b killmails when Titans get immobilized while boosting. {Ridiculous example to be sure but so is immobilizing a command ship} Interesting thing to consider: old command ships couldn't warp and keep their boosts intact (from what I'm told. I haven't command boosted yet). Now, of course they could move around on-grid, but they immediately lost boost connection if they hit warp. In fact that was a tactic people used: keep combat probing the off-grid booster to keep him warping to a new safe so his fleet kept loosing boosts.
With the revamped command boosts, command ships are now on grid, but in a sense they have gained more mobility because they can boost then warp off for a minute or two.
The Rorq is being brought on-grid, but gets self-tackled if it wants to have max boosts.
Emphasis, of course, on "max".
If prior posters were correct (and I believe they were), the Rorq still gives the best mining boosts even without using the industrial core. The core just gives you even more on top of that. So you can still field the Rorq for best boosts, that get EVEN BETTER if you want to siege yourself for a few minutes.
That there is no equivalent on the combat booster side, perhaps might be a valid argument. But the thing is, the combat side does not get EVEN BETTER boosts option. Unless CCP wants to throw in a hilarious curveball and give Marauders command bonuses and tie it into bastion. Which...I can't tell if that'd be horrific or the most amazing thing ever. Probably horrific, because the corresponding nerfs to the Marauder class would make me very, very sad.
Moving on, my point is that you seem to be conflating "an option for more" with "absolutely necessary in order to work". You get the best boosts with Rorq. You get some whip cream on top for deploying the Core - that's optional.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Vasili Zaitsez
Malleus Clusores Brothers of Tangra
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 17:19:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Khan Wrenth
"If prior posters were correct (and I believe they were), the Rorq still gives the best mining boosts even without using the industrial core. The core just gives you even more on top of that. So you can still field the Rorq for best boosts, that get EVEN BETTER if you want to siege yourself for a few minutes."
Prior posters are categorically incorrect Orca boosts are better than Rorqual not deployed due to Orca 3% per hull level advantage compared to Rorqual 0% per level without Industrial Core
"That there is no equivalent on the combat booster side, perhaps might be a valid argument. But the thing is, the combat side does not get EVEN BETTER boosts option. Unless CCP wants to throw in a hilarious curveball and give Marauders command bonuses and tie it into bastion. Which...I can't tell if that'd be horrific or the most amazing thing ever. Probably horrific, because the corresponding nerfs to the Marauder class would make me very, very sad."
"Moving on, my point is that you seem to be conflating "an option for more" with "absolutely necessary in order to work". You get the best boosts with Rorq. You get some whip cream on top for deploying the Core - that's optional."
As to the "..whip cream on top..." I never really considered this. You have a good argument here.
In the end this will balance out. If Rorquals must deploy for max boost, most will likely either Not deploy or go to Orca if it remains a more capable booster than a non-deployed Rorqual. The net effect will cause a slight rise in Ore values [in some null regions] due to less availability which will self balance this problem. I doubt there will be any impact in HighSec. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 18:26:30 -
[1531] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Khan Wrenth
...
Prior posters are categorically incorrect Orca boosts are better than Rorqual not deployed due to Orca 3% per hull level advantage compared to Rorqual 0% per level without Industrial Core
...
As to the "..whip cream on top..." I never really considered this. You have a good argument here.
In the end this will balance out. If Rorquals must deploy for max boost, most will likely either Not deploy or go to Orca if it remains a more capable booster than a non-deployed Rorqual. The net effect will cause a slight rise in Ore values [in some null regions] due to less availability which will self balance this problem. I doubt there will be any impact in HighSec. Are we talking current or proposed? I ask because there is a pretty clear statement contradicting this is the blog:
Dev Blog wrote: Rorqual
Can fit three Command Burst modules
Can fit one Pulse Activated Nexus Invulnerability Core module
+5% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
+3% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Role Bonus: +50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
This is greater than the Orca's stated 3% Mining Foreman Burst Strength per level, so even without the core the Rorqual is better. If you're referring to the current state of affairs that doesn't really have any bearing on post change concerns.
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Its simple folks, Rorqual is the only command ship immobilized while boosting. Industrial Core is a compression engine inappropriately tied to boosting. Propulsion is diverted to compress rock.
With 150km+ boosting range on grid, putting Rorqual on field makes sense.
PvPers, what is your reaction to immobilizing ALL command ships? BCs, Capitals, Super Capitals, all immobilized while boosting just like Rorqual?
Hey if were looking for fish in a barrel to shoot, I want in on some 100b killmails when Titans get immobilized while boosting. {Ridiculous example to be sure but so is immobilizing a command ship} Pretty sure this is going to be a non-issue since as stated above the Rorqual will have an innate boosting bonus suggesting it's boosting function is NOT inherently tied to immobilization. The only difference will be that unlike command ships we won't even have the option of 25% - 30% boost strength increase whether mobile or not. |
Vasili Zaitsez
Malleus Clusores Brothers of Tangra
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 18:35:44 -
[1532] - Quote
Are we talking current or proposed? I ask because there is a pretty clear statement contradicting this is the blog:
Current
While the "Proposed" is: Rorqual
Can fit three Command Burst modules
Can fit one Pulse Activated Nexus Invulnerability Core module
+5% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
+3% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Role Bonus: +50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Go to SiSi, redeem your Command burst modules and try fitting them to the Rorqual. You will find the Rorqual specs unchanged, COmmand burst module range limited to 50km and you can only fit one module.
While CCP does say 'Numbers not final' we don't get to see a full test. So, the final verdict is not yet in. We will see when its all out which ship is best. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 18:38:18 -
[1533] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:Are we talking current or proposed? I ask because there is a pretty clear statement contradicting this is the blog:
Current
While the "Proposed" is: Rorqual
Can fit three Command Burst modules
Can fit one Pulse Activated Nexus Invulnerability Core module
+5% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
+3% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Role Bonus: +50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Go to SiSi, redeem your Command burst modules and try fitting them to the Rorqual. You will find the Rorqual specs unchanged, COmmand burst module range limited to 50km and you can only fit one module.
While CCP does say 'Numbers not final' we don't get to see a full test. So, the final verdict is not yet in. We will see when its all out which ship is best. Pretty sure Rorq changes haven't hit yet so I'm not sure what good that will do.
Bear in mind prior to the release we ARE supposed to see a revised Rorq and command ships.
Either way unless you have some reason to suspect what was provided in the blog was wholly wrong vs not implemented I'd say you're jumping the gun assuming no change whatsoever to the Rorq. |
Vasili Zaitsez
Malleus Clusores Brothers of Tangra
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 19:39:41 -
[1534] - Quote
"Pretty sure Rorq changes haven't hit yet so I'm not sure what good that will do.
Bear in mind prior to the release we ARE supposed to see a revised Rorq and command ships.
Either way unless you have some reason to suspect what was provided in the blog was wholly wrong vs not implemented I'd say you're jumping the gun assuming no change whatsoever to the Rorq."
I really hope your right! Just did the math on how far AoE boosts will reach out from Rorqual to the miners. It is only 46.75km with FC5 and Rorqual Role bonus of 50% this is using the stated base range of 15km.
Using the Orca, you get less effectiveness but same range
You will have to park dead on the Warp in and rely on your hulks 36km laser range to reach the outer rocks.
I personally see a way around this problem. [Not sharing with you PvP types looking in]
I suspect that when faced with these numbers [if final] some hard decisions will need to be made.
If looking at what is offered and estimating the outcome based on experience is "Jumping the gun", then I am Jumping the Gun and sharing info so we can all head into this as informed as possible. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 19:46:28 -
[1535] - Quote
Vasili Zaitsez wrote:If looking at what is offered and estimating the outcome based on experience is "Jumping the gun", then I am Jumping the Gun and sharing info so we can all head into this as informed as possible. What you're jumping the gun in specifically is the assumption above that the numbers in the blog were false. Adapting tactics to suit what was presented not so much. You can't really "estimate the outcome based on experience" of a 5%/level bonus by stating it's 0% looking at an incomplete patch on the test server then argue another class of ship should get nerfs based of something that may not even remain in it's current form. |
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 05:15:03 -
[1536] - Quote
just an idea
A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 08:08:47 -
[1537] - Quote
Now Life wrote:just an idea
A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active
so are freighters orcas and JFs i don't see your reasoning
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
304
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 12:14:30 -
[1538] - Quote
@CCP fozzie
Please change heavy water to Liquid ozone in the charges.
null sec miners will already have a massive heavy water deficit
for my self, i presently have a stock of 6m heavy water, vs 35m units of ozone. when am i going to use that much ozone??
so please either make the charges use Ozone, or re balance the ice refines for a higher concentration of heavy water
Thank you |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
305
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 18:59:34 -
[1539] - Quote
your just released devblog has just increased the damand on heavy water... please add more heavy water to nullsec, remove some ozone |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:04:22 -
[1540] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Now Life wrote:just an idea
A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active so are freighters orcas and JFs i don't see your reasoning To be fair, optimal gameplay for freighters/JFs is to minimize the time spent in space using whatever means available. I'm horribly unfamiliar with Carrier/Fighter DPS but since the Rorq is getting 2k max paper DPS it may already be covered. Also I'll be able to fit that MWD on my orca and an extra mid to fit it. Might actually undock it in the future.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:40:37 -
[1541] - Quote
best part of that blog was seeing orca finally getting an RR and drone bonus mostly the RR
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:31:56 -
[1542] - Quote
That number doesn't account for drone travel time if I'm understanding correctly, but I'm not sure how much that brings it down. The numbers do seem pretty close. Another thing to consider is a proc can have damage drones out as well as being able to mine from strips. Also I'm not certain whether the number accounts for boosts already. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:35:10 -
[1543] - Quote
its not hard to sit on rocks and the time lost going rock to rock is not significant.as for def drones its not hard to just pull them in and swap even then it doesn't give me a reason to use a ret over this thing
lowing it down to around 750-800 i think would be a safer number
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:57:24 -
[1544] - Quote
Correct me if the math is way off, but a ret with 2 MLUs and mining drones should pull ~1300 - 1400m^3/min (1080m^3/min without drones). Against a realistic 800m^3/min the only loss is the hold. That also assumes no drone rigs on the Ret and (since the word MAX was used I'm assuming) 2 T2 rigs on the Porp.
A max skilled but 0 MLU Proc should pull ~900 by the same math.
Also I reread the blog and found it stated that the boosts don't work on the drones so that's a non-factor solo as well. The only big draw here is the hold IMHO and since I personally would likely triple tank rig the number should be around 750 - 775 theoretical/650 - 700 realistic yield.
I'll likely get one to try, but I can see myself ultimately sticking with the Proc for cost/benefit. |
Fondant Fancy
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 10:13:33 -
[1545] - Quote
Darlings, what have you done?
The scale of the feedback should be sufficient to alert you to how seriously your proposed changes will impact a significant number of loyal (paying) players.
It seems that a major driving force for the changes around the warfare links is the lack of transparency regarding those ships being boosted - so why not just implement the proposed change to make such boosts visible on the ships receiving and giving them? Requiring the boosting ship to be 'on grid' is a far more contentious point and one that really does impact on the rationale of why people trained the skills, bought the ships IN GOOD FAITH and spent valuable time developing their game play.
As for Command ships, the time and expense needed to fly these at their highest skill rating is considerable but (unless I've missed the reply in the 70+ pages on this forum) they will be materially impacted by the changes rendering much of what has been spent utterly wasted (less time to get to level 5 and 3 warfare links reduced to two burst). Unless these ships are to be given additional bonuses to compensate for the loss, then recompense is a legitimate issue which has not been sufficiently addressed, if at all.
EVE is a game in which planning ahead is a critical aspect of character development but, whilst it's great that you strive to continually improve it, this particular set of proposals risks undermining our confidence that such planning has any value whatsoever. It shouldn't be a surprise that those who have made the investment are the least supportive of the changes whilst, I suspect, those most likely to gain from the changes have little to lose.
Still love you lots, hope you've 'battened down the hatches' for the onset of winter in Iceland. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3233
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 11:23:21 -
[1546] - Quote
Fondant Fancy wrote:
EVE is a game in which planning ahead is a critical aspect of character development but, whilst it's great that you strive to continually improve it, this particular set of proposals risks undermining our confidence that such planning has any value whatsoever.
this point falls flat when at least for half a decade they have been talking about as soon as its feasible they want to put boosts on grid
BLOPS Hauler
|
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 12:37:38 -
[1547] - Quote
Seen the new specifics on boosts, look really good, but have one request.
Cancel bonuses on warp and if this is not viable on acceleration gates as with jump gates.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3234
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 13:30:08 -
[1548] - Quote
I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in
BLOPS Hauler
|
Fuzzy TheBear
Know Your Neighbors Emporium WO'S HO'S
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 13:38:20 -
[1549] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
...
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.
Since you mention it .. Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec. The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners. ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. "
I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****. Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations.
When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to.
Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) . I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group .
Of course we're talking mining boosting here.
And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation.
Thanks for listening .. /me steps off the soapbox
Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^ Fuzzy
( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )
|
Galinius Valgani
Albertross Mining Corp. Off The Reservation.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 14:34:03 -
[1550] - Quote
If i get the 2 Devblogs right... I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters? |
|
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 23:25:13 -
[1551] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in
Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 05:02:22 -
[1552] - Quote
Galinius Valgani wrote:If i get the 2 Devblogs right... I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters?
Yes, if you wanted to micromanage that much you could.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3638
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 05:39:48 -
[1553] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Galinius Valgani wrote:If i get the 2 Devblogs right... I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters? Yes, if you wanted to micromanage that much you could. No they couldn't. They've forgotten the 1 minute cycle time on top of the 30 second reload. Which means you can't rotate boosts in the same module even with max skills. |
Galinius Valgani
Albertross Mining Corp. Off The Reservation.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 06:29:36 -
[1554] - Quote
Aahh thats it. Thanks for pointing that out. Unless they allow it to extend buff duration reach 25% with max Skills/implants/drugs I think I am happy to not have trained FleetCommand yet. :D |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18137
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 07:53:04 -
[1555] - Quote
Fuzzy TheBear wrote:Pandora Carrollon wrote:Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
...
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts. Since you mention it .. Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec. The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners. ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. " I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****. Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations. When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to. Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) . I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group . Of course we're talking mining boosting here. And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation. Thanks for listening .. /me steps off the soapbox Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^ Fuzzy ( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )
It's not CCP's job to protect AFK income.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
aldhura
United Miners of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 08:59:43 -
[1556] - Quote
GsyBoy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight.
"Men" currently with boosting alts sitting safely in a POS. Not sure these "Men" will be quiet as manly after the change. |
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 12:37:13 -
[1557] - Quote
aldhura wrote:GsyBoy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices
making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight. "Men" currently with boosting alts sitting safely in a POS. Not sure these "Men" will be quiet as manly after the change.
With the criminal tab, my scanning alt may be of some use after all..... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1142
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 10:18:24 -
[1558] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Fuzzy TheBear wrote:Pandora Carrollon wrote:Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
...
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts. Since you mention it .. Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec. The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners. ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. " I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****. Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations. When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to. Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) . I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group . Of course we're talking mining boosting here. And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation. Thanks for listening .. /me steps off the soapbox Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^ Fuzzy ( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; ) It's not CCP's job to protect AFK income. You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3236
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 17:36:02 -
[1559] - Quote
You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.[/quote]
who are you trying to fool there is a guy in my corp who AFK mines in HS with 10 alts
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1997
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 19:03:06 -
[1560] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all. Depending on when and where you mine bumpers can be a complete non-issue. |
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 21:28:16 -
[1561] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.
who are you trying to fool there is a guy in my corp who AFK mines in HS with 10 alts
Sorry but I'm throwing the BS flag. He's not AFK mining because:
You can only target 5 ice/ores at a time.
Once those first 5 ice/rocks are mined, how is he targeting new ice/ores?
How does he start a new cycle with a new piece of ice or ore?
If using mining crystals and one gets replaced, how is he starting a new cycle?
With boosts, I can fill a Procurer in 4 cycles on rocks and 6 cycles on ice. Where is he dumping them once he's full?
There is no way he's AFK mining unless he's using a bot, or ISK Boxer, or some tool to automate all the stuff I've noted above.
That also means you've just let the CCP devs know someone in your corp is botting. Good job!!!
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3236
|
Posted - 2016.10.08 05:01:55 -
[1562] - Quote
you kidding with all the audio queues you only need to spend a few seconds every 10 min or so looking at the screen when using a mack
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1142
|
Posted - 2016.10.08 10:40:18 -
[1563] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all. Depending on when and where you mine bumpers can be a complete non-issue. It can be, most nights I don't get bothered by bumpers but that doesn't change the fact you aren't afk mining for other reasons.
No-one who mines highsec belts could honestly say, they do it afk *and* make isk from it, the rocks just aren't big enough.
"The asteroid is depleted", is the most common audio queue. I've just had to restart all my miners in the time it took to write this post (less than 5 minutes) - There is nothing afk about it..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Nyx Viliana
Not Recruting
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 04:40:14 -
[1564] - Quote
Any word on when the rigs and skill changes will be pushed to sisi?
Regards
Nyx Viliana
HQ Instructor & Wiki Editor
The Valhalla Project
Our Website | Our Wiki
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
432
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 04:43:53 -
[1565] - Quote
When are the new skill books hitting the NPC market?
"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 =-
|
Nyx Viliana
Not Recruting
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 04:53:17 -
[1566] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:When are the new skill books hitting the NPC market?
I don't believe the skills are new, the siege ones are being renamed, its just their attributes changing.
But I am wanting to start making plans for TVP for OGB but given that CCP are well CCP we cannot really do anything to serious until we see it on SiSI
Regards
Nyx Viliana
HQ Instructor & Wiki Editor
The Valhalla Project
Our Website | Our Wiki
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
432
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 04:56:21 -
[1567] - Quote
Nyx Viliana wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:When are the new skill books hitting the NPC market? I don't believe the skills are new, the siege ones are being renamed, its just their attributes changing. But I am wanting to start making plans for TVP for OGB but given that CCP are well CCP we cannot really do anything to serious until we see it on SiSI
Ah, I thought we got a one new burst specialty skill, lets browse back.
The "Command Burst Specialist" is not new?
"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 =-
|
Nyx Viliana
Not Recruting
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 05:02:42 -
[1568] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Nyx Viliana wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:When are the new skill books hitting the NPC market? I don't believe the skills are new, the siege ones are being renamed, its just their attributes changing. But I am wanting to start making plans for TVP for OGB but given that CCP are well CCP we cannot really do anything to serious until we see it on SiSI Ah, I thought we got a one new burst specialty skill, lets browse back. The "Command Burst Specialist" is not new?
