Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
9 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Mindlinks/Ganglinks/Ongrid Boosting

First post
Author
#1 - 2013-05-22 18:34:17 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2153406#post2153406

195 days ago Fozzie and still no update.

I respect that you guys are crazy busy and there's a lot of cool stuff coming with Odyssey but can we please get an update on mindlinks/ganglinks/ongrid boosting.

love you long time

Not today spaghetti.

WE FORM V0LTA
#2 - 2013-05-22 18:45:01 UTC
T3/CS rebalancing is at least confirmed by Fozzie as not coming in the main Odyssey release.

.

Caldari State
#3 - 2013-05-22 18:50:16 UTC
it would be nice to have an idea about when CS/T3 nerf /links being ongrid will happen

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

WE FORM V0LTA
#4 - 2013-05-22 19:20:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
CS and T3 command bonus changes will not be included in Odyssey, although they are still on our roadmap.


is the latest official word on the topic afaik

.

#5 - 2013-05-23 14:18:51 UTC
I've tweeted CCP Fozzie about this, let's see if he has cycles to respond in the next few days Smile
C C P Alliance
#6 - 2013-05-23 18:25:00 UTC
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about. Blink

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#7 - 2013-05-23 19:19:08 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about. Blink

SOON™

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

#8 - 2013-05-23 19:28:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time.


Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?
Snuffed Out
#9 - 2013-05-23 19:28:42 UTC
i cant wait for it to happen, no more condors getting away.
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2013-05-23 19:29:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about. Blink



That is good, because I planned to destroy the universe next tuesday... so hurry.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

C C P Alliance
#11 - 2013-05-23 20:26:51 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time.


Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?


Discuss away.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Caldari State
#12 - 2013-05-23 20:50:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time.


Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?


Discuss away.


:) so what is the hold up with offgrid boosting?..... surely putting a range on links would solve the problem ... like a bubble effect

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

#13 - 2013-05-23 20:58:36 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time.


Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?



i dont think it ever too soon to discuss the changes... though from what i understand its legacy code that needs to be re-written and right now there are too many high priority issues that take away the coders... like pos revamp and drone UI... so i would guess some time after thats done

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

#14 - 2013-05-23 21:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: paritybit
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
:) so what is the hold up with offgrid boosting?..... surely putting a range on links would solve the problem ... like a bubble effect


I imagine that the difference is that a bubble effect only has to be checked every time a player tries to warp but links are a persistent effect and would have to be constantly checked to ensure range. This is probably okay for small numbers, but once you get 500 ships on a grid (or even in a system) then you have to check range for every ship at some high rate, meaning lots more operations that have to hit the server.

I also imagine they've thought of this, but maybe it could work sort of like a smartbomb effect but with a bigger effect radius and just happen once every 15 seconds or something.

Or maybe the check could happen upon landing on a grid or when a booster activates or deactivates (including when initiating warp) the link and then persists until the next check.

The guys at CCP are smart and I expect they'll figure it out in time without causing time dilation in systems with only 2 ships in space.
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2013-05-23 21:07:53 UTC
If we assume a day can assume two states: is end of days or is not end of days, the average daily probability of it being the end of days is 50%.

The probability of the End of Days ocurring in the next 14 days is 99,9939%* therefore we should get an answer in roughly a week.

*This number was calculated by a computer and is possibly true, even if it is based on untrue equation. Which, knowing my habit of being horrible at probability is likely to be completely borked.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph

#16 - 2013-05-23 21:24:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Deornoth Drake
A little bit of input from a former Rorqual pilot:
**********
Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
**********

So, whenever you make an adjustment to off-grid boosting, that is something to adjust as well.

Why?
In contrast to Carriers and Dreadnoughts which are (mostly) supported by a sub-capital combat fleet,
Rorquals only have mining barges and exhumers as support.
Hence, requiring the "deployed mode" might lead to Orcas providing gang boost in fleet,
instead of the ship designed to that best.

From my point of view:
Dropping the "deployed mode" will improve the chances of Rorquals boosting on-grid of asteroid belts.

Just my 2 cents ... no argument pro/contra off-grid boosting
C C P Alliance
#17 - 2013-05-23 22:50:46 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time.


Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?


Discuss away.


:) so what is the hold up with offgrid boosting?..... surely putting a range on links would solve the problem ... like a bubble effect


It's a performance optimization problem. We could turn on range-based boosting in Odyssey but it would melt all the servers.

And this isn't being delayed by Odyssey, the team working on the underlying code that will make ongrid boosting possible (along with many other things) isn't releasing anything in Odyssey. It's just that big of a project.

So like I said before, at some point CCP Veritas will make all my ganglink-related dreams come true but I honestly do not know when that point will be. When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

The Bastion
#18 - 2013-05-23 22:53:09 UTC
Deornoth Drake wrote:
A little bit of input from a former Rorqual pilot:
**********
Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
**********

So, whenever you make an adjustment to off-grid boosting, that is something to adjust as well.

Why?
In contrast to Carriers and Dreadnoughts which are (mostly) supported by a sub-capital combat fleet,
Rorquals only have mining barges and exhumers as support.
Hence, requiring the "deployed mode" might lead to Orcas providing gang boost in fleet,
instead of the ship designed to that best.

From my point of view:
Dropping the "deployed mode" will improve the chances of Rorquals boosting on-grid of asteroid belts.

Just my 2 cents ... no argument pro/contra off-grid boosting


Hopefully, they'll just nerf the non-industrial links...hopefully....
C C P Alliance
#19 - 2013-05-23 22:55:42 UTC
paritybit wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
:) so what is the hold up with offgrid boosting?..... surely putting a range on links would solve the problem ... like a bubble effect


I imagine that the difference is that a bubble effect only has to be checked every time a player tries to warp but links are a persistent effect and would have to be constantly checked to ensure range. This is probably okay for small numbers, but once you get 500 ships on a grid (or even in a system) then you have to check range for every ship at some high rate, meaning lots more operations that have to hit the server.

I also imagine they've thought of this, but maybe it could work sort of like a smartbomb effect but with a bigger effect radius and just happen once every 15 seconds or something.

Or maybe the check could happen upon landing on a grid or when a booster activates or deactivates (including when initiating warp) the link and then persists until the next check.

The guys at CCP are smart and I expect they'll figure it out in time without causing time dilation in systems with only 2 ships in space.


Your thoughts and words are correct and intelligent.

Once the underlying code finishes getting rewritten from the ground up we'll have plenty of options for how to apply links in interesting ways that create interesting gameplay experiences. At the moment we don't have any of those options.

So I do honestly welcome people's cool ideas about what form gang links could take. Don't limit yourself to small changes to the status quo, because it turns out with this system small changes aren't necessarily any faster to implement than off the wall changes.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Solar Assault Fleet
#20 - 2013-05-23 22:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lors Dornick
CCP Fozzie wrote:
When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.


This appears to be a very wise assumption.

Edit: you even replaced CCP Peligro in my sig with that statement ;)

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.

9 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump