|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2249
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:23:56 -
[1] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2252
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:38:49 -
[2] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:19:42 -
[3] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:03:34 -
[4] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 16:35:40 -
[5] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2422
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 04:55:36 -
[6] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2435
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:32:34 -
[7] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2439
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:46:18 -
[8] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2527
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 23:50:51 -
[9] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2533
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 15:47:04 -
[10] - 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/
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2541
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 06:43:51 -
[11] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2546
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 15:41:45 -
[12] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2555
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:44:04 -
[13] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2555
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 18:58:11 -
[14] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2562
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 00:42:42 -
[15] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2562
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 01:14:52 -
[16] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2562
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 02:38:18 -
[17] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2564
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 13:41:28 -
[18] - 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/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2568
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:55:14 -
[19] - 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/
|
|
|
|