|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:18:36 -
[1] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:23:47 -
[2] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:33:37 -
[3] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:37:03 -
[4] - 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 -
[5] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:47:16 -
[6] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 07:55:51 -
[7] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:13:27 -
[8] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:33:01 -
[9] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2921
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:50:53 -
[10] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:44:15 -
[11] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:45:07 -
[12] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:03:46 -
[13] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:07:24 -
[14] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:15:45 -
[15] - Quote
double
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:16:35 -
[16] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2926
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:20:16 -
[17] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 12:56:54 -
[18] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 13:54:59 -
[19] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 14:01:20 -
[20] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 15:44:02 -
[21] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2930
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 16:56:43 -
[22] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2932
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:02:00 -
[23] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2937
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:23:32 -
[24] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2937
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 19:48:56 -
[25] - 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 -
[26] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2943
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 00:02:10 -
[27] - Quote
Vald Tegor
reasoning doesn't work on them. They don't want balance they want isk with no risk
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2956
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:19:17 -
[28] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2956
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:45:09 -
[29] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2960
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:50:47 -
[30] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2960
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:56:47 -
[31] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2964
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 04:30:43 -
[32] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2964
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 07:25:52 -
[33] - Quote
some one who is cloaked can't hurt you
some one who is afk really can't hurt you
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2965
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 09:31:36 -
[34] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 13:40:34 -
[35] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 14:26:35 -
[36] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2970
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 01:38:08 -
[37] - 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 -
[38] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:52:09 -
[39] - 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 -
[40] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:04:39 -
[41] - 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 -
[42] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 04:33:19 -
[43] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 06:03:15 -
[44] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2972
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 06:23:28 -
[45] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2976
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 09:54:28 -
[46] - 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-¦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. 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2978
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 12:53:21 -
[47] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2981
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 13:17:34 -
[48] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2982
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 14:02:05 -
[49] - Quote
im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG"
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2983
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 16:22:39 -
[50] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2985
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 20:17:10 -
[51] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 22:20:32 -
[52] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 23:06:59 -
[53] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 02:00:48 -
[54] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 02:42:22 -
[55] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2986
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 03:28:49 -
[56] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2987
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 04:22:17 -
[57] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2987
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:00:01 -
[58] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2988
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 05:46:48 -
[59] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2991
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 11:45:49 -
[60] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2996
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 15:00:29 -
[61] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2998
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 15:18:31 -
[62] - Quote
... you do understand i'm an industrial pilot right?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3002
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 00:50:21 -
[63] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:07:22 -
[64] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:35:33 -
[65] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:09:14 -
[66] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 10:50:56 -
[67] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 11:10:59 -
[68] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:23:19 -
[69] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:27:50 -
[70] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 12:56:37 -
[71] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:01:16 -
[72] - 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 -
[73] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:13:18 -
[74] - 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 -
[75] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:22:20 -
[76] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:34:10 -
[77] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3006
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 13:45:00 -
[78] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:29:00 -
[79] - Quote
again it will have powerful mining drones why is that soooo different than a laser
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:45:19 -
[80] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:00:06 -
[81] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3007
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:22:09 -
[82] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:01:41 -
[83] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:10:19 -
[84] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 13:58:33 -
[85] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3018
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 16:48:32 -
[86] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3022
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:09:52 -
[87] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3023
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:28:13 -
[88] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3023
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 18:56:01 -
[89] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3027
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 22:01:24 -
[90] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3031
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:15:33 -
[91] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3049
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 11:12:53 -
[92] - Quote
how is giving you a free 5min time out making it harder for you to get a def fleet
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3051
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:59:46 -
[93] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3051
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 19:41:02 -
[94] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3053
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 07:34:21 -
[95] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3053
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 07:51:56 -
[96] - 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-¦t .... and it is like a view on what will happen on the other side! And i think Superblobb don-¦t 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3060
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 07:32:32 -
[97] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3060
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 07:39:15 -
[98] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3060
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 08:22:58 -
[99] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3065
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 10:55:14 -
[100] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3071
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 11:23:16 -
[101] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3072
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 14:30:17 -
[102] - 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 -
[103] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3078
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 08:47:52 -