I could be wrong but I thought that was going to be warfare link spec
Regards
Nyx Viliana
HQ Instructor & Wiki Editor
The Valhalla Project
Our Website | Our Wiki
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3237
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 10:14:56 -
[1569] - Quote
No you ate correct that is the Dane skill just like how links got renamed they renamed the skill to keep it consistent
BLOPS Hauler
|
MAS0RAKSH
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
15
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 18:02:38 -
[1570] - Quote
yes, please do reduce the leadership skills required for getting into a command ship so people can just focus on the warfare they want and not every one. I'd love to just get a claymore/sleipnir, but not willing to have time sucked up by info and armor skills.
with the new bursts putting command ships right in the thick of combat, any plans to give the cyclone/claymore a 6th launcher? |
|
Rick Wyatt
Massive Dynamic inc. Care Factor
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 04:34:59 -
[1571] - Quote
I'm glad they're all excited but I haven't seen anything that makes this other than a complete failure for lack of range if nothing else. Boosts are limited to 15km with a few little bonuses that might get you to a few more km but not much. In belts the rocks are farther apart than 15km just to get from rock to rock. So everyone can sit right on top of each other and mine the same rock. On top of that if you want to mine in another belt and there is only one booster you're screwed. For small mining groups this is pretty much a death nell. Only certain ships can boost and they can only boost you if you're right up next to them basically when you look at the scheme of things. I fly 7AU or more to get to a place where I have to be within 30 or 40km of a mining ship or I get no boosts. The booster gets to hi their boost button every 60 seconds and their directional scanner every 10. Wonder when they have time to mine? I'm hoping for better but I don't see it happening. Why take all the universe and confine your motion to a comparable space of someone's pocket? Makes no sense to me but we'll see. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2422
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 04:55:36 -
[1572] - Quote
Rick Wyatt wrote:I'm glad they're all excited but I haven't seen anything that makes this other than a complete failure for lack of range if nothing else. Boosts are limited to 15km with a few little bonuses that might get you to a few more km but not much. In belts the rocks are farther apart than 15km just to get from rock to rock.
A few... little... bonuses?
-The base range is 15KM. -Leadership V supplies a 30% range bonus. -Wing Command V supplies a 25% range bonus. -Fleet command V supplies a 20% range bonus.
That's 15 * 1.3 * 1.25 * 1.2 = 29.25 KM. We're not done yet, though.
Orca and Rorqual have a 50% range bonus. 43.875KM.
Industrial core I has a 150% range bonus. T2 has a 200% bonus.
So, over 130KM at the top end.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2000
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 07:31:30 -
[1573] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all. Depending on when and where you mine bumpers can be a complete non-issue. It can be, most nights I don't get bothered by bumpers but that doesn't change the fact you aren't afk mining for other reasons. No-one who mines highsec belts could honestly say, they do it afk *and* make isk from it, the rocks just aren't big enough. "The asteroid is depleted", is the most common audio queue. I've just had to restart all my miners in the time it took to write this post (less than 5 minutes) - There is nothing afk about it.. That issue tend to differ with scale. On the low end with 1-3 miners AFK is somewhat doable. Or more maybe inattentive is the better word. Interesting that single players controlling fleets is the norm in this conversation. |
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry Kids With Guns Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 11:15:45 -
[1574] - Quote
Btw, new command ships will get separate cargo for charges? |
Ezekiel Bonaparte
Deep Space Depot Distribution
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 13:45:23 -
[1575] - Quote
Where are the mining boost BPOs? I have the other 12.... |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 14:59:07 -
[1576] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Rick Wyatt wrote:I'm glad they're all excited but I haven't seen anything that makes this other than a complete failure for lack of range if nothing else. Boosts are limited to 15km with a few little bonuses that might get you to a few more km but not much. In belts the rocks are farther apart than 15km just to get from rock to rock. A few... little... bonuses? -The base range is 15KM. -Leadership V supplies a 30% range bonus. -Wing Command V supplies a 25% range bonus. -Fleet command V supplies a 20% range bonus. That's 15 * 1.3 * 1.25 * 1.2 = 29.25 KM. We're not done yet, though. Orca and Rorqual have a 50% range bonus. 43.875KM. Industrial core I has a 150% range bonus. T2 has a 200% bonus. So, over 130KM at the top end.
I don't know where youre getting that 130km figure from I'm getting 56.25/63.75 km is max range with max skills and indy core Unless its changed I always understood that bonuses only applied to the base not the other bonuses also |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1824
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 18:03:19 -
[1577] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:I don't know where youre getting that 130km figure from
56 km RADIUS |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2435
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:32:34 -
[1578] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:
Unless its changed I always understood that bonuses only applied to the base not the other bonuses also
Every bonus from a different source (as in, different skills or modules) is applied multiplicatively.
They are not simply applied to the base.
As an example, let's look at a gun.
The base damage multiplier of a Heavy Pulse Laser II is 3.6.
With all Vs, on an unbonused ship, it has a damage mod of 5.6925. You can confirm this for yourself in the fitting tool of your choice.
Factored into this is Medium Energy Turret, providing +5% per level (25% total), Medium Pulse Spec, providing 2% per level (10%), and Surgical Strike, providing 3% per level (15%).
3.6 * 1.25 * 1.1 * 1.15 = 5.6925.
If it worked as you suggested, the value would be 3.6 + 3.6*.25 + 3.6*.1 + 3.6*.15 = 3.6 + .9 + .36 + .54 = 5.4.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
468
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:12:52 -
[1579] - Quote
Ezekiel Bonaparte wrote:Where are the mining boost BPOs? I have the other 12....
You and me both.....flying all over the place still no luck |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3240
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:22:51 -
[1580] - Quote
have you tried ORE stations?
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
468
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:40:39 -
[1581] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:have you tried ORE stations?
There are no Ore stations in high sec that I am aware of...... did CCP put them into ORE null only ? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2439
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:46:18 -
[1582] - Quote
Edit: Nvm, didn't read it all. Hmm. Haven't looked for mining yet...
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3240
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:53:17 -
[1583] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:have you tried ORE stations? There are no Ore stations in high sec that I am aware of...... did CCP put them into ORE null only ?
could be
BLOPS Hauler
|
Nyx Viliana
Not Recruting
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 20:51:17 -
[1584] - Quote
So the rigs I want are now an item on sisi, but they are not purchasable, nor do they have listed attributes.
Thanks CCP.
Can you at least tell me the attributes between t1 and t2
Regards
Nyx Viliana
HQ Instructor & Wiki Editor
The Valhalla Project
Our Website | Our Wiki
|
Small Grey
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation Moist.
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 20:06:33 -
[1585] - Quote
I can't find the mining burst BPOs either. I found the other 12 easy enough. They're available via PC sales but not NPC. But they must be somewhere :-(
Small |
El 1974
Green Visstick High
153
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 18:35:27 -
[1586] - Quote
As I'm typing this I'm in a fleet somewhere in hisec with a guy I never met before. I invited him into fleet so we would both have a small bonus. In future there is no point for us to fleet up. I'm not going to fly a fleet boosting ship so I can boost a guy I don't know. Let me keep my small bonus pretty pls. And I'll continue to try to answer all the questions the random guys have I invite into my fleets. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3667
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 19:36:15 -
[1587] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:As I'm typing this I'm in a fleet somewhere in hisec with a guy I never met before. I invited him into fleet so we would both have a small bonus. In future there is no point for us to fleet up. I'm not going to fly a fleet boosting ship so I can boost a guy I don't know. Let me keep my small bonus pretty pls. And I'll continue to try to answer all the questions the random guys have I invite into my fleets. Why not fly a boost ship? They mine pretty well on their own anyway, so if you want to share boosts with random people you aren't sacrificing much personal yield and you can stay in the belt longer due to larger ore holds on the boost ships. |
Strykr X
X-COM Navy Fidelas Constans
21
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 19:49:45 -
[1588] - Quote
"Make On-Grid Great Again"
Oh, you cheeky bastards... |
Sean Crees
Sean's Safe Haven
36
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 21:56:01 -
[1589] - Quote
Are you planning on changing the skill requirements for the slot 10 T2 and faction boosting implants? Currently they all require level 5 in the spec skill that they affect. Since you're lowering the skill requirement to use T2 boosting modules, are you also looking into lowering the skill requirement for the slot 10 implants as well?
Currently, and even under the new system, there will be a huge boosting power difference between spec 4 and spec 5 because spec 5 unlocks these implants. I thought higher levels in skills were supposed to give diminishing returns so vets didn't have such an advantage over newer players? Doesn't this go counter to that mindset? |
Roza Noman
Row Row Fight the Power Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 06:26:19 -
[1590] - Quote
My only concern is that reloading and then turning boosts on again is a really tedious addition to the new system. My only thoughts as to why this might have been added was since to make sure the person is not afk but since he is already ongrid he needs to be active since things might come to kill him or he needs to broadcast for shields or armor. If the ammo has to stay (imo does not have much purpose except being tedious) can we not choose how long we want boosts to cycle for instance instead of the 60sec cycle and 135sec boosts can we let it cycle 130sec instead to conserve ammo? Or make a enduring version of the script that lasts 60sec but allows the burst to hold 50 charges (ends with doing the same thing) I already do ongrid boosts currently and all I now need to do is turn it on when I warp somewhere but now I need to factor in when it will run out to reactivate it. Could it also not have been a script to pick which boost you want?
|
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1825
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 08:00:57 -
[1591] - Quote
I suggest to read the dev-blog...
Quote:...we are planning for very large ammo capacities on the Burst modules themselves, so boosting characters will not need to reload often unless they are changing boost types...
For mining boosts:
Quote:The burst charges themselves are planned to have a volume of 0.01 m3, and the modules themselves will have a capacity of 3 m3. This means that if you don't want to change ammo types you can boost for 5 hours continuously without reloading. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
1534
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 08:47:53 -
[1592] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture? You don't know much about highsec mining..
Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.
who are you trying to fool there is a guy in my corp who AFK mines in HS with 10 alts Sorry but I'm throwing the BS flag. He's not AFK mining because: You can only target 5 ice/ores at a time. Once those first 5 ice/rocks are mined, how is he targeting new ice/ores? How does he start a new cycle with a new piece of ice or ore? If using mining crystals and one gets replaced, how is he starting a new cycle? With boosts, I can fill a Procurer in 4 cycles on rocks and 6 cycles on ice. Where is he dumping them once he's full? There is no way he's AFK mining unless he's using a bot, or ISK Boxer, or some tool to automate all the stuff I've noted above. That also means you've just let the CCP devs know someone in your corp is botting. Good job!!!
Please, tell us all about how ISboxer is an automation tool. *gets popcorn*
|
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
299
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 12:34:34 -
[1593] - Quote
It depends on the definition of AFK mining. If it means mining non stop for 23:30 hours while being AFK, then yeah it is likely a bot.
But if you 'AFK' for set periods of time intervals and come back to click every now and then, sure you can 'kind of' AFK mine for long time while doing other things, requiring only a few inputs here and there.
But it will never be as efficient as actively micro managing the whole fleet while paying attention, but that's efficiency only in terms of ore volume mined, efficiency in terms of 'effort' is a different matter.
"When faced with my demons, I clothe them and feed them,
and I smile, yes I smile as they are taking me over" - Strange Glue
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 15:52:56 -
[1594] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:
Please, tell us all about how ISboxer is an automation tool. *gets popcorn*
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=387571
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
434
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 22:12:20 -
[1595] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
How about temporary Ore hold optimization for all affected parties? So, a bigger ore hold on your miners?
"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 =-
|
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
150
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 23:09:43 -
[1596] - Quote
So overall boost got a little nerf it seems. Since the warfare specialist skill doesn't give bonuses to boost amount anymore you end up with subpar boosts compared to what we had with warfare links. Just great! |
DiDDleR
Skunkdogz Corporation
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 10:51:07 -
[1597] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up. How about temporary Ore hold optimization for all affected parties? So, a bigger ore hold on your miners?
How about an invulnerability burst for a short period of time - say 30 seconds? This could be used to combat high-sec gankers.
|
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 21:48:07 -
[1598] - Quote
MAS0RAKSH wrote:yes, please do reduce the leadership skills required for getting into a command ship so people can just focus on the warfare they want and not every one. I'd love to just get a claymore/sleipnir, but not willing to have time sucked up by info and armor skills.
with the new bursts putting command ships right in the thick of combat, any plans to give the cyclone/claymore a 6th launcher?
Yeah, I was hoping CCP fixed this. Unfortunately on Sisi the Command skill still requires Armored Command V, Information Command V, Skirmish Command V and Shield Command V |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 21:50:46 -
[1599] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
How about a specialized AoE invulnerability to webs and scrams for 20 seconds.
Can only be mounted to Orca and Rorqual.
Limit ability to mining barges, exhumers, the Orca and Rorqual.
Require it to use 2500 m3 of Oxygen Isotopes since all mining vessels when blown up show as Gallente wrecks.
No training to reduce the amount of Oxy-topes, so it's always 2500 m3.
Can either pull Oxy-topes direct from cargohold, or have the module load 2500 m3 of Oxy-topes.
Will not activate when there is less than 2500 m3 of Oxy-topes available.
Will activate only if 2500 m3 of Oxy-topes are in one stack. Cannot have Oxy-topes spread across cargohold, fleet hangar, or the module itself.
Cannot be used more than once every 30 minutes.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3258
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 23:05:25 -
[1600] - Quote
so you want a get out of jail free card?
just make a link that supercharges ship mass making them harder to bump. basically make a stronger link version of the higgs rig
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
298
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 03:39:06 -
[1601] - Quote
Orca running boosts = no MWD. That means two cycles for the 500mn AB.
If you knew how to fly the Orca, you'd know this won't help much but puts it into the same category of "Mining Preservation".
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
88
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 05:19:35 -
[1602] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just to let everyone know, we currently plan on releasing the blueprints for the command burst charges in our October release so people can start building them in prep for the changeover in November. Am I correct to assume that existing warfare links will be automagically converted into the corresponding burst modules on patch day, and that the existing midslot command processor modules will be converted into the corresponding rigs? |
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
4
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 07:12:03 -
[1603] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Just to let everyone know, we currently plan on releasing the blueprints for the command burst charges in our October release so people can start building them in prep for the changeover in November. Am I correct to assume that existing warfare links will be automagically converted into the corresponding burst modules on patch day, My Orca on Sisi magically got Burst modules, so I would assume YES
Skyler Hawk wrote: and that the existing midslot command processor modules will be converted into the corresponding rigs?
Might work for unfitted command processor modules. For fitted ones you end up with ships having too many rigs.
|
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 14:54:50 -
[1604] - Quote
Big Thumbs down on CCP wonder why your getting RL issues. You stopped listen way back there and now we are all suffering from stupidity. I'm really trying to get over the fact your ideas are messing with with everyone's game-play but when you numbers fall and there nothing in markets like what has happened already you'll find members moving onto other titles. I hope you see this and wake up from you commas sometime soon and realize we pay for your salary in time you lose time you lose salary so get you heads out of the clouds. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 23:01:10 -
[1605] - Quote
what are you talking about? this change is what players have been asking for for years
BLOPS Hauler
|
Disembodied Head
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 23:11:42 -
[1606] - Quote
Tried looking for the answer to the following question, sorry if it's already been hashed out:
What is happening with all the fleet/wing leadership skills? If they are no longer needed are we getting the SP back? Or is CCP just keeping those up to keep the massive time gate on boosting artificially high? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 23:45:43 -
[1607] - Quote
they are still needed to increase range no SP refund
BLOPS Hauler
|
Cruciflex
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 00:11:55 -
[1608] - Quote
"Dear" CCP, why you guys always changing the good working game mechanics for the majority of players into a bad one, and trying to ruin their gameplay just because you decided that it's gonna be better for us? Why don't you let us vote for each stupid updated gamechanics or changes, I swear, the voting results would surprise you...We are paying for these game! Do what we really need instead making a visibility of work... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 00:35:58 -
[1609] - Quote
again this is a change most of us have been asking for for the better part of a decade
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1167
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 01:51:34 -
[1610] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they are still needed to increase range no SP refund Seriously, I would much prefer to have the SP refunded - Spending months training those skills for such a pitiful bonus, Screw Devs and their idea of "balance".
Off grid links needed to be fixed - This is not so much "fixing" the problem - As it is nerfing small gang, small group game play..
Why design mechanics that would involve strategies and tactics - When you can just throw together something that ensures the largest groups benefit from it the most.
These changes unfortunately fit what passes for PVP in Eve perfectly.
No need for structure and the skills to assist a fleet, just get in fleet, wings and squads no longer matter - So, the skills trained for those specific reasons should be refunded. If you want to keep the skills, you just put the SP back, if not you can use that SP for something useful.
ALL leadership skills should be refunded - I didn't train up leadership skill to run massive fleets (don't have the skills for that - don't want them) I trained up what I did for the passive boosts, for small gang stuff. I'm losing those so - My current leadership skills aren't worth spit. The implants I have aren't worth anything to me any more.
For my play style, Devs are taking a lot and giving nothing in return.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 02:24:04 -
[1611] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Off grid links needed to be fixed - This is not so much "fixing" the problem - As it is nerfing small gang, small group game play..
Why design mechanics that would involve strategies and tactics - When you can just throw together something that ensures the largest groups benefit from it the most.
this is a huge boon to small group/solo play. no longer will a boosting alt be required not to mention ppl who actually wanted to play this role can... you know, play
BLOPS Hauler
|
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
89
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 06:13:23 -
[1612] - Quote
Disembodied Head wrote:Tried looking for the answer to the following question, sorry if it's already been hashed out:
What is happening with all the fleet/wing leadership skills? If they are no longer needed are we getting the SP back? Or is CCP just keeping those up to keep the massive time gate on boosting artificially high? After the patch, they will increase the size of the boost AoE; Leadership will increase the range of the effect by 6%/level, Wing Command by 5%/level, and Fleet Command by 4%/level. |
Cruciflex
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 08:29:31 -
[1613] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they are still needed to increase range no SP refund Seriously, I would much prefer to have the SP refunded - Spending months training those skills for such a pitiful bonus, Screw Devs and their idea of "balance". Off grid links needed to be fixed - This is not so much "fixing" the problem - As it is nerfing small gang, small group game play.. Why design mechanics that would involve strategies and tactics - When you can just throw together something that ensures the largest groups benefit from it the most. These changes unfortunately fit what passes for PVP in Eve perfectly. No need for structure and the skills to assist a fleet, just get in fleet, wings and squads no longer matter - So, the skills trained for those specific reasons should be refunded. If you want to keep the skills, you just put the SP back, if not you can use that SP for something useful. ALL leadership skills should be refunded - I didn't train up leadership skill to run massive fleets (don't have the skills for that - don't want them) I trained up what I did for the passive boosts, for small gang stuff. I'm losing those so - My current leadership skills aren't worth spit. The implants I have aren't worth anything to me any more. For my play style, Devs are taking a lot and giving nothing in return.
100% Right!!!! This my opinion as well!!! just because my English is not so good I couldn't express myself like that.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1170
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 11:20:33 -
[1614] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Off grid links needed to be fixed - This is not so much "fixing" the problem - As it is nerfing small gang, small group game play..
Why design mechanics that would involve strategies and tactics - When you can just throw together something that ensures the largest groups benefit from it the most.
this is a huge boon to small group/solo play. no longer will a boosting alt be required not to mention ppl who actually wanted to play this role can... you know, play Seriously? Seems you have little to no understanding of why small gangs use links.
This - "no longer will a boosting alt be required" - has got to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen you post.
