| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
0
   |
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:11:26 -
[1] - 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-¦re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet. They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund? Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills.
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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 05:24:38 -
[2] - 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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 06:34:52 -
[3] - 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+¦ata. 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 -
[4] - 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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:08:29 -
[5] - 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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:44:31 -
[6] - 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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:49:55 -
[7] - 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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:59:34 -
[8] - 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?
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
FUBAR.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:17:17 -
[9] - 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?
|
| |
|