|
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/
|
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6982
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 15:57:30 -
[3] - 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
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14327
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:01:42 -
[4] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14329
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:09:39 -
[5] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1834
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:36:18 -
[6] - 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
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1834
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:44:33 -
[7] - 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
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14333
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:47:49 -
[8] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14367
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:40:43 -
[9] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14393
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:48:39 -
[10] - 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 -
[11] - Quote
Reserved
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 16:16:15 -
[12] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14399
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:19:50 -
[13] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:41:18 -
[14] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:54:05 -
[15] - 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 -
[16] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14412
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 17:07:09 -
[17] - 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/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14547
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 10:00:42 -
[18] - 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 -
[19] - 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
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14549
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 11:12:52 -
[20] - 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
|
|
|
|
|
|