Small gangs use and rely on links because 99.9% of the time they are outnumbered - Removing their ability to use links, is the same as saying, Don't bother undocking for that roam, your only going to die because you don't have enough, DPS, Logi and Links to compete.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1170
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 11:36:51 -
[1615] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:Disembodied Head wrote:Tried looking for the answer to the following question, sorry if it's already been hashed out:
What is happening with all the fleet/wing leadership skills? If they are no longer needed are we getting the SP back? Or is CCP just keeping those up to keep the massive time gate on boosting artificially high? After the patch, they will increase the size of the boost AoE; Leadership will increase the range of the effect by 6%/level, Wing Command by 5%/level, and Fleet Command by 4%/level. Judging by that poor excuse of a response - You don't fly much in fleets do you.
I can see Devs not understanding fleet mechanics but Your alliance is quite well known for its fleet work (AT included). Yet your response shows no understanding of fleet mechanics and how they are used on a grid during a fight.
I suppose every group has to have one, your Tuskers.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3264
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 13:44:49 -
[1616] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Off grid links needed to be fixed - This is not so much "fixing" the problem - As it is nerfing small gang, small group game play..
Why design mechanics that would involve strategies and tactics - When you can just throw together something that ensures the largest groups benefit from it the most.
this is a huge boon to small group/solo play. no longer will a boosting alt be required not to mention ppl who actually wanted to play this role can... you know, play Seriously? Seems you have little to no understanding of why small gangs use links. This - "no longer will a boosting alt be required" - has got to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen you post. Small gangs use and rely on links because 99.9% of the time they are outnumbered - Removing their ability to use links, is the same as saying, Don't bother undocking for that roam, your only going to die because you don't have enough, DPS, Logi and Links to compete.
They use links because 99.9% of the time so does the other guy
BLOPS Hauler
|
balboria
ExoGen Foundation
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 09:02:24 -
[1617] - Quote
I have a quick question.
Based on the numbers ran with the new boost system by myself and members in our corp on the test server it seems like the mining yield for miners will be decreasing, have we missed something?
If this is the case what is the market rationale for this because this is effectively employing artificial inflation?
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 12:44:14 -
[1618] - Quote
The 15 % effect of your slot 10 implant will be lost. With all the moduls (T2), ship boni and implants, your boost will be the same compared with the boost at the moment, without the 15 % of the mining forman implant. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
298
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 14:42:58 -
[1619] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:The 15 % effect of your slot 10 implant will be lost. With all the moduls (T2), ship boni and implants, your boost will be the same compared with the boost at the moment, without the 15 % of the mining forman implant.
Gotta love a 15% loss.
I said many pages back that the math was wrong, but that's none of my business.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
GsyBoy
Flames of the Phoenix
22
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 23:36:22 -
[1620] - Quote
PvP combat - Still not enough feedback to opposition even though CCP clearly identified as requirement in brief, need tag similar to local criminal ident or drop bonuses if warp greater than d-scan so can see boosting ship. |
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2527
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 23:50:51 -
[1621] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:Disembodied Head wrote:Tried looking for the answer to the following question, sorry if it's already been hashed out:
What is happening with all the fleet/wing leadership skills? If they are no longer needed are we getting the SP back? Or is CCP just keeping those up to keep the massive time gate on boosting artificially high? After the patch, they will increase the size of the boost AoE; Leadership will increase the range of the effect by 6%/level, Wing Command by 5%/level, and Fleet Command by 4%/level. Judging by that poor excuse of a response - You don't fly much in fleets do you. I can see Devs not understanding fleet mechanics but Your alliance is quite well known for its fleet work (AT included). Yet your response shows no understanding of fleet mechanics and how they are used on a grid during a fight. I suppose every group has to have one, your Tuskers.
The question was "What is happening with the fleet/wing leadership skills?"
He accurately and completely stated what was happening with the leadership skills.
How does any of that have anything to do with flying in fleets?
It's like you're just arbitrarily raving at this point.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2560
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 03:17:37 -
[1622] - Quote
Just out of curiosity...
CCP, are the T2 command bursts on Sisi still supposed to only be as effective as the T1 command bursts? Are they supposed to be identifying themselves as 'Tech Level: 1'?
Just kinda wondering, since these are gonna be going live in 2 weeks. |
MAS0RAKSH
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
15
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 05:40:50 -
[1623] - Quote
any word if the command ships required training will change from requiring all the warfare skills to requiring only the bursts the ship specializes in?
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1180
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 11:10:41 -
[1624] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Off grid links needed to be fixed - This is not so much "fixing" the problem - As it is nerfing small gang, small group game play..
Why design mechanics that would involve strategies and tactics - When you can just throw together something that ensures the largest groups benefit from it the most.
this is a huge boon to small group/solo play. no longer will a boosting alt be required not to mention ppl who actually wanted to play this role can... you know, play Seriously? Seems you have little to no understanding of why small gangs use links. This - "no longer will a boosting alt be required" - has got to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen you post. Small gangs use and rely on links because 99.9% of the time they are outnumbered - Removing their ability to use links, is the same as saying, Don't bother undocking for that roam, your only going to die because you don't have enough, DPS, Logi and Links to compete. They use links because 99.9% of the time so does the other guy True but then you have the quite common scenarios where your 10 man gang bumps into a larger gang, can fight can hold their own even when both sides have a booster. BUT come November, which of those two groups do you think will have boosts and therefore a huge advantage over their opposition.
Example of small gang, with boosts; A 10 man gang with boosts - has at most 7 dps, 2 logi, 1 booster. The larger gang, say a 15 man gang, 10 dps, 3 logi, 1 hard tackle, 1 booster. Won't make for very balanced small gang fighting, either side lose their booster, they lose the fight.
Realistically, Devs are making it so ONE ship in a small gang or fleet, will dictate who wins.
Then you have the situation where - Your small gang takes out small ships, what options do they have for "adequate" boosts. Command Destroyers just aren't designed to be on grid boosters, they are completely disposable, so it is T3's or nothing. T3's aren't a realistic choice due to low or no DPS and very limited tank having to use rig slots to fit links.
IMO, Devs have done a half reasonable job on boosting but failed to do a complete job by not introducing lines of ships designed for purpose. Command ships aren't an option for fleets using anything smaller than BC's or BS's (they are just too slow, in every way), T3's are just too limited with just a single link and T3D's, simply aren't designed to be boosters (as well as suffering the same drawback as T3's in fitting links)
Dev's have deliberately half done this job by not providing what is needed ships wise for the new boosting system. I know things can change, someone at CCP might see the error here (removing the small gang/fleet meta) but how long will it take to recognize it And how much longer to fix it. CCP isn't known for their speed in fixing problems in meta's (just look at the Svipul)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1180
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 11:31:06 -
[1625] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:Disembodied Head wrote:Tried looking for the answer to the following question, sorry if it's already been hashed out:
What is happening with all the fleet/wing leadership skills? If they are no longer needed are we getting the SP back? Or is CCP just keeping those up to keep the massive time gate on boosting artificially high? After the patch, they will increase the size of the boost AoE; Leadership will increase the range of the effect by 6%/level, Wing Command by 5%/level, and Fleet Command by 4%/level. Judging by that poor excuse of a response - You don't fly much in fleets do you. I can see Devs not understanding fleet mechanics but Your alliance is quite well known for its fleet work (AT included). Yet your response shows no understanding of fleet mechanics and how they are used on a grid during a fight. I suppose every group has to have one, your Tuskers. The question was "What is happening with the fleet/wing leadership skills?" He accurately and completely stated what was happening with the leadership skills. How does any of that have anything to do with flying in fleets? It's like you're just arbitrarily raving at this point. Anyone can quote the nonsense reasons Devs have given for the skills, that does not mean it is right. I'm not entirely sure that his response addressed the question at all. One question that has appeared over and over in this thread - What is happening to these skills - Others too see them as now redundant and want to know what Devs have in mind for those who never trained leadership skills to run links... On a personal note, I'd also like all the isk I've spent on implants reimbursed as they too are no longer relevant to my play style.
If you too had any understanding of fleet meta's, you would understand what i was trying to say. The skills involved aren't really worth having. With the new boosting mechanics, long range boosts become irrelevant. Why would a large fleet with numerous boosters spread out in it need long range boosts? Anyone with a boosting ship can run boosts (the larger the fleet, the more links you can have active). Now even if you fleet is spread out (good way to die fast), you just ensure you have one (or more) booster with each group.. No need for A boosting ship to have long range boosts, 20 or 30K is more than enough.
On that basis I believe CCP should reimburse the skills and leave it to individuals as to how they use the SP (put them back into leadership, or not). The skills have been made redundant.
I am curious to know how fleet, wing and squad warps will work - The skills for those have been reallocated.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2533
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 15:47:04 -
[1626] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I am curious to know how fleet, wing and squad warps will work - The skills for those have been reallocated. (a nice stealth nerf to fleet movement)
Can't imagine why it would work any differently than it does now. They didn't say the concept of a fleet hierarchy was being removed, just the relationship between the hierarchy and boosts.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tristiana Egivand
Kapsle i Profity
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 20:27:48 -
[1627] - Quote
What will happen to the existing warfare links and blueprints? Will you remove them or convert to the corresponding command bursts? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1181
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 05:15:11 -
[1628] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
I am curious to know how fleet, wing and squad warps will work - The skills for those have been reallocated. (a nice stealth nerf to fleet movement)
Can't imagine why it would work any differently than it does now. They didn't say the concept of a fleet hierarchy was being removed, just the relationship between the hierarchy and boosts. The skills no longer correspond with fleet leadership and control as they were originally intended and trained for.
So if your right, then every fleet will need to have more members with max leadership skills, or risk losing control by having boosters in command positions as well as mixed into the fleet.. All seems a little redundant and not very well thought out to me..
Fleets can now have unlimited boosters active at any time yet control of the fleet relies on those boosters being in command positions - What a nice boon for large groups and a kick in the pants for smaller groups.
The idea behind this change was to remove the need for boosters to be in command positions to deliver boosts - But it doesn't.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2541
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 06:43:51 -
[1629] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
I am curious to know how fleet, wing and squad warps will work - The skills for those have been reallocated. (a nice stealth nerf to fleet movement)
Can't imagine why it would work any differently than it does now. They didn't say the concept of a fleet hierarchy was being removed, just the relationship between the hierarchy and boosts. The skills no longer correspond with fleet leadership and control as they were originally intended and trained for.
So what? Obviously what's going to happen is that the old max-skill fleet hierarchy will just become "stock".
Quote:So if your right, then every fleet will need to have more members with max leadership skills, or risk losing control by having boosters in command positions as well as mixed into the fleet.. All seems a little redundant and not very well thought out to me..
Huh? We just went over this. The only thing leadership skills will do is extend the range of boosts. That's it. There's no need to put them in a command position. There's no need for anyone who isn't actually running command bursts to have leadership skills at all.
The hierarchy is remaining. You won't need skills to fill out the hierarchy. Receiving boosts will not be contingent on the hierarchy. This is all really simple.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14547
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 10:00:42 -
[1630] - Quote
Tristiana Egivand wrote:What will happen to the existing warfare links and blueprints? Will you remove them or convert to the corresponding command bursts?
The existing links and their blueprints will indeed be converted into the corresponding command bursts.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14548
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 10:12:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.
So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.
We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
435
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 10:17:10 -
[1632] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.
So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.
We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield.
Any news on the bonus for mining equipment, in the thread some people made suggestions.
"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 =-
|
Galinius Valgani
Albertross Mining Corp. Off The Reservation.
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 10:52:31 -
[1633] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:good stuff...
Any ETA when the last devblog for Command Ships will appear. New Skill requirements already on SiSi would be great to see your whole plan for Combat Boosting.
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
24
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 10:56:09 -
[1634] - Quote
hello Fozzie
At the moment the burst module has a fixed cycle of 60sec. But the duration of the burst can be easily over 120sec. I potentially see this a source of frustration. Either it is automatic and wasteful of munitions or requires continuous manual cycling. Any thoughts about this? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14549
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 11:12:52 -
[1635] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:hello Fozzie
At the moment the burst module has a fixed cycle of 60sec. But the duration of the burst can be easily over 120sec. I potentially see this a source of frustration. Either it is automatic and wasteful of munitions or requires continuous manual cycling. Any thoughts about this?
The effect duration being longer than the module duration is intended, as it allows consistent boosts with some wiggle room. This is helpful both for the players being boosted (not having their stats bounce around too much) and for server load (it's more efficient to refresh an existing buff than to apply a new one).
The munitions are so cheap and small that we expect the optimal course to be simply keeping auto-repeat on and not bothering to micromanage, but for people who really want to the option of micromanaging it is available.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
JTK Fotheringham
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
129
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 11:16:54 -
[1636] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:hello Fozzie
At the moment the burst module has a fixed cycle of 60sec. But the duration of the burst can be easily over 120sec. I potentially see this a source of frustration. Either it is automatic and wasteful of munitions or requires continuous manual cycling. Any thoughts about this?
+1 to this.
I hadn't noticed the disconnect between Burst effect duration and burst cycle time until testing links on the new Orca.
As there's a consumption item involved, I think a corresponding cycle time bonus is merited - so that cycle time and burst duration match.
/JTK |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 11:30:05 -
[1637] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Huh? We just went over this. The only thing leadership skills will do is extend the range of boosts. That's it. There's no need to put them in a command position. There's no need for anyone who isn't actually running command bursts to have leadership skills at all (which is not the case right now).
The hierarchy is remaining. You won't need skills to fill out the hierarchy, as those skills have been repurposed. Receiving boosts will not be contingent on the hierarchy. This is all really simple.
Well said.
Just to reiterate/restate/hopefully get through to people who aren't understanding it... from what I've seen/read:
Basically, the fleet structure will only have two purposes:
A) allowing FC/WC/SC to do fleet/wing/squad warps...
B) plain ol' organisation.
Interesting that he referred to the leadership/WC/FC skills as being needed for doing squad/wing/fleet warps... when all they were ever used for before was passing down boosts from one booster to one part of the fleet. That is the part that is going away, hence the skills only be used for booster range... this is apparently blowing (some) people's minds.
But yes, it would be nice if they'd just do a SP refund (at least on WC/FC... leadership is not such a big deal) for all the people who never intend to fit a command burst module in their EVE lives going forward (though you never know, once they see how fun on-grid boosting can be, perhaps they'll change their minds. ;D) |
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 12:00:50 -
[1638] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:hello Fozzie
At the moment the burst module has a fixed cycle of 60sec. But the duration of the burst can be easily over 120sec. I potentially see this a source of frustration. Either it is automatic and wasteful of munitions or requires continuous manual cycling. Any thoughts about this? +1 to this. I hadn't noticed the disconnect between Burst effect duration and burst cycle time until testing links on the new Orca. As there's a consumption item involved, I think a corresponding cycle time bonus is merited - so that cycle time and burst duration match. It just seems a bit of a perception disconnect - I mean, my blaster ROF might increase, so my DPS will increase, but so will my ammo consumption. Why can't Fleet boost bursts work the same way? /JTK
I don't see what there is to complain about, it's better this way. The burst ammo is so cheap it doesn't even matter. It's highly useful to have a burst duration that lasts for 2 minutes whilst being able to reapply the burst every 30 seconds (with specialist level 5).
|
Jasper Sinclair
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
44
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 12:48:27 -
[1639] - Quote
I neglected to look during yesterday's mass test - does the tool tip for the burst module show the effect duration as opposed to/in addition to the module cycle time? I believe the current effects applied to ownship icon that appears over the capacitor does say the duration of the applied effect, but that could be from someone else. I want to know the duration of MY burst, even if it is not the most powerful burst of its type currently active.
It would still be nice if the range of the burst were depicted as a sphere instead of a circle.
Referring back to a post I made here a while back, please consider updating the fleet window with new, useful capabilities now that the passive boosts hierarchy is obsolete. Some ideas I had include:
- allow FC to designate fleet members that are allowed to broadcast targets - allow FC to turn on/off the ability of Wing/Squad commanders to warp their unit - allow the ability to designate "secondary" unit commanders that will automatically be promoted if their unit commander leaves fleet - increase the size of the field that names the wings/squads - allow the ability to set entire wings/squads to accept/not accept fleet warps
Oh, and you can delete the "regroup" command. It's evil.
Former Blue CEO, admirer of Caracals (and Tristans)
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
171
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 13:02:54 -
[1640] - Quote
The T2 module gives a nice bonus compared to the T1, but it doesn't affect duration. I think the max duration on the T2 module should be increased to 3 minutes. |
|
Demolishar
United Aggression
1171
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 13:10:41 -
[1641] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield.
At least give the titans the same bonus as a supercarrier. They already have to give up either a gun, a DD, or an effect generator to be able to fit a burst module. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate
2094
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 13:22:40 -
[1642] - Quote
I just read through this as I'm now interested in command ships and not sure if this was mentioned earlier: Shouldn't the dedicated command ships have the same role bonus as the force auxiliary, and carriers etc have the 100% bonus listed for Command ships? It would make more sense that the dedicated command vessels have a better bonus than combat vessels. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 13:30:59 -
[1643] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I just read through this as I'm now interested in command ships and not sure if this was mentioned earlier: Shouldn't the dedicated command ships have the same role bonus as the force auxiliary, and carriers etc have the 100% bonus listed for Command ships? It would make more sense that the dedicated command vessels have a better bonus than combat vessels.
The range is bigger, yes, but the effect STRENGTH is smaller compared to CS.
Command Ship Can fit two Command Burst modules +3% bonus to two racial types of Command Burst Effect Strength and Duration per skill level Role Bonus: +100% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Carrier, Supercarrier and Force Auxiliary Can fit two Command Burst modules +1% bonus to two racial types of Command Burst Effect Strength and Duration per skill level Role Bonus: +200% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range |
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
89
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 13:34:39 -
[1644] - Quote
Gotta say, the change to the Evasive Maneuvers link seems very heavy-handed. All of the other boosts have remained close to their current strengths - for example, the current Shield Harmonizing/Passive Defence links increase resists by 25.9% if fielded on a max-skilled CS with the correct mindlink in, whereas the new Shield Harmonizing/Armor Energizing links increase resists by 21.6%. However, the Evasive Maneuvers link is going from -34.5% sig on a max-skilled CS (plus a 15% improvement to agility from the mindlink) to -16.7% (plus a 16.7% boost to agility). Sig reduction is certainly a powerful effect, but not necessarily more powerful than increasing resists or reducing rep cycle times, and certainly (IMO) not so much more powerful as to justify being whacked so much harder than the other tanking links. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 14:21:38 -
[1645] - Quote
Signature radius bonus is less than before, I agree with you.
But you had a passive bonus of 15 % to shield or armor (slot 10 imp)
or a combined bonus of armor / shield with agility / targeting range Navy Mindlinks...
Now you will receive less resistance but more shield / armor HP (15 % vs. +21.56%)
|
Zetakya
Echelon Research Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 14:51:51 -
[1646] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.
So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.
Can you add to Evasive Maneuvers as a compensating factor an effect that increases a ships Warp Speed to 3 AU/s if it is normally less than that? |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
1541
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 14:56:15 -
[1647] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.
So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.
We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield. Any news on the bonus for mining equipment, in the thread some people made suggestions.
