These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

ASB is BULL.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Saile Litestrider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#241 - 2012-08-02 10:21:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
There are an incredible number of gameplay problems introduced my simply moving gang boosters on grid.

-Liang

I'd really like to hear some of these, just because I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#242 - 2012-08-02 10:23:00 UTC
Cpt Branko wrote:
Yes, yes.

Any ship on grid with sufficient numbers present on grid can be oneshot. That is admittedly a problem which is nontrivial. Everything else isn't a problem except in the heads of people who are used to using alt boosters... or don't care to bring a specialist ship now and then. It is more or less a basic principle that all key ships in a pvp gang should have some risk in a fight and should be actually piloted instead of relegated to alt role. Everything else is just purely bad design.

That said, knowing CCP... meh. They seem to think farming a billion+ per day using a gunless frigate is good game design, so I don't expect anything.


You're wrong: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1720718#post1720718

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Doddy
Excidium.
#243 - 2012-08-02 10:27:33 UTC
Really waht it comes down to is bhaalgorn is ridiculously op solo ship and asb fits are a good counter. Nerf bhaalgorns i say.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2012-08-02 11:04:33 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

You're wrong: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1720718#post1720718
-Liang


Problem #3 is something which is largely "in your head", a half million ehp 100 dps Damnation may not be sexy exciting, but some pilots do like flying them and it is an ideal FC's ship (since it's not going to get primaried). Flying in a kiting gang with a boosting Claymore or something isn't boring "activate boosts, press f1 to get on KM somewhere" gameplay.

Problem #4 is again something which is "in your head" because you can use a single Claymore for interdiction boosts (or Loki, for that matter) and that's basically sufficient gang boosts for various kiting tactics. It hits your gang somewhat, of course, since ships on grid have to be piloted, which would be quite hard to dualbox (although possible to some extent because of :range:), so you in effect have one less ship. However, it's not decisive. If that larger gang does not have ranged guns, boosters and so on, you can still harass it.

If it does have all those, you can't really harass it anyway. At any case, the argument reminds me of the "don't nerf Falcon because it enables you to fight larger gang without Falcon" argument of people who actually use it to gank smaller gangs.

Problem #5 is not really that much of a problem, and has more to do with lag (and happens at the scale where basically any ship can be one-volleyed, which is a sadly unavoidable problem which however impacts both the attacker and the defender).
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2012-08-02 11:55:05 UTC
Cpt Branko wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

You're wrong: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1720718#post1720718
-Liang


Problem #3 is something which is largely "in your head", a half million ehp 100 dps Damnation may not be sexy exciting, but some pilots do like flying them and it is an ideal FC's ship (since it's not going to get primaried). Flying in a kiting gang with a boosting Claymore or something isn't boring "activate boosts, press f1 to get on KM somewhere" gameplay.

Problem #4 is again something which is "in your head" because you can use a single Claymore for interdiction boosts (or Loki, for that matter) and that's basically sufficient gang boosts for various kiting tactics. It hits your gang somewhat, of course, since ships on grid have to be piloted, which would be quite hard to dualbox (although possible to some extent because of :range:), so you in effect have one less ship. However, it's not decisive. If that larger gang does not have ranged guns, boosters and so on, you can still harass it.

If it does have all those, you can't really harass it anyway. At any case, the argument reminds me of the "don't nerf Falcon because it enables you to fight larger gang without Falcon" argument of people who actually use it to gank smaller gangs.

Problem #5 is not really that much of a problem, and has more to do with lag (and happens at the scale where basically any ship can be one-volleyed, which is a sadly unavoidable problem which however impacts both the attacker and the defender).


If your in a very small (3-6) tierr3 bc gang and you have to switch one bc for a claymore you loose lots of speed (as calymores are slow) and lots of dps, this really isnt a good idea! Nerf links for everybody or dont nerf them at all!
Freundliches Feuer
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2012-08-02 12:22:46 UTC
Umad bro?

So you loose your terribly fit bhaalgorn (TP + Tracking comp on a bhaal? Also single Neut? De Fuq?) to a carebear ship and you cry on the forums.

l2p
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#247 - 2012-08-02 16:19:08 UTC
Saile Litestrider wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
There are an incredible number of gameplay problems introduced my simply moving gang boosters on grid.

-Liang

I'd really like to hear some of these, just because I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head.

You're probably going to hear some convoluted nonsense on how offgrid gang boosters improve the state of small gang and solo PvP.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#248 - 2012-08-02 16:26:12 UTC
Cpt Branko wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

You're wrong: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1720718#post1720718
-Liang


Problem #3 is something which is largely "in your head", a half million ehp 100 dps Damnation may not be sexy exciting, but some pilots do like flying them and it is an ideal FC's ship (since it's not going to get primaried). Flying in a kiting gang with a boosting Claymore or something isn't boring "activate boosts, press f1 to get on KM somewhere" gameplay.

Problem #4 is again something which is "in your head" because you can use a single Claymore for interdiction boosts (or Loki, for that matter) and that's basically sufficient gang boosts for various kiting tactics. It hits your gang somewhat, of course, since ships on grid have to be piloted, which would be quite hard to dualbox (although possible to some extent because of :range:), so you in effect have one less ship. However, it's not decisive. If that larger gang does not have ranged guns, boosters and so on, you can still harass it.

If it does have all those, you can't really harass it anyway. At any case, the argument reminds me of the "don't nerf Falcon because it enables you to fight larger gang without Falcon" argument of people who actually use it to gank smaller gangs.

Problem #5 is not really that much of a problem, and has more to do with lag (and happens at the scale where basically any ship can be one-volleyed, which is a sadly unavoidable problem which however impacts both the attacker and the defender).


I tremendously respect you but you've lost touch with the game and small gang combat in general, TBH. You're so focused on nerfing links that you're failing to perform due diligence for fixing the core problems with them. There is a reason people have booster alts but not booster mains and that really needs fixed before they go making boosters a main-only activity.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#249 - 2012-08-02 18:17:57 UTC
From ship balancing section of CSM minutes.

'Moving over to Command ships, CCP Ytterbium addressed the concern of off grid links and simply stated “off grid boosting should not exist”, with much of the CSM nodding in agreement. With regard to Tech-2 command bonuses and Tech-3 CCP Ytterbium stated that Tech-2 are supposed to be more specialized than Tech-3, which are supposed to be more generalized.'

Ship Balancing
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#250 - 2012-08-02 18:46:19 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
From ship balancing section of CSM minutes.

'Moving over to Command ships, CCP Ytterbium addressed the concern of off grid links and simply stated “off grid boosting should not exist”, with much of the CSM nodding in agreement. With regard to Tech-2 command bonuses and Tech-3 CCP Ytterbium stated that Tech-2 are supposed to be more specialized than Tech-3, which are supposed to be more generalized.'

Ship Balancing


A lot of things shouldn't exist but do and are required. I won't object too loudly to moving command links on grid as long as they address the core things that make it a tricky problem.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ezra Tair
Doomheim
#251 - 2012-08-02 18:50:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ezra Tair
I would not mind seeing tech 1 BCs and the tech 2 counter parts simply get a passive bonus to gang mates while they are on grid. requiring no special modules. The best bonus takes affect, and if the best bonus giver dies, the next best takes over. Each of the two types of BCs gives a particular bonus, and the T2 variants give a better bonus, but have the combat capability of a field command ship.

For T3,s that sub now gives a passive bonus while on grid at some rate similar to the T2. Eliminate leadership entirely and refund the SPs.


Solves the issue of 'on grid' boosters, because in a fleet with 20 BCs, they ALL could potentially give a bonus. And it makes CS more entertaining to fly because its not a boring role to play with the tank and DPS that could be available on them. Eliminates non-active alt game play (which apparently is going to happen anyway in regards to boosters), and encourages combat and targets.

--edit to add--

oh and it makes BCs do what they are advertised to to, but seemingly never do.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#252 - 2012-08-02 18:52:31 UTC
I honestly believe that removing ganglinks entirely would be better than having them in their current state.

Regardless, I don't see why this is a major problem. In large fleet battles where individual command ships can be burned down really quickly, could the fleet not simply bring multiple command ships and swap out the boosters if they die?


Warning, theorycrafting ahead as I have very little knowledge of CS:

In the case of the hypertanked fleet command ships like the Damnation, the hostile fleet would have to blow DPS on ships that have a ton of EHP and aren't otherwise damaging their fleet which gives your fleet time to pop a bunch of them. I see CS being high-value targets, certainly, but not much different than things like interdictors or whatnot. Maybe the other fleet CS need to be rebalanced so that they have more survival mechanisms, I dunno, but I don't otherwise see the proble.



...How did we get this off topic?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#253 - 2012-08-02 18:56:01 UTC
Ezra Tair wrote:
I would not mind seeing tech 1 BCs and the tech 2 counter parts simply get a passive bonus to gang mates while they are on grid. requiring no special modules. The best bonus takes affect, and if the best bonus giver dies, the next best takes over. Each of the two types of BCs gives a particular bonus, and the T2 variants give a better bonus, but have the combat capability of a field command ship.

For T3,s that sub now gives a passive bonus while on grid at some rate similar to the T2. Eliminate leadership entirely and refund the SPs.