[104] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:58:01 -
[105] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:01:57 -
[106] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:25:03 -
[107] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3080
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:32:23 -
[108] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3082
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 07:28:44 -
[109] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:46:23 -
[110] - 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 -
[111] - Quote
looks fine to me... particularly since they want to encourage using more than one
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:51:32 -
[112] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:50:35 -
[113] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:07:21 -
[114] - 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 -
[115] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:00:24 -
[116] - Quote
... those are some pretty crazy ideas for a fleet boost
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:14:04 -
[117] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:47:20 -
[118] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:51:11 -
[119] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3095
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 14:25:41 -
[120] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 17:50:07 -
[121] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 18:55:13 -
[122] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 19:11:47 -
[123] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3096
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:22:20 -
[124] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3097
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:47:01 -
[125] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3098
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 00:26:58 -
[126] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 01:39:14 -
[127] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 02:53:06 -
[128] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 18:33:08 -
[129] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 22:01:46 -
[130] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 23:04:14 -
[131] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 00:19:56 -
[132] - Quote
says nothing new was going to be added... adds nothing new
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 00:59:27 -
[133] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 02:58:53 -
[134] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:10:07 -
[135] - 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 -
[136] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3107
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 03:34:44 -
[137] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3112
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 17:52:36 -
[138] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 19:13:17 -
[139] - Quote
how are orcas and rorquals dead to small corps?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:12:30 -
[140] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 20:33:55 -
[141] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3114
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 22:14:48 -
[142] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 23:02:53 -
[143] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 00:40:48 -
[144] - 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 -
[145] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 01:56:06 -
[146] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3116
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:15:55 -
[147] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3117
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 06:54:45 -
[148] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3117
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 12:29:38 -
[149] - Quote
Yet if the end is nigh people are to be believed on average obtaining ore is going to be harder.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3119
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 15:29:34 -
[150] - Quote
how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3119
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:01:59 -
[151] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3119
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 16:21:46 -
[152] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3126
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 03:42:55 -
[153] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3126
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 03:56:53 -
[154] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3126
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 04:36:10 -
[155] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3128
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 07:59:39 -
[156] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3128
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 10:25:45 -
[157] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3129
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:08:54 -
[158] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3129
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:11:22 -
[159] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 22:20:19 -
[160] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 02:31:42 -
[161] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 02:54:10 -
[162] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3133
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 07:42:31 -
[163] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3138
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 02:27:26 -
[164] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:28:56 -
[165] - Quote
so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:19:09 -
[166] - 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 -
[167] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 01:22:10 -
[168] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3163
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 04:32:06 -
[169] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3167
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 18:20:19 -
[170] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3168
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 19:48:17 -
[171] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3172
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 08:16:53 -
[172] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3172
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 08:31:58 -
[173] - Quote
O.o since these are going to take a more active role can we get drugs for the boosters O.o
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3174
|
Posted - 2016.09.24 06:51:33 -
[174] - Quote
... mining drone velocity boost?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3180
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 04:44:12 -
[175] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3181
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 08:17:37 -
[176] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3182
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 11:46:33 -
[177] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3191
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 14:36:47 -
[178] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3194
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 15:15:15 -
[179] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3207
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 01:59:26 -
[180] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3208
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:08:37 -
[181] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3209
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 03:16:47 -
[182] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3218
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 19:24:59 -
[183] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3219
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 05:28:53 -
[184] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3228
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 14:26:24 -
[185] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 08:08:47 -
[186] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:40:37 -
[187] - Quote
best part of that blog was seeing orca finally getting an RR and drone bonus mostly the RR
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3231
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:35:10 -
[188] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3233
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 11:23:21 -
[189] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3234
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 13:30:08 -
[190] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3236
|
Posted - 2016.10.07 17:36:02 -
[191] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3236
|
Posted - 2016.10.08 05:01:55 -
[192] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3237
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 10:14:56 -
[193] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3240
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:22:51 -
[194] - Quote
have you tried ORE stations?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3240
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:53:17 -
[195] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3258
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 23:05:25 -
[196] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 23:01:10 -
[197] - Quote
what are you talking about? this change is what players have been asking for for years
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 23:45:43 -
[198] - Quote
they are still needed to increase range no SP refund
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 00:35:58 -
[199] - Quote
again this is a change most of us have been asking for for the better part of a decade
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3263
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 02:24:04 -
[200] - 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
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3264
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 13:44:49 -
[201] - 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
|
|
|
|