People made suggestions, but the mining foreman boosts seem REALLY well balanced already as is. I'd take the lack of CCP making revisions to them to mean that they understand that the mining foreman bursts are in a good place despite the odd complaint. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2546
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 15:41:45 -
[1648] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
That's cool, I guess. My main problem with that whole setup, though, is just the sheer volume of range-increasing skills. First of all, it's just boring. 3 consecutive skills that do the same exact thing, in the same exact way, with the only difference being the magnitude. There aren't many places this exist in the game without at least some small qualitative differentiation between them. Gunnery/Rapid firing and MLO/Rapid launch are all that come to mind. Other skills tend to differentiate on the breadth of their application.
The damage skills, for instance:
Surgical strike - damage bonus to all turrets. Medium Energy Turret - Applies only to medium sized lasers Medium pulse spec - Applies only to T2, medium-sized pulse lasers.
There is also an inherent diminishing level of value on further range increases, as most fleets are just never going to be -that- spread out. Another 12.5% maximum range is not necessarily another 12.5% of range-related "value". Sure, the skill makes a number bigger, but since the realized effect of that number is boolean (Close enough to receive bonus? True/false), and the previous ceiling was already "big enough" that in most cases, it's hard to care overly much about the increase. Mining fleets seem like the largest beneficiary, here.
Is there not something more interesting you could do with at least one of those skills? Maybe consolidate the range bonus down to using just two of them and do something else - anything else - with the third?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
145
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 16:04:54 -
[1649] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
That's cool, I guess. My main problem with that whole setup, though, is just the sheer volume of range-increasing skills. First of all, it's just boring. 3 consecutive skills that do the same exact thing, in the same exact way, with the only difference being the magnitude. There aren't many places this exist in the game without at least some small qualitative differentiation between them. Gunnery/Rapid firing and MLO/Rapid launch are all that come to mind. Other skills tend to differentiate on the breadth of their application.
I am already hearing experienced FCs talking about extracting FC 5 because it isn't worth the sp, and the sp could be better used elsewhere or just sold.
And there still isn't an effect with the mining boosts to compensate for the loss of the +15% to mining yield presently provided by Mining Foreman V + Mining Foreman Mindlink.
|
Oktura Ostus
Wicked Privateers Smile 'n' Wave
14
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 16:54:21 -
[1650] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:As there's a consumption item involved, I think a corresponding cycle time bonus is merited - so that cycle time and burst duration match.
It just seems a bit of a perception disconnect - I mean, my blaster ROF might increase, so my DPS will increase, but so will my ammo consumption. Why can't Fleet boost bursts work the same way?
/JTK
Please, don't. It's not like DPS on practice. There is only tiny moment when you apply bonuses to teammates, and if one of your teammate (or even you) failed to be in needed range at this moment, he will fly without bonuses next cycle. In quick kitting fights it happens a lot.
From this point of view I'd like to have booster cycle small enough so I could reapply bonuses to teammates as quick as possible if he missed previous cycle, and the duration of booster effect to be long enough so teammate could miss one-two cycles and still fly with bonuses
On practice on sisi now it works like this: - newbie command destroyer has cycle 1 minute and apply time 1 minute, so teammates have to catch every cycle to fly with boost. - skilled command destroyer has cycle 1 min and apply time ~2 mins, so teammates could miss one cycle but still fly with boost all time.
It's balanced I think ... |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2754
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 16:56:41 -
[1651] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Orca running boosts = no MWD. That means two cycles for the 500mn AB.
If you knew how to fly the Orca, you'd know this won't help much but puts it into the same category of "Mining Preservation".
I'm not sure I follow why this matters. An Orca with a Higgs Anchor has proven to be pretty awesome in my testing.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
150
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 17:01:07 -
[1652] - Quote
Why are the tanking bonuses not being left as they are atm? Links are coming on grid and they are getting worse. At the very least, they should stay the same given all the totally unnecessary burst mechanics you've added. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2754
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 17:02:45 -
[1653] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:have you tried ORE stations? There are no Ore stations in high sec that I am aware of...... did CCP put them into ORE null only ?
Yes, you have to fly out to Outer Ring to get them, just like with the Orca and Rorqual BPO. It's super easy in a travel Interceptor. If you choose to use anything other than a travel Interceptor, I suggest you fly through F7C. That's the best way for me to kill you.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
150
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 17:08:38 -
[1654] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:The 15 % effect of your slot 10 implant will be lost. With all the moduls (T2), ship boni and implants, your boost will be the same compared with the boost at the moment, without the 15 % of the mining forman implant. The old warfare specialist skill that gave you a 50% bonus to the warfare link bonus has been removed with nothing to replace it. Hence, the net decrease in bonuses all across the board. |
Jo Jl
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 17:09:09 -
[1655] - Quote
killing off the reasons we might play, CCP?
you brought this command burst(nerfing passive stuff) and its not even hit transquility yet and your already nerfing it.YOu have killed ships in doing this ,instead of Making them shine.practically the only reason to have someone in a fleet is for this boosting ability.Why push this button every minute?it isn't fun at all.Now we have Rorqaul Drop fleets ,lol,soon it will be roaming Orcas .You really need to stop with the half baked schemes.I really would like a refund of skill points,its not even worth bringing up the dead horse,but you tricked people into thinking these skills are something we will need,and its not.Alot of people have given you feedback,and still ,you seem to think your right.
YOU should just list the ships and tell us how You want Us to play/fly them...which one is ok to mine in,which one is ok to put a cloaking device on.I am really tired of playing a game that is not producing,you maybe recycling,renaming,'recoding' ,taking away from, but its not producing. Operation Failline should be the name cause its not Ascension,unless you like things going up in smoke or into the heavens,more like Decension. |
Thogn
Republic Logistics II
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 18:12:10 -
[1656] - Quote
Englisch bleibt f++r mich eine Fremdsprache. :-) please be aware of that
a) Let us assume for a second - that I have all the skillz for the old system. // Pilots, there should be many, have invested heavily to reach the status. // You want to balance their whatsoever losses as well.
b) Your statement "Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute." Now - that's interesting. Maybe it's only me - but a minute - I mean an entire minute - really, that can be an ultra-long time in New Eden. Think about a moving fleet or an escort-job for something valuable. They do what in future ... they can't jump into the next system ... without leaving their booster behind. To me : a No No - a minute is way too long. My opinion : 30 secs .. will be already tricky ... but could work. Needs more discussion ... o7 |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
145
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 18:18:49 -
[1657] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:have you tried ORE stations? There are no Ore stations in high sec that I am aware of...... did CCP put them into ORE null only ? Yes, you have to fly out to Outer Ring to get them, just like with the Orca and Rorqual BPO. It's super easy in a travel Interceptor. If you choose to use anything other than a travel Interceptor, I suggest you fly through F7C. That's the best way for me to kill you.
I'll be sure to wave to you from my nullified/cloaky t3 cruiser.
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 18:21:42 -
[1658] - Quote
Jo Jl wrote:practically the only reason to have someone in a fleet is for this boosting ability.Why push this button every minute?it isn't fun at all.
The only reason to have a boosting ship in the fleet is for the boosting ability, you mean? ... well, yeah, but that was the same before this change, so...
We won't have to push the button every minute. It's a module that auto-cycles, same as the current ones, same as most high-slot modules. you don't have to micromanage it manually unless you want to (aka flipping off the auto-repeat switch).
Thogn wrote:b) Your statement "Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute." Now - that's interesting. Maybe it's only me - but a minute - I mean an entire minute - really, that can be an ultra-long time in New Eden. Think about a moving fleet or an escort-job for something valuable. They do what in future ... they can't jump into the next system ... without leaving their booster behind. To me : a No No - a minute is way too long. My opinion : 30 secs .. will be already tricky ... but could work. Needs more discussion ... o7
Tell us Marauder pilots about it. ;)
Most fleets shouldn't be needing to boost while landing on a gate, so... the only tricky part is with super-fast fleets in systems with gates very close together. In a PVP fleet, though, FCs often call for fleets to hold together on a gate anyway, will just have to do that now and then for the booster's timer to elapse before gate is green and jump jump jump. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2756
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 18:22:05 -
[1659] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:have you tried ORE stations? There are no Ore stations in high sec that I am aware of...... did CCP put them into ORE null only ? Yes, you have to fly out to Outer Ring to get them, just like with the Orca and Rorqual BPO. It's super easy in a travel Interceptor. If you choose to use anything other than a travel Interceptor, I suggest you fly through F7C. That's the best way for me to kill you. I'll be sure to wave to you from my nullified/cloaky t3 cruiser.
I hope you lag when you try to activate the cloak and wave at the same time.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Alt Inacloak
MERCENARIES 4
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 18:32:24 -
[1660] - Quote
Thogn wrote:Englisch bleibt f++r mich eine Fremdsprache. :-) please be aware of that
a) Let us assume for a second - that I have all the skillz for the old system. // Pilots, there should be many, have invested heavily to reach the status. // You want to balance their whatsoever losses as well.
b) Your statement "Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute." Now - that's interesting. Maybe it's only me - but a minute - I mean an entire minute - really, that can be an ultra-long time in New Eden. Think about a moving fleet or an escort-job for something valuable. They do what in future ... they can't jump into the next system ... without leaving their booster behind. To me : a No No - a minute is way too long. My opinion : 30 secs .. will be already tricky ... but could work. Needs more discussion ... o7
Actually I think the intent is for all to wait for the booster b4 jumping to next system. Thus limiting the load on the servers....:|
But hey "This is EVE" |
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
145
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 18:49:30 -
[1661] - Quote
Alt Inacloak wrote:Thogn wrote:Englisch bleibt f++r mich eine Fremdsprache. :-) please be aware of that
a) Let us assume for a second - that I have all the skillz for the old system. // Pilots, there should be many, have invested heavily to reach the status. // You want to balance their whatsoever losses as well.
b) Your statement "Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute." Now - that's interesting. Maybe it's only me - but a minute - I mean an entire minute - really, that can be an ultra-long time in New Eden. Think about a moving fleet or an escort-job for something valuable. They do what in future ... they can't jump into the next system ... without leaving their booster behind. To me : a No No - a minute is way too long. My opinion : 30 secs .. will be already tricky ... but could work. Needs more discussion ... o7 Actually I think the intent is for all to wait for the booster b4 jumping to next system. Thus limiting the load on the servers....:| But hey "This is EVE"
Since the combat boosts are primarily only useful in actual combat, maybe the thought is that evereyone else will have a weapons timer too. If you aren't actively in combat, don't run the boosts - otherwise you are wasting charges and giving yourself a weapons timer.
Also, you should have a chat with hictor pilots who have a weapons timer of one minute from the time their bubble goes down... |
Nistromos
Jan Inc
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 19:05:20 -
[1662] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tristiana Egivand wrote:What will happen to the existing warfare links and blueprints? Will you remove them or convert to the corresponding command bursts? The existing links and their blueprints will indeed be converted into the corresponding command bursts.
Great but will they remain fully researched also? |
Jo Jl
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 20:07:29 -
[1663] - Quote
good call,after I reading and reading ,I missed that point.Thank you I just don't see the point of the change, you turned mining barges exhumers into the same thing don't they get 2 high slots,reduced the tanking ability,and those 'passive ' bonuses is what made the ship what it was. I cant do any of the end game stuff really but for what I can get into I liked,now its more like 'why am I mining' again.You have however knocked out a whole section of skills I will never have to train. Will you change the name of Fleets to Groupings?i get it the heiracrchy was 'all jackedup" whatever, but it was fairly simple. i don't see any real reason for the change or even an update to these said changes.maybe after the new year when you got something solid and have tested this stuff (yes I know you use sisi for that),you are just needing too much feedback for the product your changing.THen you want refuse a SP refund,well that's low.Back years ago you took,away those skills that helped training,however at that time you also revamped the 'ships and gave them more of a racial category,frigates->"Racial" Frigate,etc.it wasn't a bad trade off for this. Now you don't want to refund the SP,it is like saying train up capital ships to V then taking all capitals from the game or even erasing the skill,granted the skill isn't 'gone' just pointless to have.It's ok to admit you need player to buy the "extractors" .CCP,you would be better just resetting all players to 0 day and take away local. You can still tally up ships destroyed for your stats. |
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
151
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 21:44:04 -
[1664] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.
So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.
We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield. Where is the replacement for the warfare specialist skill bonus? With links coming on grid, the least I expected was that the bonuses would stay the same. I really can't phantom why they are getting nerfed. Tons of fits have been built around links and we are just going to nerf them for no reason even after forcing them on-grid.
As if that isn't enough, you've added this totally unnecessary burst mechanic just so there's more stuff that can go wrong when your coders mess up. Maybe you don't know but forcing us to micromanage links is not fun. Whoever made links off-grid in the first place knew his or her stuff because it's a very boring mechanic that just happens to be important. I totally understand why they need to be on-grid but this is a half arsed solution.
I really don't get how you worked on this for months and months with the CSM and, at the end of the day, all you've managed to do is make it worse. You nerfed it, made it needlessly complex and it's still not fun. |
Linn Fangg
Fangg Holdings
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 22:08:22 -
[1665] - Quote
So, I trained ALL my leadership skills to 5 that took some time, this is supposed to make me happy ? I could of trained so much more with that time. |
Patch Chelien
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 22:48:52 -
[1666] - Quote
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but does the P.A.N.I.C. module activate a weapons timer so you can't refit another one when the first one burns out? |
Dungheap
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 00:10:05 -
[1667] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:hello Fozzie
At the moment the burst module has a fixed cycle of 60sec. But the duration of the burst can be easily over 120sec. I potentially see this a source of frustration. Either it is automatic and wasteful of munitions or requires continuous manual cycling. Any thoughts about this? The effect duration being longer than the module duration is intended, as it allows consistent boosts with some wiggle room. This is helpful both for the players being boosted (not having their stats bounce around too much) and for server load (it's more efficient to refresh an existing buff than to apply a new one). The munitions are so cheap and small that we expect the optimal course to be simply keeping auto-repeat on and not bothering to micromanage, but for people who really want to the option of micromanaging it is available.
cycle time shorter than duration also keeps the effect active during reloading , and lets you switch charges before the first buff runs out . eg. if you're running a shield hp charge and need to switch to active shielding , you can reload and land bonused reps before the hp bonus runs out .
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1186
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 03:48:45 -
[1668] - Quote
TomyLobo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.
So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.
We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC). This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.
Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield. Where is the replacement for the warfare specialist skill bonus? With links coming on grid, the least I expected was that the bonuses would stay the same. I really can't phantom why they are getting nerfed. Tons of fits have been built around links and we are just going to nerf them for no reason even after forcing them on-grid. As if that isn't enough, you've added this totally unnecessary burst mechanic just so there's more stuff that can go wrong when your coders mess up. Maybe you don't know but forcing us to micromanage links is not fun. Whoever made links off-grid in the first place knew his or her stuff because it's a very boring mechanic that just happens to be important. I totally understand why they need to be on-grid but this is a half arsed solution. I really don't get how you worked on this for months and months with the CSM and, at the end of the day, all you've managed to do is make it worse. You nerfed it, made it needlessly complex and it's still not fun. Although, It will achieve CCP's primary goal of the last couple of years - Everything disposable, sorry destructible.
"Fun" is not part of Devs design criteria.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Hulleyn
Horizon Walkers
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 04:18:06 -
[1669] - Quote
Okay, a couple of points. Some new, some restating frustrations/hopes others have voiced.
1. Squad/Wing/Fleet command skills are terrible in this form. They are in many cases useless, and very boring bonuses. I have been trying to find an strong replacement effect with little luck, but please dont leave them this way. Remove them and refund SP before you do this. Many people will extract them anyway.
2. The nerf to skirmish evasive maneuvers is extremely heavy handed, especially when this hasn't even seen singularity yet! Every link is getting a nerf (why?) but this one is extreme. Between this and the loss of passive bonuses from skills/warfare links "defensive" comps took a serious hit. Pure DPS/ DPS tank/ alpha fleets rejoice.
3. The skill requirements to sit in a CS dropped a TON. You said in the dev blog that it would slightly shorten the time. That I was okay with. This makes me feel I wasted 3 moths of training time! In fact, between CS requirements, fleet command being useless, and warfare link specialist V being entirely a waste of SP I can see why so many are calling for SP refunds. Although I don't think that is the solution, I do think these skills have lost their luster and something should change. If it stands as is I know I'll be extracting most of that SP.
4. I would love to see a dev blog on the command ship rebalance. In the last balance pass CS were given 3 links/6 high slots and 4 turrents... Giving us the option to sacrifice DPS for another link or run two links without drawback. It was stated that this was purposeful! Why are we reversing that? Now I am corralled into fitting two links and 4 guns (command rigs not withstanding). I dont like the loss of meaningful choice. I know you are trying to avoid the "6 link ship" but why? They are on grid anyway! Give CSs their 3rd link back!
Please feel free to comment, I'm sure there is more I have to say, including some possible solutions I have to these issues above.
I am genuinely excited for this much needed change to boosting, thanks for all your work CCP. Overall I think this thing is on the right track. |
Basil Vulpine
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
76
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 09:31:26 -
[1670] - Quote
I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.
We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.
Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit. |
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 10:35:34 -
[1671] - Quote
Basil Vulpine wrote:I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.
We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.
Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit.
one option...
Your BPOs / BPCs will be removed and the new onew ill be available within the "redeem item" system |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1187
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 11:01:04 -
[1672] - Quote
Basil Vulpine wrote:I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.
We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.
Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit. There will only be 3 sizes not 4. Currently there are no ships that use large rigs that can also use use links. Small - Command Destroyers Medium - T3's, Command Ships Xlarge - Carriers, Fax's, Supers, Titans
I'm more concerned with what will happen to the command processors I currently own and use on ALL my boosting fits - Simply turning them into rigs, really doesn't cut it, seeing I use the same 4 on various fits and ship types.. I suppose with the need for 3, 4 and 5 link boosters being removed, it is a bit of a mute point.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 11:23:37 -
[1673] - Quote
it seems you missed the Orca = Large rigs :) |
Hark'ma
Arbiters of the Void Circle-Of-Two
15
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 13:03:35 -
[1674] - Quote
Why can't CCP just stay out of the sandbox like they said they would YEARS ago? |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 15:14:53 -
[1675] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:There will only be 3 sizes not 4. Currently there are no ships that use large rigs that can also use use links. Small - Command Destroyers Medium - T3's, Command Ships Xlarge - Carriers, Fax's, Supers, Titans
***FIXED***
Small - Command Destroyers Medium - Combat Battlecruisers, T3s (with subsystem), Command Ships Large - Orca X-Large - Carriers, Faxs, Supers, Titans, Rorqual
comming soon: Porpoise with medium rigs as well... |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2555
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:44:04 -
[1676] - Quote
Alexis Ford wrote:it seems you missed the Orca = Large rigs :)
Clearly you just don't know anything about the Orca or mining or fleets because you're arguing with Sgt Ocker, self-appointed expert on all-things Eve.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Serge Bussier
Dark Flame in the Dark
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 18:31:01 -
[1677] - Quote
Hard to read all 81 pages of discussion... so i'll try to ask. Now we have command ships which have built-in support of 3 command links. With command processors it's possible to fit 7 links into 1 command ship. After Ascension arrives we are going to have only 2 links bursts fitted into a command ship without different...perversions. Only way to fit more command links bursts supposed to be rigs. Command ships (as all T2 ships) have 2 rig slots, so maximum number of links bursts possible to see fitted into a command ship will be 4.
A question: so you CCP guys want to cut off a possibility to create 5-, 6-, 7-burst command ships? A specialized ship, designed to make bonuses, is going to hold less links bursts than, for example, a Titan (which is definately not a specialized ship for dealing bonuses)?
And you sure have descent arguments why it should be made? Any chance to see the reasons written?
P.S. In case if you sure this all should be made that way, then make at least Tech II rigs with +2 bonus to the number of links bursts fitted. This should be fair enough. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2555
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 18:58:11 -
[1678] - Quote
Serge Bussier wrote:Hard to read all 81 pages of discussion... so i'll try to ask. Now we have command ships which have built-in support of 3 command links. With command processors it's possible to fit 7 links into 1 command ship. After Ascension arrives we are going to have only 2 links bursts fitted into a command ship without different...perversions. Only way to fit more command links bursts supposed to be rigs. Command ships (as all T2 ships) have 2 rig slots, so maximum number of links bursts possible to see fitted into a command ship will be 4.
A question: so you CCP guys want to cut off a possibility to create 5-, 6-, 7-burst command ships? A specialized ship, designed to make bonuses, is going to hold less links bursts than, for example, a Titan (which is definately not a specialized ship for dealing bonuses)?
And you sure have descent arguments why it should be made? Any chance to see the reasons written?
P.S. In case if you sure this all should be made that way, then make at least Tech II rigs with +2 bonus to the number of links bursts fitted. This should be fair enough.
Would you really want to build such a ship?
That would almost certainly be classified as a ****-fit in the new boosting paradigm. You'll be on grid, so you'll probably want redundancy for when your boosts get headshot. How many undertanked dedicated boosters do you really want to bring, when you have the option of bringing boosts on otherwise fully combat capable Cdessies/command ships/etc?
Only people that would really benefit, AFAICT, is ELITE HIGH SEC PVPERZ, given the disappointing lack of suspect flagging.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Hulleyn
Horizon Walkers
4
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 22:35:52 -
[1679] - Quote
Serge Bussier wrote:
Would you really want to build such a ship?
That would almost certainly be classified as a ****-fit in the new boosting paradigm. You'll be on grid, so you'll probably want redundancy for when your boosts get headshot. How many undertanked dedicated boosters do you really want to bring, when you have the option of bringing boosts on otherwise fully combat capable Cdessies/command ships/etc?
Only people that would really benefit, AFAICT, is ELITE HIGH SEC PVPERZ, given the disappointing lack of suspect flagging.
I completely agree with the elimination of 6/7 burst fits. However... If CSs were given back the 3 bursts allowed the max bursts they could fit with rigs would be 5. I still think I like this better, not because I would ever use such a fit, but because without rigs I want to have to make a choice between 3 bursts for max fleet assist or a full rack or guns. As it stands EVERY CS will fit a full rack of guns and two bursts. Only fail-fits will use a rig slot and drop a gun just for that 3rd burst. No question. And that is boring. |
Brea Nah
Gurista Pirates
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 00:09:19 -
[1680] - Quote
A massive overhaul of this magnitude should come with an SP reimbursement. The core game play functionality of how these modules work and the bonus changes are all very different. In addition, the skill requirements to use T2 are dramatically reduced. In this current iteration I would not have maxed every leadership skill to 5 if I didn't need to in order to use T2 links.
Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
At a minimum I feel they should at least reimburse skill levels 2-5 on the specialty skills. But, I think they should reimburse the entire leadership SP pool for all players. Any other MMO would do this for talent/skill trees. |
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2562
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 00:42:42 -
[1681] - Quote
Brea Nah wrote: Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people.
As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it.
It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Brea Nah
Gurista Pirates
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 00:57:16 -
[1682] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Brea Nah wrote: Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people. As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it. It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on.
And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons.
I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented.
I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2562
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 01:14:52 -
[1683] - Quote
Brea Nah wrote:
And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons.
I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented.
It's really simple criteria.
If the skill still does something, it doesn't get reimbursed.
The skill has to be removed wholesale for reimbursement to occur, such as with the learning skills that used to exist.
Quote:I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.
There have been hefty overhauls of mechanics before. Fozzie Sov, Jump Fatigue, Crius industry, Odyssey scanning/hacking, etc.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Brea Nah
Gurista Pirates
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 01:52:51 -
[1684] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: It's really simple criteria.
If the skill still does something, it doesn't get reimbursed.
The skill has to be removed wholesale for reimbursement to occur, such as with the learning skills that used to exist.
This is a poor policy if it is accurate. Just because something is a policy doesn't mean it is right. Policy doesn't change until it becomes questioned.
SurrenderMonkey wrote: There have been hefty overhauls of mechanics before. Fozzie Sov, Jump Fatigue, Crius industry, Odyssey scanning/hacking, etc.
What skills did the sov change affect that would have been an argument for reimbursement? The jump changes didnt change how the capitals worked. I didnt like the jump changes, but the ships still mechanically functioned the same way. I cant comment on industry since I have zero knowledge on the topic. The core mechanic of scanning did not change. I still scan the same exact way I used to, just without as many clicks.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2562
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 02:38:18 -
[1685] - Quote
Quote: What skills did the sov change affect that would have been an argument for reimbursement?
They were just examples of large changes that have been made. However, that aside...
Brea Nah wrote:
This is a poor policy if it is accurate. Just because something is a policy doesn't mean it is right. Policy doesn't change until it becomes questioned.
Keep this in mind, because...
Quote:The jump changes didnt change how the capitals worked. I didnt like the jump changes, but the ships still mechanically functioned the same way. I cant comment on industry since I have zero knowledge on the topic. The core mechanic of scanning did not change. I still scan the same exact way I used to, just without as many clicks.
...All of these changes that you don't think should have warranted reimbursement... had cries for reimbursement. And that's why the policy is actually pretty wise.
Jump fatigue changes meant jump skills should be reimbursed.
Crius industry changed a few skills from requirements to build certain things to small time modifiers. Again, cries for reimbursement.
Max scanning skills were more important pre-odyssey, and if you go back and read through the threads from then, I guarantee you will find people asking for reimbursement.
If they ever caved on the standing policy, they would have to deal with this "radical enough" or "not radical enough" business for every change that followed. It's not happening.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 07:51:10 -
[1686] - Quote
There will be no reimbursment at all...
They have implemented and are selling right now at the moment a tool, which can handle this - called Skill Extractor.
Why do you think, this has been implemented? To FORCE the players to pay for such micro transcations... either you are buying it with ISK and another person has pay real cash - or you have bought it yourself.
This is business, welcome to the new EVE online.
Imagine, how easy it is for CCP to force us all to train 30 to 60 days for new skills and later they will be removed without reimbursment. It is totally easy to keep us subscribing...
Many new fighter skills for Super pilots... what we have done? Kept training... Old skills will be useless? Are we waiting or have we removed them with skill extractors already?
I will keep my perfect Leadership skills... As I wanted to keep my learning skills :(
|
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
154
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 12:47:59 -
[1687] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:There will be no reimbursment at all...
They have implemented and are selling right now at the moment a tool, which can handle this - called Skill Extractor.
Why do you think, this has been implemented? To FORCE the players to pay for such micro transcations... either you are buying it with ISK and another person has pay real cash - or you have bought it yourself.
This is business, welcome to the new EVE online.
Imagine, how easy it is for CCP to force us all to train 30 to 60 days for new skills and later they will be removed without reimbursment. It is totally easy to keep us subscribing...
Many new fighter skills for Super pilots... what we have done? Kept training... Old skills will be useless? Are we waiting or have we removed them with skill extractors already?
I will keep my perfect Leadership skills... As I wanted to keep my learning skills :(
Skill extractors and Injectors are a joke. Higher SP characters get shafted for only bob knows why. There's absolutely NO reason why anyone with 80mil SP should use one. Might as well restrict it to less than 20mil SP because, in its current state, it's a slap to the face for older players that tend to have higher SP characters. |
Brea Nah
Gurista Pirates
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 13:01:21 -
[1688] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:[quote] ...All of these changes that you don't think should have warranted reimbursement... had cries for reimbursement. And that's why the policy is actually pretty wise. Jump fatigue changes meant jump skills should be reimbursed. Crius industry changed a few skills from requirements to build certain things to small time modifiers. Again, cries for reimbursement. Max scanning skills were more important pre-odyssey, and if you go back and read through the threads from then, I guarantee you will find people asking for reimbursement. If they ever caved on the standing policy, they would have to deal with this "radical enough" or "not radical enough" business for every change that followed. It's not happening.
I think you are missing my point. All these changes did not impact the core mechanics of how these systems worked. They all still functioned the same way. With command links, they are changing the core mechanic and that change does not let them be used in the same fashion.
As far as skill extractors go...that is not a valid argument. A person with max leadership would lose 10+ million SP if they were high SP characters and used the extractors to pull out their leadership skills. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1187
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 13:02:55 -
[1689] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:There will be no reimbursment at all...
They have implemented and are selling right now at the moment a tool, which can handle this - called Skill Extractor.
Why do you think, this has been implemented? To FORCE the players to pay for such micro transcations... either you are buying it with ISK and another person has pay real cash - or you have bought it yourself.
This is business, welcome to the new EVE online.
Imagine, how easy it is for CCP to force us all to train 30 to 60 days for new skills and later they will be removed without reimbursment. It is totally easy to keep us subscribing...
Many new fighter skills for Super pilots... what we have done? Kept training... Old skills will be useless? Are we waiting or have we removed them with skill extractors already?
I will keep my perfect Leadership skills... As I wanted to keep my learning skills :(
What do the new fighter skills (which affected way more than just super pilots) have to do with leadership skills that have been made all but redundant by CCP?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2564
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 13:41:28 -
[1690] - Quote
Brea Nah wrote:
I think you are missing my point. All these changes did not impact the core mechanics of how these systems worked. They all still functioned the same way. With command links, they are changing the core mechanic and that change does not let them be used in the same fashion.
From the player's perspetive, it's not that big of a change relative to anything of those others.
Today, they're skills that let a ship apply bonuses to their fleet. After the patch, they'll still be precisely that.
They've gone from infinite range (within a system) to finite range, added some pretty graphics, and fiddled about with the numbers a bit. This isn't swords-to-plowshares.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1391
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 13:57:33 -
[1691] - Quote
Brea Nah wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Brea Nah wrote: Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people. As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it. It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on. And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons. I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented. I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.
And this is not the only time this has happened. CCP's rule about SP reimbursement is pretty clear. You only get it if they remove the skill from the game. The leadership skills remain in game and they do have a legitimate use. If you choose to no longer use them, that's really not CCP's issue.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1391
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 14:08:39 -
[1692] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Brea Nah wrote:
I think you are missing my point. All these changes did not impact the core mechanics of how these systems worked. They all still functioned the same way. With command links, they are changing the core mechanic and that change does not let them be used in the same fashion.
From the player's perspetive, it's not that big of a change relative to anything of those others. Today, they're skills that let a ship apply bonuses to their fleet. After the patch, they'll still be precisely that. They've gone from infinite range (within a system) to finite range, added some pretty graphics, and fiddled about with the numbers a bit. This isn't swords-to-plowshares.
Honestly, SM, what it boils down to is there are a lot of characters that were built strictly for off grid boosting. Since that playstyle is no longer viable come next week, these players have a vested interest in recouping those skill points so they can reinvest them in some other area so that the alt can still be useful to them in some fashion. It's not that the change is a bad one, or that the skills are useless. It's the same old argument of "I will no longer use them after the update, so I think I should recoup my investment CCPls".
Unfortunately, that's not how this works. CCP's criteria is actually pretty clear. As long as the skill has some applicable in game function, the SP will not be reimbursed. Whether that function suits any particular player or not is immaterial.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Longdrinks
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
248
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 15:50:26 -
[1693] - Quote
Thanks for this fozzie, i couldnt wait for ascension and went out roaming with self-linked sleipnir just now grabbing some easy kills from people stunned by my glorious girth. Im fully aboard and looking forward to the bright future shiny with command bursts. |
aldhura
Perkone Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:09:04 -
[1694] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Brea Nah wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Brea Nah wrote: Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people. As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it. It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on. And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons. I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented. I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it. And this is not the only time this has happened. CCP's rule about SP reimbursement is pretty clear. You only get it if they remove the skill from the game. The leadership skills remain in game and they do have a legitimate use. If you choose to no longer use them, that's really not CCP's issue.
I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant. Its a cash investment which to many is considered wasted. You will not be able to sell boosting toons after the change, so you stuck with it. Allow people to move the skills so the toon can become useful again. Its not a bad ask in my opinion. I don't have a boosting toon, so I a unaffected, but you need to look at it from the other side of the coin.
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
145
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:47:04 -
[1695] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:But yes, it would be nice if they'd just do a SP refund (at least on WC/FC... leadership is not such a big deal) for all the people who never intend to fit a command burst module in their EVE lives going forward (though you never know, once they see how fun on-grid boosting can be, perhaps they'll change their minds. ;D)
I do have to agree with this.
Though this char has full Leadership and intends to keep it, my alt has Leadership 5 plus all the basic Warfare skills (Armor, Shield, Skirmish, Info, Mining) to 5 as well, for the passive boosts - which are going away with this patch. She has no other reason to have those skills and they are now a waste for her.
What I'd like to see for this (and potentially for other rearrangements in the future) is to utilize the Skill Extractor code mechanics to allow removal of select skills into a pool of Unallocated SP (as opposed to one or more Skill Injectors) for reassignment into other areas more relevant to the character. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3686
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:29:57 -
[1696] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:
I do have to agree with this.
Though this char has full Leadership and intends to keep it, my alt has Leadership 5 plus all the basic Warfare skills (Armor, Shield, Skirmish, Info, Mining) to 5 as well, for the passive boosts - which are going away with this patch. She has no other reason to have those skills and they are now a waste for her.
What I'd like to see for this (and potentially for other rearrangements in the future) is to utilize the Skill Extractor code mechanics to allow removal of select skills into a pool of Unallocated SP (as opposed to one or more Skill Injectors) for reassignment into other areas more relevant to the character.
You know what, I hear you can use the Skill extractor code to do just that. It's called buy a skill extractor, extract skills, sell for profit.
So you can sell a boosting character if you want by ripping skills out, and you can reassign the skills if you want.
But the skills still exist in the game, and they even still work towards boosting, so I see no reason for CCP to change their standard policy just for this time (& every other time someone whines 'They are useless for me now' which is..... every time a skill changes even by 1%) |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1392
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:50:05 -
[1697] - Quote
aldhura wrote:Elenahina wrote:Brea Nah wrote:
I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.
And this is not the only time this has happened. CCP's rule about SP reimbursement is pretty clear. You only get it if they remove the skill from the game. The leadership skills remain in game and they do have a legitimate use. If you choose to no longer use them, that's really not CCP's issue. I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant. Its a cash investment which to many is considered wasted. You will not be able to sell boosting toons after the change, so you stuck with it. Allow people to move the skills so the toon can become useful again. Its not a bad ask in my opinion. I don't have a boosting toon, so I a unaffected, but you need to look at it from the other side of the coin. I understand the point - it just doesn't apply. The skills still exist and still have an in game use. The fact that the no longer fit the needs of a certain subset of players is not grounds for skill reimbursement and never has been. They made the choice to make that investment, and they received the benefits of it at that time. No where in the rules does it say that the choices you make now will remain good ones forever. I was pissed when they lowered the pre requisite for racial carriers from racial battleship 5 to whatever the heck it is now (3 or 4). Especially as I had trained not one or two, but all four freaking carriers.
But having battleship 5 isn't useless. I can still get a benefit from it. I choose not to use it because I don't fly battleships, but the skill itself still provides utility. The same thing applies here. The leadership skills still provide a utility. The allow you to use the basic Command Burst modules, and open up the path to the advanced leadership skills. The wing command skill still provides you the ability to manage multiple squads in a fleet. The fact that any one player, or even a whole group of them, has decided they will no longer use that skill is not CCP's problem. That choice lies solely with the player.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2568
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:55:14 -
[1698] - Quote
aldhura wrote: I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant.
So what? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to make an alt that would only be useful if you didn't have to actually _fly_ the thing.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
6ie
The Kiwis
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 21:30:34 -
[1699] - Quote
CCP, I have an account I use just for boosting, that account is now redundant. Will you do the same thing one day for my Industry account too? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3686
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 21:37:09 -
[1700] - Quote
6ie wrote:CCP, I have an account I use just for boosting, that account is now redundant. Will you do the same thing one day for my Industry account too? Can your alt still fly a T3C/CS. Can your alt still use command boosts.
if the answer to these questions is yes, your alt is not useless, and the whole idea of boosts now is to have redundant ships on grid so they can't just headshot your boosts. And there is no problem. If the answer to these questions is no, the problem is that you are delusional. |
|
Bloodstripes
Nobody in Local Of Sound Mind
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 23:04:28 -
[1701] - Quote
Can anyone explain when someone would want to swap out the ammo in their bursts?
At max skills+mindlink in a command ship (best duration bonus), the duration is 129s. At max skills, the min time between bursts is 60s cycle time + 30s reload time = 90s.
You can't run more than one burst off of a single module: - 2 bursts off of one module would require a duration of 180s. - 3 bursts off of 2 modules is almost doable, but you're still short a few seconds, even at max skills. Assuming an even stagger of 45 seconds between modules means you get a gap time (i.e. time when a burst is not being applied to fleet members) of 5 seconds for each burst (practicing on SiSi I've found that the combination of lag, ticks, and pilot error means that this is more like 7-10 seconds of gap time). Even if that gap time is acceptable, it still means that you have a really long "build up" period for your fleet as your bursts start applying. Burst 1 is applied instantly, burst 2 has to wait 45 seconds (!) and burst 3 has to wait 90 seconds (!!). Also keep in mind that this whole thing requires Command Ships V and a mindlink -- it's pretty bad with CSIV and unworkable without the mindlink. - 4 bursts off of 3 modules isn't doable due to the type restrictions on bursts (i.e. info bursts can't load armor ammo).
I also can't think of very good situations where you'd want to change from one burst to another mid-fight. If you have a rep-focused fleet, you want the rep boost. I can't think what the enemy would bring on field that would make you want to switch to buffer or resists, and vice-versa. Maybe some of the skirm or info links could be useful to swap between (by default use the sig radius decrease, refit to prop mode bonus if you need to chase down a kitey fleet or something), but that 90 second delay is going to make reloads....hard. In most skirmishes the fight will be over before your burst reloads.
Given these two things, combined with the fact that it's MUCH easier to stack boosts from multiple ships, I think most fleets will just bring multiple ships (1-3 command dessies for small stuff, 2-5 command ships for big stuff, rip T3s), each with just their base # of burst modules, that they never change the ammo on.
I dunno, this feels like a gameplay mechanic that no one will actually use. =\ |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3686
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 00:28:16 -
[1702] - Quote
Bloodstripes wrote:
I dunno, this feels like a gameplay mechanic that no one will actually use. =\
It means that you don't need to swap the module out, just the ammo, at the start of the roam. Making logistics much easier since you don't need loads of modules. |
Bloodstripes
Nobody in Local Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 01:15:25 -
[1703] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Bloodstripes wrote:
I dunno, this feels like a gameplay mechanic that no one will actually use. =\
It means that you don't need to swap the module out, just the ammo, at the start of the roam. Making logistics much easier since you don't need loads of modules. I mean, that's definitely nice, but then why build so many skills/ship bonuses around increasing the duration of the buff? Just to give some wiggle room if they pop your boosting ship? Then why have them vary by ship type? And why have skills that reduce the reload time? Feels like a lot of complexity that doesn't get you much gameplay. If everyone is just going to keep their link ship on-grid 100% of the time and never reload ammo during combat, then they might as well set duration=2x cycle time, reload time=long, and use those skills for some other mechanic. In particular, Command Burst Specialist (reduced reload time) feels suuuuuuuper useless now. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 01:48:10 -
[1704] - Quote
Bloodstripes wrote:You can't run more than one burst off of a single module: - 2 bursts off of one module would require a duration of 180s. - 3 bursts off of 2 modules is almost doable, but you're still short a few seconds, even at max skills. Assuming an even stagger of 45 seconds between modules means you get a gap time (i.e. time when a burst is not being applied to fleet members) of 5 seconds for each burst (practicing on SiSi I've found that the combination of lag, ticks, and pilot error means that this is more like 7-10 seconds of gap time). Even if that gap time is acceptable, it still means that you have a really long "build up" period for your fleet as your bursts start applying. Burst 1 is applied instantly, burst 2 has to wait 45 seconds (!) and burst 3 has to wait 90 seconds (!!). Also keep in mind that this whole thing requires Command Ships V and a mindlink -- it's pretty bad with CSIV and unworkable without the mindlink. - 4 bursts off of 3 modules isn't doable due to the type restrictions on bursts (i.e. info bursts can't load armor ammo).
Interesting. Yeah, people were acting like the reload time was not a thing and thus you could the 2 bursts off 1 module thing with max skills no problemo.
I don't recall the reload times but the 30 seconds you quoted... that's with the reload time reduction skill at L5?
Quote:I also can't think of very good situations where you'd want to change from one burst to another mid-fight. If you have a rep-focused fleet, you want the rep boost. I can't think what the enemy would bring on field that would make you want to switch to buffer or resists, and vice-versa. Maybe some of the skirm or info links could be useful to swap between (by default use the sig radius decrease, refit to prop mode bonus if you need to chase down a kitey fleet or something), but that 90 second delay is going to make reloads....hard. In most skirmishes the fight will be over before your burst reloads.
Probably not in PVP, but I can see wanting to swap in PVE situations. For the Serpentis/Angel event last summer I used two Tengus firing HAMs + a FOF HML Nighthawk with 4 links. But I usually only ran 3 links to save cap. I'd switch from a tank link to the prop mod top speed boosting link when needed.
I could see say a PVE booster switching from the prop mod boosts to the web range boosts, say, depending on whether it was time to burn somewhere or time to web frigs. |
Bloodstripes
Nobody in Local Of Sound Mind
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 01:59:53 -
[1705] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:I don't recall the reload times but the 30 seconds you quoted... that's with the reload time reduction skill at L5? Yep, base reload time is 60s. At Command Burst Specialist V it's 30 seconds (and that's the only way to reduce it). |
TomyLobo
Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects
154
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 03:24:10 -
[1706] - Quote
Bloodstripes wrote:Can anyone explain when someone would want to swap out the ammo in their bursts?
At max skills+mindlink in a command ship (best duration bonus), the duration is 129s. At max skills, the min time between bursts is 60s cycle time + 30s reload time = 90s.
You can't run more than one burst off of a single module: - 2 bursts off of one module would require a duration of 180s. - 3 bursts off of 2 modules is almost doable, but you're still short a few seconds, even at max skills. Assuming an even stagger of 45 seconds between modules means you get a gap time (i.e. time when a burst is not being applied to fleet members) of 5 seconds for each burst (practicing on SiSi I've found that the combination of lag, ticks, and pilot error means that this is more like 7-10 seconds of gap time). Even if that gap time is acceptable, it still means that you have a really long "build up" period for your fleet as your bursts start applying. Burst 1 is applied instantly, burst 2 has to wait 45 seconds (!) and burst 3 has to wait 90 seconds (!!). Also keep in mind that this whole thing requires Command Ships V and a mindlink -- it's pretty bad with CSIV and unworkable without the mindlink. - 4 bursts off of 3 modules isn't doable due to the type restrictions on bursts (i.e. info bursts can't load armor ammo).
I also can't think of very good situations where you'd want to change from one burst to another mid-fight. If you have a rep-focused fleet, you want the rep boost. I can't think what the enemy would bring on field that would make you want to switch to buffer or resists, and vice-versa. Maybe some of the skirm or info links could be useful to swap between (by default use the sig radius decrease, refit to prop mode bonus if you need to chase down a kitey fleet or something), but that 90 second delay is going to make reloads....hard. In most skirmishes the fight will be over before your burst reloads.
Given these two things, combined with the fact that it's MUCH easier to stack boosts from multiple ships, I think most fleets will just bring multiple ships (1-3 command dessies for small stuff, 2-5 command ships for big stuff, rip T3s), each with just their base # of burst modules, that they never change the ammo on.
I dunno, this feels like a gameplay mechanic that no one will actually use. =\ Someone actually gets it. |
Longdrinks
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
249
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 09:59:43 -
[1707] - Quote
TomyLobo wrote:Bloodstripes wrote:Can anyone explain when someone would want to swap out the ammo in their bursts?
At max skills+mindlink in a command ship (best duration bonus), the duration is 129s. At max skills, the min time between bursts is 60s cycle time + 30s reload time = 90s.
You can't run more than one burst off of a single module: - 2 bursts off of one module would require a duration of 180s. - 3 bursts off of 2 modules is almost doable, but you're still short a few seconds, even at max skills. Assuming an even stagger of 45 seconds between modules means you get a gap time (i.e. time when a burst is not being applied to fleet members) of 5 seconds for each burst (practicing on SiSi I've found that the combination of lag, ticks, and pilot error means that this is more like 7-10 seconds of gap time). Even if that gap time is acceptable, it still means that you have a really long "build up" period for your fleet as your bursts start applying. Burst 1 is applied instantly, burst 2 has to wait 45 seconds (!) and burst 3 has to wait 90 seconds (!!). Also keep in mind that this whole thing requires Command Ships V and a mindlink -- it's pretty bad with CSIV and unworkable without the mindlink. - 4 bursts off of 3 modules isn't doable due to the type restrictions on bursts (i.e. info bursts can't load armor ammo).
I also can't think of very good situations where you'd want to change from one burst to another mid-fight. If you have a rep-focused fleet, you want the rep boost. I can't think what the enemy would bring on field that would make you want to switch to buffer or resists, and vice-versa. Maybe some of the skirm or info links could be useful to swap between (by default use the sig radius decrease, refit to prop mode bonus if you need to chase down a kitey fleet or something), but that 90 second delay is going to make reloads....hard. In most skirmishes the fight will be over before your burst reloads.
Given these two things, combined with the fact that it's MUCH easier to stack boosts from multiple ships, I think most fleets will just bring multiple ships (1-3 command dessies for small stuff, 2-5 command ships for big stuff, rip T3s), each with just their base # of burst modules, that they never change the ammo on.
I dunno, this feels like a gameplay mechanic that no one will actually use. =\ Someone actually gets it. what if you`re not a in a big blob fleet and can only spareone guy for links since you want to rest for dps+logi? The system is easier to use with many boosting ships for less gifted players in big fleets, while real ballers who want to get the most combat power out of their fleet have the option of doing it the hard way. |
Serge Bussier
Dark Flame in the Dark
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 19:25:37 -
[1708] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Would you really want to build such a ship?
That would almost certainly be classified as a ****-fit in the new boosting paradigm. You'll be on grid, so you'll probably want redundancy for when your boosts get headshot. How many undertanked dedicated boosters do you really want to bring, when you have the option of bringing boosts on otherwise fully combat capable Cdessies/command ships/etc?
Only people that would really benefit, AFAICT, is ELITE HIGH SEC PVPERZ, given the disappointing lack of suspect flagging. Well, there was another point... Now i can bring into grid, for example, 3-link Absolution with reasonable tanking (150K+) and decent damage from pulse lasers. A combat booster ship, really, who can deal a full spectrum of Armor bonuses. No crutches needed.
After the patch, CCP wants us to use boosting ships inside a grid. Okay, no questions - it should be fun. But wait... i cannot use my old ship without a new rig - which replaces old trimark! So the situation is: we all should bring boosting command ships into grid - but they will be less tanked if we want the same number of bonuses as before, because tanking rigs we have to tear out and then insert command rigs instead.
Another point. CCP for last 2 or 3 years droned on our ears about increasing possibilities for small collectives of players (Fozziesov etc). These small corporations (if they wanted to) could have 1 leadership character, who would take a seat in a spot-located 6-link command ship for the corp to have all needed bonuses from 2 branches. Now it's expected to have maximum 4 links... so the only way is to have the same bonuses is to get an additional character, and it means more windows to control (... and more plex to buy from CCP).
So that is the way to give more possibilities for small groups? Something is definately goes wrong...
P.S. I wonder how Incursion communities are going to break this through. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3687
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 19:42:56 -
[1709] - Quote
Serge Bussier wrote: Well, there was another point... Now i can bring into grid, for example, 3-link Absolution with reasonable tanking (150K+) and decent damage from pulse lasers. A combat booster ship, really, who can deal a full spectrum of Armor bonuses. No crutches needed.
After the patch, CCP wants us to use boosting ships inside a grid. Okay, no questions - it should be fun. But wait... i cannot use my old ship without a new rig - which replaces old trimark! So the situation is: we all should bring boosting command ships into grid - but they will be less tanked if we want the same number of bonuses as before, because tanking rigs we have to tear out and then insert command rigs instead.
Another point. CCP for last 2 or 3 years droned on our ears about increasing possibilities for small collectives of players (Fozziesov etc). These small corporations (if they wanted to) could have 1 leadership character, who would take a seat in a spot-located 6-link command ship for the corp to have all needed bonuses from 2 branches. Now it's expected to have maximum 4 links... so the only way is to have the same bonuses is to get an additional character, and it means more windows to control (... and more plex to buy from CCP).
So that is the way to give more possibilities for small groups? Something is definately goes wrong...
P.S. I wonder how Incursion communities are going to break this through.
Except you can, because they merged 2 of the old boosts into one new boost.
Incursion communities will laugh, put a couple of boosters on grid and carry on. They had this problem solved in less than 24h right back when CCP first discussed moving links on grid. |
Bruce Warhead
Fun is Pain
11
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 23:08:42 -
[1710] - Quote
I would realy like to see the Leadership +7% Command Burst Area of Effect Range per level
Wing Command +6% Command Burst Area of Effect Range per level
Fleet Command +5% Command Burst Area of Effect Range per level
be the other way round since with that having Fleet Command is like nearly unimportant in a lot of cases. like on a Command Ship with WC 4 you have like 50km range? and FC 5 has like 58km?.
Especially since the FC skill isn't reimbursed and FC5 was a pretty important skill before for commanders of large fleets but now FC5 is basically useless. |
|
Serge Bussier
Dark Flame in the Dark
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 08:11:31 -
[1711] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except you can, because they merged 2 of the old boosts into one new boost. Are you talking about merging of cycle time bonus and capacitor use bonus? That is true. With one little clarification - all passive bonuses will be removed, and there will be no passive armor/shield amount, target range/scan resolution and agility. So, talking about the same Absolution, 3rd boost will be still needed - to have at least armor HP bonus, as before.
Actually, it should be less bonuses from 1 ship, compared to pre-Ascension times, and my worries still exist... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1188
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:03:48 -
[1712] - Quote
Serge Bussier wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except you can, because they merged 2 of the old boosts into one new boost. Are you talking about merging of cycle time bonus and capacitor use bonus? That is true. With one little clarification - all passive bonuses will be removed, and there will be no passive armor/shield amount, target range/scan resolution and agility. So, talking about the same Absolution, 3rd boost will be still needed - to have at least armor HP bonus, as before. Actually, it should be less bonuses from 1 ship, compared to pre-Ascension times, and my worries still exist... The idea though is, not to use *A* ship for boosts but to have them spread over several.
Your right though, 1 ship can no longer boost as it does now when you include passive boosts and implants, you need at least 2 in fleet to get the same bonuses as now from 1.
Fitting 3 links on Command ships will be extremely risky, at least for the first few months after release. Boosters will be called primary in every engagement and sacrificing that rig slot for a 3rd boost instead of a second booster, , , I hope your getting full srp.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Miss Jestz
Destructors United
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:18:05 -
[1713] - Quote
So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.
In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !
Doesn't seems too logical to me ? |
Thogn
Republic Logistics II
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 15:45:53 -
[1714] - Quote
Mein Deutsch ist besser als mein Englisch.
referrs to : Boost-Range
There are a lot of pilots - who know something about PvP, I'm not one of those. But these guys have put quite some effort into the setup of the 'ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT'.
If I got it right - the Alliance Tournament takes place in a kind of space-bubble. One can't see the borders though, but they are there. If my trivial approach is correct, now then I do not understand the discussion regarding the boost-ranges - because on all level 5 - there has to be exactly at least that ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT bubble format - which has to be filled with a single boost in full.
Did I get it wrong, again ?
If the boost-range is bigger - I'm fine with that. Lower - is a NO GO for me.
o7 |
Bloodstripes
Nobody in Local Of Sound Mind
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 18:15:32 -
[1715] - Quote
Miss Jestz wrote:So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.
In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !
Doesn't seems too logical to me ?
Command Burst Specialist affects reload time, not cycle time. The clip size on burst modules is so large that you'll never need to reload unless you want to. So it won't affect how much ammo you use. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 06:17:34 -
[1716] - Quote
Am I correct to assume that the Command Burst Specialist skill is the Warfare Link Specialist skill renamed? Or we are getting a new skill separate to the ones we have now? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 06:40:46 -
[1717] - Quote
This thread has been kind of funny.
Go to the thread about ECs and see the PvP pilots telling the industry players to suck it up. POSs were to good and that is why the new ECs are worse to correct a prior mistake.
Come over here and it is page after page of complaints because something that was clearly over powered (off grid boosts) is being fixed with CCPs doing some bizarre things like they did with the ECs.
Funny as hell. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1188
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 12:56:16 -
[1718] - Quote
Bloodstripes wrote:Miss Jestz wrote:So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.
In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !
Doesn't seems too logical to me ? Command Burst Specialist affects reload time, not cycle time. The clip size on burst modules is so large that you'll never need to reload unless you want to. So it won't affect how much ammo you use. Although he has the skill name wrong, his point is none the less valid - My specialized leadership character will be using 2.5 charges per cycle..
Maybe, if there is someone at CCP who knows how - Fleet command skill could be changed to increase cycle time of burst modules - Bring it into line with pretty much every other module that uses charges in the game. It would also make having "Fleet Command" trained worth something - Right now it is pretty much redundant..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2005
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 18:59:54 -
[1719] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Bloodstripes wrote:Miss Jestz wrote:So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.
In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !
Doesn't seems too logical to me ? Command Burst Specialist affects reload time, not cycle time. The clip size on burst modules is so large that you'll never need to reload unless you want to. So it won't affect how much ammo you use. Although he has the skill name wrong, his point is none the less valid - My specialized leadership character will be using 2.5 charges per cycle.. Maybe, if there is someone at CCP who knows how - Fleet command skill could be changed to increase cycle time of burst modules - Bring it into line with pretty much every other module that uses charges in the game. It would also make having "Fleet Command" trained worth something - Right now it is pretty much redundant.. "Fleet Command" effects boost range unless I'm missing something.
Also how are you getting 2.5 charges per cycle?
Unless I'm not understanding the mechanic the cycle time should be independent from the boost time. All the skills do is make the boosts from each cycle linger longer. While not useful for stationary mining boosts, which I believe is your perspective here, increasing the cycle time as well would adversely effect combat boosts where those receiving boosts may be moving in and out of the boosting ships boost radius frequently since the boosts would take longer to cycle and reapply.
The option to not train the skills to counter that actually hurts in the same situation as the time member of your fleet can have boosts when moving away is reduced, so not training them is also a loss.
|
Felix Shoen
Appetite 4 Destruction Appetite 4 Destruction.
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:09:13 -
[1720] - Quote
I know a lot has been said on this but i just dont understand CCP and it spending time with a game change and not spending time fixing broken things that have been broken for years.
also, the on-grid boosters hurt: -small gangs defending/solo pvp with alts -solo missioners -miners
they are indifferent to huge blobbo fleets (except maybe to range of effect)
so, no real benefit to anyone and a detriment to those that do the horrible boring things that make modules available, make ships less expensive, etc etc
cant wait to see the effect on market prices 3 months from now
bleh |
|
Alexiel Fireborn
Super Super Good Sarcos Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:37:48 -
[1721] - Quote
Felix Shoen wrote:I know a lot has been said on this but i just dont understand CCP and it spending time with a game change and not spending time fixing broken things that have been broken for years.
also, the on-grid boosters hurt: -small gangs defending/solo pvp with alts -solo missioners -miners
they are indifferent to huge blobbo fleets (except maybe to range of effect)
so, no real benefit to anyone and a detriment to those that do the horrible boring things that make modules available, make ships less expensive, etc etc
cant wait to see the effect on market prices 3 months from now
bleh
omg me too :)
Who so many people see any upcomming changes like some kind of penalty where they suppose to c them like oportunities.
Boosts on grid - more targets to shoot , now boost pilot will be on kill mail how so many players wanted , just maybe sometimes he will be on wrong side of it. Rorquel go to belt ! Awesome , so many rorqs out there defenceless ... but hey, we dont know exact atributes of those mythical mining drones that will be granted to it , maybe if they work hard enough i`ll put some SP to learn to fly rorq too. Still rorq must die in his current state anyway because if im not mistaken ccp already want to replace it in some time at winter - drill platform. Please stop whine arround - now this or this skill is uselless - Any skill u dont use is useless, dont forget that. So grow up and adapt. |
Serge Bussier
Dark Flame in the Dark
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:45:21 -
[1722] - Quote
Tested command bursts on SISI last days...
Can someone explain why bursts activation considered as offensive action (and causes weapons timer)?!
So there is (for example) a fleet which is travelling to somewhere... No offensive actions taken! Why would the whole fleet wait on every gate for 1 boosting ship who is only dealing (for example again) agility bonus? Another thought: Orca, full of ore, is going to dock on near-situated citadel/station - but there's a message "Buddy, you have taken an offensive action last minute. Get off till the timer ends!"
Any reasonable thoughts? |
Mad Crafter
Grim Determination Violence of Action.
11
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 23:47:29 -
[1723] - Quote
I'm concerned about interceptors, and other lite tackle ships. These ships spend a lot of time way from you own fleet, and links have a very big effect on how well they can do their job. With the new system as is they would have to "check in" every 2 min assuming the link character is max skilled. This will be at best tedious, and at worst even good players will just ignore links. While I'm all for giving skilled players ways to shine I don't think this is quite the way to do it. Also if the FC tells me he wants me to warp somewhere to get eyes on something I don't want to have to tell him to wait 30 sec for the links to refresh.
My suggestion is it add a new roll bonus to interceptors, and perhaps to interdiction, and a few T1 ships that increases the duration of the link effect. I think 5x would be about right. This would require interceptors to "check in" at most every 5-10 min if they want to keep their link effects. The best players will learn when to refresh their links so they always have them when their needed, good players will refresh them only when the're about to run out, and bad one will likely ignore them all together. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
299
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 02:42:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Serge Bussier wrote:Tested command bursts on SISI last days...
Can someone explain why bursts activation considered as offensive action (and causes weapons timer)?!
So there is (for example) a fleet which is travelling to somewhere... No offensive actions taken! Why would the whole fleet wait on every gate for 1 boosting ship who is only dealing (for example again) agility bonus? Another thought: Orca, full of ore, is going to dock on near-situated citadel/station - but there's a message "Buddy, you have taken an offensive action last minute. Get off till the timer ends!"
Any reasonable thoughts?
I said repeatedly this was what would happen.
But that's none of my business.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Dreckarg
Radio Industries
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 19:43:02 -
[1725] - Quote
I've tried reading through the 80 odd pages to find my answer with no luck so I apologize if this has already been answered.
The command processors are being changed from a module to a rig, will this happen automatically or will I need to purchase the new rigs and sell the old modules back to ccp?
If they change automatically will they destroy rigs fitted to ships or end up in the cargo hold or station hanger?
Many thanks for your answers. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
2008
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 23:15:21 -
[1726] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:aldhura wrote: I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant.
So what? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to make an alt that would only be useful if you didn't have to actually _fly_ the thing. How many years, now, have we known that OGB was on the chopping block? 4? 5?
While i dont think there will be any reimbursement, your argument makes no sense.
Using your logic, CCP could take the 'evasive manoeuvring' skill, and change its attributes to simply increase the speed of spinning ships in station. Its the same skill, it still has a legitimate use. Why wouldnt you want keep it, right?
CCP has no hard and fast rule with SP reimbursements and has been both kind and harsh on that topic in the past.
You should probably leave this SP question for CCP to answer rather than righteous-posting with a CCP boner about something you cannot be sure to be correct on.
As for the booster changes. Yogsoloth said it best. (from the perspective of end-game solo/small gang, low sec pvp)
Yogsoloth wrote:Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.
The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.
The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers.
These changes will have little to no effect on large scale warfare, these engagements have more than enough people to have designated on-grid links.
This change will have a negative effect on small gang and solo (single person) pvp. Small gangs dont have enough dedicated people to designate some1 for on-grid boosts, and solo players won't be able to compete or skirmish with a small group without a way to help level the field. These fights will be dumbed down to whoever has more people will win.
I understand CCP only cares about large fights that grab headlines, but I expect solo pvp to continue it's downward spiral, as these changes force everyone into fleets to compete.
I expect a number of these solo or small gang enthusiasts to also cancel accounts. All in all, this change will net a significant loss and cancelation of subscriptions and hurt EVE's overall bottom line.
But hooray that all the carebears will have to find new reasons to cry over their losses.
That's something at least... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1201
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 11:50:35 -
[1727] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Bloodstripes wrote:Miss Jestz wrote:So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.
In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !
Doesn't seems too logical to me ? Command Burst Specialist affects reload time, not cycle time. The clip size on burst modules is so large that you'll never need to reload unless you want to. So it won't affect how much ammo you use. Although he has the skill name wrong, his point is none the less valid - My specialized leadership character will be using 2.5 charges per cycle.. Maybe, if there is someone at CCP who knows how - Fleet command skill could be changed to increase cycle time of burst modules - Bring it into line with pretty much every other module that uses charges in the game. It would also make having "Fleet Command" trained worth something - Right now it is pretty much redundant.. "Fleet Command" effects boost range unless I'm missing something. Also how are you getting 2.5 charges per cycle? Unless I'm not understanding the mechanic the cycle time should be independent from the boost time. All the skills do is make the boosts from each cycle linger longer. While not useful for stationary mining boosts, which I believe is your perspective here, increasing the cycle time as well would adversely effect combat boosts where those receiving boosts may be moving in and out of the boosting ships boost radius frequently since the boosts would take longer to cycle and reapply. The option to not train the skills to counter that actually hurts in the same situation as the time member of your fleet can have boosts when moving away is reduced, so not training them is also a loss. Simple answer - Do you "really" think any decent fleet is going to rely on just one booster? You can have as many boosters active at any one time as you choose, anyone silly enough to "wander out of boost range" deserves to die, just like he would now by wandering out of logi range (which happens to be the same as boosting range)
I have a feeling from your response, you don't spend much time in fleets or maybe your "that guy" who continually has to be told to keep at range on the anchor.
2.5 charges per cycle - not exact but close, just check skills and add the right implant. Without the totally unnecessary charges, the skills would affect duration of the module - Devs just decided it would be "better" for some reason to add an additional cost and more micromanagement to boosting, on top of bringing it on grid (which is good, except for the rubbish mechanic of charges that comes with it)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2005
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:24:19 -
[1728] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Simple answer - Do you "really" think any decent fleet is going to rely on just one booster? No, assuming the fleet is of sufficient size to support multiple boosters without sacrificing other utility, and even then I expect diversity of boosts meaning throwing more numbers at the issue remains a poor solution to the problem.
Sgt Ocker wrote:You can have as many boosters active at any one time as you choose, anyone silly enough to "wander out of boost range" deserves to die, just like he would now by wandering out of logi range (which happens to be the same as boosting range)
I have a feeling from your response, you don't spend much time in fleets or maybe your "that guy" who continually has to be told to keep at range on the anchor. Totally forgot we were playing a game where combat strategy only occurs with all ships huddled together in bubbles or requires a totally separate set of boosters for every group that should operate at range.
Sgt Ocker wrote:2.5 charges per cycle - not exact but close, just check skills and add the right implant. Without the totally unnecessary charges, the skills would affect duration of the module - Devs just decided it would be "better" for some reason to add an additional cost and more micromanagement to boosting, on top of bringing it on grid (which is good, except for the rubbish mechanic of charges that comes with it) The cycles don't change so it's always 1 charge per cycle. It's the effect duration that changes but that gets a renewed timer with each cycle. I get that the only use case you care about is an Orca in a belt, but for everyone who can look past that it's clear that the ammo has nothing to do with what I stated. With or without ammo, any role that may leave the radius of a booster then return will benefit from shorter cycles paired with longer effect durations.
And for most, no, boosting won't be micro managed because while you can the gains in low cost ammo savings won't really matter because they'll actually have to fly their ships instead. |
Darth Magus
The Lone Magus
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 05:06:13 -
[1729] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:aldhura wrote: I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant.
So what? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to make an alt that would only be useful if you didn't have to actually _fly_ the thing. How many years, now, have we known that OGB was on the chopping block? 4? 5? While i dont think there will be any reimbursement, your argument makes no sense. Using your logic, CCP could take the 'evasive manoeuvring' skill, and change its attributes to simply increase the speed of spinning ships in station. Its the same skill, it still has a legitimate use. Why wouldnt you want keep it, right? CCP has no hard and fast rule with SP reimbursements and has been both kind and harsh on that topic in the past. You should probably leave this SP question for CCP to answer rather than righteous-posting with a CCP boner about something you cannot be sure to be correct on. As for the booster changes. Yogsoloth said it best. (from the perspective of end-game solo/small gang, low sec pvp) Yogsoloth wrote:Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.
The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.
The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers.
These changes will have little to no effect on large scale warfare, these engagements have more than enough people to have designated on-grid links.
This change will have a negative effect on small gang and solo (single person) pvp. Small gangs dont have enough dedicated people to designate some1 for on-grid boosts, and solo players won't be able to compete or skirmish with a small group without a way to help level the field. These fights will be dumbed down to whoever has more people will win.
I understand CCP only cares about large fights that grab headlines, but I expect solo pvp to continue it's downward spiral, as these changes force everyone into fleets to compete.
I expect a number of these solo or small gang enthusiasts to also cancel accounts. All in all, this change will net a significant loss and cancelation of subscriptions and hurt EVE's overall bottom line.
But hooray that all the carebears will have to find new reasons to cry over their losses.
That's something at least...
I think you are both very off on this one...
Solo PVP will actually see a huge boost + rejuvination as you will now actually be able to really solo PVP (not PVP 1 vs maxed linked cancer 2Bil implanted Garmurs and other cancer linked ships).
If you see a ship on D-scan and no booster ships around - you can actually engage and have a "truesolo" fight. Before this was impossible as almost all "self-proclamed PVP topdogs" had an OGB alt permalinking the entire system 24/7. Just check Vard (3-1 years ago).
OnGrid "nerf" will be huge for FW and lowsec roaming solo/small-gang PVP as you can actually see (D-scan) what is in a plex and know for sure that the target is not linked . Before this was (nearly) impossible
|
Mafone
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 22:55:57 -
[1730] - Quote
What happened to: Blog three will focus on the balance tweaks being made to combat-focused boosting ships to release alongside the new system. Blog four will be released right before the November release, covering all the changes to the plan we made thanks to your feedback and summarizing all the ship and module balance changes in the November release for easy reference.
Are the balance tweeks (NERFS) to combat focused Boosting ships further expanded as we were promised and if so where as well as the whole blog 4 stuff. They don't seem even to be in the patch notes for ascension which were published today
As a high skilled command ship pilot would be nice to be able to know whats happening to the ships themselves amidst this extensive and in some places needed (on grid finally) reworking of the command boost system - we have had the well overpowered details on the so much buffed Mining command ships that they are well OP for months. Yet the much more common and integral to combat command ships???? apart from the general point of nerfing the number of links they can field and a promise of a dev blog on further details nothing. I know this patch is all about how much ccp loves miners but I am sure the number of active combat command ships in game far exceeds to niche mining ones probably by orders of magnitude. So what are you doing to our command ships apart from nerfing the number of links and the on grid stuff. Will we have to wait until tuesday when we log in to see if we can pilot ships we already have and how effective they are? |
|
Darth Magus
The Lone Magus
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 04:44:10 -
[1731] - Quote
Mafone wrote:What happened to: Blog three will focus on the balance tweaks being made to combat-focused boosting ships to release alongside the new system. Blog four will be released right before the November release, covering all the changes to the plan we made thanks to your feedback and summarizing all the ship and module balance changes in the November release for easy reference.
Are the balance tweeks (NERFS) to combat focused Boosting ships further expanded as we were promised and if so where as well as the whole blog 4 stuff. They don't seem even to be in the patch notes for ascension which were published today
As a high skilled command ship pilot would be nice to be able to know whats happening to the ships themselves amidst this extensive and in some places needed (on grid finally) reworking of the command boost system - we have had the well overpowered details on the so much buffed Mining command ships that they are well OP for months. Yet the much more common and integral to combat command ships???? apart from the general point of nerfing the number of links they can field and a promise of a dev blog on further details nothing. I know this patch is all about how much ccp loves miners but I am sure the number of active combat command ships in game far exceeds to niche mining ones probably by orders of magnitude. So what are you doing to our command ships apart from nerfing the number of links and the on grid stuff. Will we have to wait until tuesday when we log in to see if we can pilot ships we already have and how effective they are?
Correct - You could do nothing and wait til Tuesday to find out...
OR - you could do something (some creativity + effort) and log on SiSi and test and find out yourself. Moreover - you could already create a new Command Ship fit using the new fitting tool, and even save/import it into Tranquility, so that its ready for the day patch goes live...
Of course the latter is probably asking for too much effort and its easier to whine... |
Easyfail
Deus-Ex-Machina Circle-Of-Two
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 13:40:22 -
[1732] - Quote
i've read most of the posts, it took aprox 1 hour, i still dont understand... WHY? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18189
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 14:34:34 -
[1733] - Quote
Easyfail wrote:i've read most of the posts, it took aprox 1 hour, i still dont understand... WHY?
tl;dr CCP don't want keep roles to be AFK alt territory.
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Fiddly Pop
The Conference Elite CODE.
56
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 14:39:03 -
[1734] - Quote
I don't know if this has been answered but if I use a command burst on someone with a criminal will i get flag as suspect?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2945
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 15:06:31 -
[1735] - Quote
Fiddly Pop wrote:I don't know if this has been answered but if I use a command burst on someone with a criminal will i get flag as suspect?
As far as I know, the answer is no, you will not get a flag. Fozzie said the following and to my knowledge nothing has changed:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch? A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
300
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 20:23:19 -
[1736] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Serge Bussier wrote:Tested command bursts on SISI last days...
Can someone explain why bursts activation considered as offensive action (and causes weapons timer)?!
So there is (for example) a fleet which is travelling to somewhere... No offensive actions taken! Why would the whole fleet wait on every gate for 1 boosting ship who is only dealing (for example again) agility bonus? Another thought: Orca, full of ore, is going to dock on near-situated citadel/station - but there's a message "Buddy, you have taken an offensive action last minute. Get off till the timer ends!"
Any reasonable thoughts? I said repeatedly this was what would happen. But that's none of my business.
On SiSi at least, the weapons timer does come into play. Really wish CCP would give and update since we're less than two days away.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Juoi Milar
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 00:33:17 -
[1737] - Quote
Baltrom wrote:im probably going to catch a fair amount of flak for this but id like to be the voice of the probably unpopular opinion that theses changes are not thought through. (also please excuse my possibly bad enlgish)
at the moment , there is nothing wrong with links , everyone in the game can use them equally . if you have the isk to plex an alt or the rl money , for links , anyone can do it and use them equally .
right , now theres people saying , oh wow , why do i need to have an alt to be on par with the bois that have link alts ? thats unfair.
well . you need alts for everything in this game , the newest launcher is even designed to make launching alts easier . you cant really mine without having an army of mining alts (if you want to be on par with the people that have mining alts), you cant use supers effectively unless you have alts sitting in them , some lowsec alliances only recruit people with capital alts , people camp gates with re sebo alts etc etc ... the entire alt argument is ******** in a game like eve . so, you want to have links ? get someone with a links alt . not really a big deal in my opinion.
2nd , i obviously have no clue how the new links ships are gonna be flown on a combat grid . but to me it seems as if the new mechanic gives even more power to the blob. eve is a game of n+1 , if you have more people , you are stronger . now forcing links on grid means that 2 equally skilled fleets , both having their links on grid and, depending on how the ships are gonna be flown , also in dps range of each other . now one of the fleets is actually a bit bigger , which is already an advantage , but to me it seems that the bigger fleet will not only have an easier time keeping their links alive , but also killing the enemy links ship which is going to put them at an even bigger disadvantage as they already are .
i might be wrong with everything i am saying , maybe i dont see the big picture . i also didnt read every single comment and dont know if my concerns have already been voiced by someone else.
I think what you may be missing is the sense of realism this will add to the game. The game has been lacking some large fleet battles in the last few years especially in FW and this may help to re-ignite that. Also large fleet battles are not just about numbers but about leadership, control, good scouting, good maneouvering and great execution of a well thought out plan. In the past I have often (within Spiritus Draconis) been involved in large fleet battles and won despite being outnumbered.
At last command ships may actually be used exactly how they should be, within a fleet. I think there are going to be some interesting times ahead.
|
Urduri
Chaotic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 19:15:44 -
[1738] - Quote
Vyctam Shadowclaw wrote:I was wondering if Orcas were getting a stronger tank or better defensive/combat capability. As it is, seems like this change forces more to be sitting ducks for gankers.
I'm sad to see the passive nature of the buffs go - trained for nearly a year to specifically have passive buffs while mining or mission running but guess the good old days are coming to an end.
Yes, the Orca does get a tank buff. I was seeing about a 40% increase. As far as the passive buffs for mining, that was almost the sole reason I started a second account, for the mining boosts. As the mining bursts links require charges, which cost more than than the boosts are worth, I'll likely let the second account lapse. As solo mining is rather tedious and slow, i may well let the remaining account lapse as well. Many people might say "Do something else, like missioning, or exploration." Both of those wear out my arm and hands, so it gets to be very tiring after a couple hours. :P
CCP is doing a good job of eliminating long-term subscribers one account at a time.
|
DeadGuyVegas
JABOFPE
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 23:19:03 -
[1739] - Quote
CCP is doing a good job of eliminating long-term subscribers one account at a time. [/quote]
Yep I have lost so many friends... Seems every new expansion some other friend leaves the game.
Maybe it's better to get the new money then keep the old money... |
Rroff
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1013
|
Posted - 2016.11.17 15:14:10 -
[1740] - Quote
Urduri wrote:[quote=Vyctam Shadowclaw] CCP is doing a good job of eliminating long-term subscribers one account at a time.
What gets me - I don't know why they had to double down on the solution - like many of the past changes that have resulted in a not insignificant number of people leaving they've gone full tilt at it rather than try to find a balance between the different types of players.
While you'll always get some complaining keeping some of the (local) defensive bonuses, web range and mining, etc. stuff to the old system but moving some of the offensive centric boosts to the new system i.e. point range, remote rep, ewar and prop mod speed would have gone a long way to dealing with the main complaints about 10+km/s frigs pointing at 30+km or whatever, added some degree of interesting gameplay to it (the new setup is way too much of a chore) while not ******* off those players who'd invested in links setups for PVE, certain fleet compositions, etc. Also while making drug boosters essential for PVP isn't probably a good end result a certain amount of balance could have been provided as well by introducing PVP specific boosters for small gang and solo type use that don't stack with links and provide a potentially more desirable benefit over links for specific areas like point range. |
|
Minamel
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
11
|
Posted - 2016.11.17 15:53:28 -
[1741] - Quote
Quote: Can anyone explain when someone would want to swap out the ammo in their bursts?
At max skills+mindlink in a command ship (best duration bonus), the duration is 129s. At max skills, the min time between bursts is 60s cycle time + 30s reload time = 90s.
You can't run more than one burst off of a single module: - 2 bursts off of one module would require a duration of 180s. - 3 bursts off of 2 modules is almost doable, but you're still short a few seconds, even at max skills. Assuming an even stagger of 45 seconds between modules means you get a gap time (i.e. time when a burst is not being applied to fleet members) of 5 seconds for each burst (practicing on SiSi I've found that the combination of lag, ticks, and pilot error means that this is more like 7-10 seconds of gap time). Even if that gap time is acceptable, it still means that you have a really long "build up" period for your fleet as your bursts start applying. Burst 1 is applied instantly, burst 2 has to wait 45 seconds (!) and burst 3 has to wait 90 seconds (!!). Also keep in mind that this whole thing requires Command Ships V and a mindlink -- it's pretty bad with CSIV and unworkable without the mindlink. - 4 bursts off of 3 modules isn't doable due to the type restrictions on bursts (i.e. info bursts can't load armor ammo).
This!
I brought the new mechanics to fleet yesterday and this i have to say:
1) Have to be ongrid is fine to me even as carebear that likes to hide in a cloaked nullified ship on a save 2) Love it. As fleet booster now people see you doing it they see what they get and you get all the love from them you deserve 3) Some boost (blue ones) look to (maybe too) similar to dictor bubbles. Some fleetmembers where almost panicwarpoff every 2 minutes. 4) Itn my opinion a T3 should have a max of 4 boost modules (+1) and a Command Ship should have 5(+1). You could do that with a T2 command burst rig that give +2 modules instead of the +1 from the T1 version. Please? 5) The most important thing: Like someone postet above. With absolute maximum Skills and faction implant i could aply 2 bursts from on module. They last 2 minutes but cooldown+reload is more than one minute. So every skill that boosts up boost duration and lower reload times are just useless because it changes nothing. One burstmodule for one burst type. That feels wrong. With max skills there should be a "ongoing single burst or maintain 2 bursts with reloading and micromanagement" option. If you ask me the reload time shoudl be much much shorter.
Overall: Like it, bringing booster ongrid was the right desicion. |
Frances Voltaire
Eldorado Exhumers
3
|
Posted - 2016.11.18 22:11:12 -
[1742] - Quote
Apparently you get a weapons timer when you boost. While this makes sense for Shield Armor Info and Skirmish, but Mining Boosts?
Armor, Shield, Info and Skirmish boosts can be used to own advantage against others so it makes sense you get a weapon timer on these whether you do or do not attack another.
Mining Boosts can only be used for self while they can improve your ability to harvest ICE Rocks and Gas, they provide 0 combat advantage. There is no way to use them offensively against another player or even NPC. There does not seem to be a reason to have a weapons timer while boosting miners.
However, you can boost while in warp. Not sure what that will be used for.
Apologies for the repeat post from Ascension Feedback, this just seems a more appropriate place to post about Command Bursts and weapons timers |
Gulmuk
Control-Space DARKNESS.
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.23 04:21:07 -
[1743] - Quote
Why is it that the boost effects last longer than cycle time? Shouldn't the cycle time increase with boost effect time? For instance on my porpoise, I have a 60s mining boost module cycle time, but I get a 97s effect timer from the boosts. So why not make it all 97s? There aren't any skills from what I have read.. Maybe I missed something, but there's no skills to increase cycle time for the booster modules.
On top of that. Today when I was boosting. The first time I lit my modules off, they wasted 2 cycles before they started boosting my fleet of miners. The guys were sitting there going, WTF is going on, where's the boosts. I was just like "IDK... The modules are active and I have an effects timer on my hud..." So for 2 min my group was looking at me like I was stupid and couldn't figure out how to load and turn on a command module. Flippin stupid...
Also I had a group of 6 miners land on field after going to drop ore in a POS. All of them landed within 10km of me, and I cycled my boosts on right after they landed. But the boosts only applied to 1 of the miners. The other 5 had to wait till my modules cycled a second time to get the boosts.
IDK why CCP would deploy an expansion that is SO DAMN BUGGY!!! C'mon CCP... That's why you have SISI for... TO work out the bugs! |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.11.23 06:36:57 -
[1744] - Quote
Gulmuk wrote:Why is it that the boost effects last longer than cycle time? Shouldn't the cycle time increase with boost effect time? For instance on my porpoise, I have a 60s mining boost module cycle time, but I get a 97s effect timer from the boosts. So why not make it all 97s? There aren't any skills from what I have read.. Maybe I missed something, but there's no skills to increase cycle time for the booster modules.
On top of that. Today when I was boosting. The first time I lit my modules off, they wasted 2 cycles before they started boosting my fleet of miners. The guys were sitting there going, WTF is going on, where's the boosts. I was just like "IDK... The modules are active and I have an effects timer on my hud..." So for 2 min my group was looking at me like I was stupid and couldn't figure out how to load and turn on a command module. Flippin stupid...
Also I had a group of 6 miners land on field after going to drop ore in a POS. All of them landed within 10km of me, and I cycled my boosts on right after they landed. But the boosts only applied to 1 of the miners. The other 5 had to wait till my modules cycled a second time to get the boosts.
IDK why CCP would deploy an expansion that is SO DAMN BUGGY!!! C'mon CCP... That's why you have SISI for... TO work out the bugs!
Your miners have been out of range? If they are still in warp (even if landing on the grid), they may be invulnerable for the boost... |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1246
|
Posted - 2016.11.23 08:08:05 -
[1745] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:Gulmuk wrote:Why is it that the boost effects last longer than cycle time? Shouldn't the cycle time increase with boost effect time? For instance on my porpoise, I have a 60s mining boost module cycle time, but I get a 97s effect timer from the boosts. So why not make it all 97s? There aren't any skills from what I have read.. Maybe I missed something, but there's no skills to increase cycle time for the booster modules.
On top of that. Today when I was boosting. The first time I lit my modules off, they wasted 2 cycles before they started boosting my fleet of miners. The guys were sitting there going, WTF is going on, where's the boosts. I was just like "IDK... The modules are active and I have an effects timer on my hud..." So for 2 min my group was looking at me like I was stupid and couldn't figure out how to load and turn on a command module. Flippin stupid...
Also I had a group of 6 miners land on field after going to drop ore in a POS. All of them landed within 10km of me, and I cycled my boosts on right after they landed. But the boosts only applied to 1 of the miners. The other 5 had to wait till my modules cycled a second time to get the boosts.
IDK why CCP would deploy an expansion that is SO DAMN BUGGY!!! C'mon CCP... That's why you have SISI for... TO work out the bugs! Your miners have been out of range? If they are still in warp (even if landing on the grid), they may be invulnerable for the boost... And sometimes you can have all your miners warp in sit stationary at 1,000m of the Orca and only part if the gang will get boosts on the first cycle - It's like the mechanics of the new bursts can simply "miss" ships in the fleet..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
CaptCommando
Sky Fighters
3
|
Posted - 2016.11.23 18:15:24 -
[1746] - Quote
Will the command burst apply the effect to the caster? so if you fit out say a BC with one and take it out solo and use the burst in combat will you get the effect or does it effect all but the caster? |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1827
|
Posted - 2016.11.23 19:18:44 -
[1747] - Quote
Caster = booster? Yes, it affects the guy, who applies the boost. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3723
|
Posted - 2016.11.23 19:49:13 -
[1748] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: And sometimes you can have all your miners warp in sit stationary at 1,000m of the Orca and only part if the gang will get boosts on the first cycle - It's like the mechanics of the new bursts can simply "miss" ships in the fleet..
Ships are on grid in warp a lot longer than you think often. So it could easily be the in warp part. If it's not send a reproducible bug report in. But user error accounts for more 'bugs' than actual bugs do. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1246
|
Posted - 2016.11.24 10:57:04 -
[1749] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: And sometimes you can have all your miners warp in sit stationary at 1,000m of the Orca and only part if the gang will get boosts on the first cycle - It's like the mechanics of the new bursts can simply "miss" ships in the fleet..
Ships are on grid in warp a lot longer than you think often. So it could easily be the in warp part. If it's not send a reproducible bug report in. But user error accounts for more 'bugs' than actual bugs do. Land on grid, keep at range 1,000 m of the Orca, wait till all ships are at chosen range (1,000 m), fire up boosts - more than half the gang DID NOT get boosts on the first cycle. I'm not sure exactly how warp mechanics work but do know, you can't keep at range on something while in warp.
You might be able to find "user error" there but it has happened too many times to be as simple as that.
"reproducible bug report", your joking right?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1015
|
Posted - 2016.11.24 11:24:07 -
[1750] - Quote
Not spent that much time with them so far since returning as I dislike the system - but I noticed a couple of times with 3 characters in fleet it said something like "boosts applied to 1 ship" when activating them with all ships in range and active on grid (I had the other 2 target locked). |
|
Urbusk P'Tchu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 15:27:43 -
[1751] - Quote
NOT at all happy w/ this change . Do not understand why you turn everything we work to get . And just tell us to bad . |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1016
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 16:04:28 -
[1752] - Quote
Urbusk P'Tchu wrote:NOT at all happy w/ this change . Do not understand why you turn everything we work to get . And just tell us to bad .
One thing I don't like about it - for stuff like local tank buffs, mining, etc. if you make the ammo too limited it becomes too much of a chore to be worth dealing with, if you make the ammo relatively plentiful (as they've done) then most of the time for all intents and purposes its the same as unlimited except that very rare case you forget to stock up - which is a mechanic that over the last few years they've worked extensively to remove from eve so not sure why its been introduced here.
That said I do like the way the system works for stuff like point range, ewar and remote repair as they have a much bigger impact and that level of bonus should require some effort - infact if remote repair bonuses were a targeted limited area of effect (say 8km or something around the targetted ship) that could be quite interesting. |
Trinitro
Net 7 Cannon.Fodder
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 14:28:35 -
[1753] - Quote
why the hell does a burst module auto fire every 30 seconds when the related skills that "Make it more efficient" make the effect last four times that while the module keeps on wasting ammo every 30 seconds. Don't tell me you want to give me something to do while boosting a mining fleet because babysitting burst modules and clicking them all every 2 minutes instead of leaving em on auto repeat is a joke not a meaningful addition to the game play at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never post on forums and this lapse in judgement has forced me to comment. remove your heads from your asses please |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3730
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 18:10:45 -
[1754] - Quote
Trinitro wrote:why the hell does a burst module auto fire every 30 seconds when the related skills that "Make it more efficient" Because the skills are not about making it more efficient. But about making it easier to maintain boosts on people even if they are moving around the grid. Understand what the skills actually are meant to do makes it much easier to understand why they work that way. Not everyone is in a stationary barge fleet even if we are talking miners.
Additionally the charges are so cheap that it's an irrelevant additional cost. What the charges mean though is that you don't have to refit modules to change boosts, just change ammo, which makes it much easier to change boosts in the middle of combat if the circumstances change. Since you can't refit with a weapons timer, but you can reload. |
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
86
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 19:42:55 -
[1755] - Quote
Oobiedoob Benubi wrote:Amazing. You've figured out a way to destroy the entire CASMA community. CCP, you really suck.
Guess you could say that they suck tears? |
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
86
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 20:03:51 -
[1756] - Quote
Cpt Hidoshi Ambraelle wrote:Absolutely the FIRST thing to say about this is IT'S TERRIBLE. Here is why I currently have 2 Rorq's If your currently planned changes go ahead As soon as the November expansion hits I will Reprocess them Plus My Orca as I would rather mine with NO Boosts at all than to put a rorq on grid NO MATTER what you do to it. I would Rather put the capital parts from the 2x Rorq and 1x Orca towards some more dreads to sell than to keep and use them. Rorq's currently cost what 2bill why in hell would someone want to try and boost with it on grid while trying to micro manage everything else.
Game design isn't terrible just because it negatively impacts your current applied strategy. If you look at it, not from your own view point, but from the game design view point, then you'll see that it makes sense to remove off grid boosting. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1021
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 21:03:18 -
[1757] - Quote
Logan Revelore wrote: Game design isn't terrible just because it negatively impacts your current applied strategy. If you look at it, not from your own view point, but from the game design view point, then you'll see that it makes sense to remove off grid boosting.
From a game design perspective there isn't really a right or wrong perspective to off grid boosting what is more important is the overall gameplay that surrounds it and how it is executed and even then just because a particular implementation is "more right" doesn't mean that the right approach is a dramatic shift to that end.
There are some aspects of the new system I really like and infact don't think CCP has gone far enough while on the other hand there are changes that while more "valid" maybe as a gameplay mechanic had a bigger impact on people who were making use of links in more esoteric fashion or other ways that weren't directly connected to the areas where links caused an undesirable impact and IMO far less imperative to make such dramatic changes to even if the changes could be seen as more "right". |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1256
|
Posted - 2016.12.05 11:49:55 -
[1758] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Trinitro wrote:why the hell does a burst module auto fire every 30 seconds when the related skills that "Make it more efficient" Because the skills are not about making it more efficient. But about making it easier to maintain boosts on people even if they are moving around the grid. Understand what the skills actually are meant to do makes it much easier to understand why they work that way. Not everyone is in a stationary barge fleet even if we are talking miners. Additionally the charges are so cheap that it's an irrelevant additional cost. What the charges mean though is that you don't have to refit modules to change boosts, just change ammo, which makes it much easier to change boosts in the middle of combat if the circumstances change. Since you can't refit with a weapons timer, but you can reload. And no Ocker, I'm not joking, I've done Dev work myself. If the user can work out exactly what combination of steps causes errors, it makes the Dev time involved in tracing a single bug vastly shorter, and means it might actually get fixed. Because otherwise what tends to happen is the Dev spends 2 hours chasing their tail, not finding any issues in the code, and gives up and moves onto a bug that they do have a specific reproduction method for that they can find the error for to fix. And your little blurb is why in many cases it is not worth submitting bug reports.
Not everything is easy to reproduce but that doesn't mean the bug doesn't exist.
Three times last night half my exhumers missed getting boosts despite having been sat 1,000m from the Orca for just under a minute (the time since I last unloaded it and warped back to the ice belt).
How would you reproduce this error? Warp miners in, set keep at range 1,000 on the Orca, fill Orca, warp out dock and empty Orca, warp back to gang, set keep at range 1,000m (which most already are due to not having moved), start cycling boosts..
I have tried to reproduce it reliably, I can't - It is a random thing (it happened 3 times over 4 hours of mining).
PS; What the skills may be meant to do and what they actually achieve as far as your explanation goes - They leave a LOT to be desired. Max skills with faction implant, you get 126 seconds (that's if you go as soon as the boosts cycle) - Not really enough time to be "moving around a grid" and keep boosts. Like a lot of things Devs dream up, practical use often gets disregarded in the design. The ONLY benefit to the new ongrid boosts comes when one dies mid cycle and another booster takes its place. Move away from the boosters, your as good as dead because your also out of logi range. So unless your feeling suicidal, don't do it..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1120
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 20:34:58 -
[1759] - Quote
You hosed everyone who had wing command and fleet command trained extremely bad.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1120
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 20:44:34 -
[1760] - Quote
Leadership > Wing Command > Fleet Command being left at the same training times and giving such a small boost to such a worthless stat is dumb. It's cheap and lazy to leave it like that but what else should we expect.
Not today spaghetti.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1256
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 22:52:34 -
[1761] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:Leadership > Wing Command > Fleet Command being left at the same training times and giving such a small boost to such a worthless stat is dumb. It's cheap and lazy to leave it like that but what else should we expect. Reality - CCP don't care about those who spent time and money (isk??) training these skills. No-one will bother training them past 3 or 4 unless they have trained everything else available as the benefit at 5 is all but worthless.
Suggestion. Fleet command skill - Burst area effect 20km per level, 100km at level 5. This would give bursts an effective range of around 150km with all skills (+ faction implant) at 5.
Reason; Dictors, Hics, Bombers, etc could be in boost range while carrying out their respective roles..
Drawback; 150km is right at warpable range, so if your sitting at a warpin perch (over 150km) your not getting boosts.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
301
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 20:06:57 -
[1762] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Reality - CCP don't care about those who spent time and money (isk??) training these skills. No-one will bother training them past 3 or 4 unless they have trained everything else available as the benefit at 5 is all but worthless.
Suggestion. Fleet command skill - Burst area effect 20km per level, 100km at level 5. This would give bursts an effective range of around 150km with all skills (+ faction implant) at 5.
Reason; Dictors, Hics, Bombers, etc could be in boost range while carrying out their respective roles..
Drawback; 150km is right at warpable range, so if your sitting at a warpin perch (over 150km) your not getting boosts.
Or they'll tell us something stupid like "Get bursts, warp to the perch, then warp to target" or "Get bursts, warp back and forth between bursts and perch until a target shows up, then warp to target".
Meanwhile, the target jumps through the gate while you're mid-warp and is gone before you land at the perch or the bursts.
Hewkd un fonnicks es werken fer yew!
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1256
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 21:38:22 -
[1763] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Reality - CCP don't care about those who spent time and money (isk??) training these skills. No-one will bother training them past 3 or 4 unless they have trained everything else available as the benefit at 5 is all but worthless.
Suggestion. Fleet command skill - Burst area effect 20km per level, 100km at level 5. This would give bursts an effective range of around 150km with all skills (+ faction implant) at 5.
Reason; Dictors, Hics, Bombers, etc could be in boost range while carrying out their respective roles..
Drawback; 150km is right at warpable range, so if your sitting at a warpin perch (over 150km) your not getting boosts. Or they'll tell us something stupid like "Get bursts, warp to the perch, then warp to target" or "Get bursts, warp back and forth between bursts and perch until a target shows up, then warp to target". Meanwhile, the target jumps through the gate while you're mid-warp and is gone before you land at the perch or the bursts. Hewkd un fonnicks es werken fer yew! Unless your flying small fast warping ships (or larger ones with tank sacrificed for warp and align speed - Your not warping in and out to get boosts. You need to be in range of boosters to keep boosts, which is unfortunately a big drawback for anything other than blob fleets. Most fleets I've been in since this change have had up to 6 or 8 boosting ships - And if your moving (warping on / off grid etc), you still have missed boost cycles due to not everyone being on the same server tic. Not everyone has an ideal connection to CCP's server, if yours is not in the "good" category you'll often miss boost cycles when warping around a grid. Worse, is if the boosts cycle mid warp, then EVERYONE (except the booster) can lose boosts.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
RogueCorsair
Covert Ore Reclamation
1
|
Posted - 2016.12.25 17:38:25 -
[1764] - Quote
where can i find the final stats on boosting? my alt has so many at 5 it would really **** me off that its all but useless now(been gone awhile) am i correct in assuming there will be no sp reimbursement? just testing the waters to see if i want to resub both accouns but if its as bad as it sounds, forget it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18283
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 10:50:03 -
[1765] - Quote
RogueCorsair wrote:where can i find the final stats on boosting? my alt has so many at 5 it would really **** me off that its all but useless now(been gone awhile) am i correct in assuming there will be no sp reimbursement? just testing the waters to see if i want to resub both accouns but if its as bad as it sounds, forget it.
They're in the blog?
I don't know where you're getting the idea that command bursts are useless. They're certainly different, in that it's no longer an automatic decision to run them all the time. On the other hand you can receive boosts of all 5 types of you really want, and there's no need to worry about fleet hierarchy any more. Form my personal experience of providing and receiving bursts, they're absolutely still very useful, and there's a place for ships from command destroyers to carriers to provide them rather than it just being "Ss T3s > everything else".
T3s still have a role. Don't trash yours until you have spent 5 minutes thinking about how they could be used.
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Casey Black Smith
Altaris Research
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 17:07:20 -
[1766] - Quote
Yogsoloth wrote:Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.
The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.
The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers..
After being out of the game for almost a year, I start reading the forums today and see this thread. Needless to say, the 5 accounts I wanted to resub will now lay dormant while i rather go read a book.
See ya CCP
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1121
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 17:23:03 -
[1767] - Quote
Fleet Command 5 equates to a 2 KM bonus on the range of command bursts.
Utter sh!t
Not today spaghetti.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3822
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 18:39:51 -
[1768] - Quote
Casey Black Smith wrote:
After being out of the game for almost a year, I start reading the forums today and see this thread. Needless to say, the 5 accounts I wanted to resub will now lay dormant while i rather go read a book.
See ya CCP
The game is actually much improved by the new boost mechanics, ignore the nay sayers in this thread. |
|
|
|
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] |