Solves the issue of 'on grid' boosters, because in a fleet with 20 BCs, they ALL could potentially give a bonus. And it makes CS more entertaining to fly because its not a boring role to play with the tank and DPS that could be available on them. Eliminates non-active alt game play (which apparently is going to happen anyway in regards to boosters), and encourages combat and targets.


This is an alright solution, though I wouldn't recommend removing or refunding the Leadership SP.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#254 - 2012-08-02 18:59:36 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:

...How did we get this off topic?


We got off topic because Zarnak would rather see crystals, blue pill, and gang boosting nerfed instead of his precious ASB. Last night was really cool - solo killed a Typhoon and won a pair of 2v2s (Falcon+Legion vs Cyclone+Tengu and Myrm+Ishtar vs Cyclone+Maelstrom).

The Legion actually put me into armor, but I survived the reload. The Myrm + Ishtar didn't quite put me into armor, but would have stood a better chance of actually killing me. Of course, the Myrm was dual ASB fit... why on earth would anyone fit armor reps to a Myrm? rofl.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ezra Tair
Doomheim
#255 - 2012-08-02 19:02:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ezra Tair wrote:
I would not mind seeing tech 1 BCs and the tech 2 counter parts simply get a passive bonus to gang mates while they are on grid. requiring no special modules. The best bonus takes affect, and if the best bonus giver dies, the next best takes over. Each of the two types of BCs gives a particular bonus, and the T2 variants give a better bonus, but have the combat capability of a field command ship.

For T3,s that sub now gives a passive bonus while on grid at some rate similar to the T2. Eliminate leadership entirely and refund the SPs.

Solves the issue of 'on grid' boosters, because in a fleet with 20 BCs, they ALL could potentially give a bonus. And it makes CS more entertaining to fly because its not a boring role to play with the tank and DPS that could be available on them. Eliminates non-active alt game play (which apparently is going to happen anyway in regards to boosters), and encourages combat and targets.


This is an alright solution, though I wouldn't recommend removing or refunding the Leadership SP.

-Liang



Well i figure the point of leadership is to hold the skills to use links (and perhaps links could still exist, but this presumption is that they are gone), and to limit fleets sizes in regards to if they receive bonuses from links/boosters. I don't really see a point to how fleets are managed (as a hierarchy) aside from handling the availability of booster effects. If the fleet was made 'flat' with people given roles to do things, like warp the fleet such, and the only determinate to bonuses was "am I on grid with a BC". It would make most leaderships skills pointless.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#256 - 2012-08-02 19:14:48 UTC
Ezra Tair wrote:

Well i figure the point of leadership is to hold the skills to use links (and perhaps links could still exist, but this presumption is that they are gone), and to limit fleets sizes in regards to if they receive bonuses from links/boosters. I don't really see a point to how fleets are managed (as a hierarchy) aside from handling the availability of booster effects. If the fleet was made 'flat' with people given roles to do things, like warp the fleet such, and the only determinate to bonuses was "am I on grid with a BC". It would make most leaderships skills pointless.


I think the idea of flat fleets and getting rid of wing/fleet command is probably a good idea - however, I'm still very much against the idea of removing supporting leadership skills. To me it feels like suggesting the removal of gunnery supports or capacitor supports. I would be in favor of retaining the skills and transfering the specialization bonus to a general strength bonus to that kind of leadership skill.

OTOH, I feel like it's really risky to push BCs and Command Ships to be that much of a must-have.

Full disclosure: I have CS5 on 3 characters (maybe 4?) and ~20-25M SP sunk into leadership. I'd make out like a bandit if they refunded SP.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ezra Tair
Doomheim
#257 - 2012-08-02 19:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ezra Tair
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ezra Tair wrote:

Well i figure the point of leadership is to hold the skills to use links (and perhaps links could still exist, but this presumption is that they are gone), and to limit fleets sizes in regards to if they receive bonuses from links/boosters. I don't really see a point to how fleets are managed (as a hierarchy) aside from handling the availability of booster effects. If the fleet was made 'flat' with people given roles to do things, like warp the fleet such, and the only determinate to bonuses was "am I on grid with a BC". It would make most leaderships skills pointless.


I think the idea of flat fleets and getting rid of wing/fleet command is probably a good idea - however, I'm still very much against the idea of removing supporting leadership skills. To me it feels like suggesting the removal of gunnery supports or capacitor supports. I would be in favor of retaining the skills and transfering the specialization bonus to a general strength bonus to that kind of leadership skill.

OTOH, I feel like it's really risky to push BCs and Command Ships to be that much of a must-have.

Full disclosure: I have CS5 on 3 characters (maybe 4?) and ~20-25M SP sunk into leadership. I'd make out like a bandit if they refunded SP.

-Liang



I could see the re-distribution of SP into general skills to improve strength. But while I only have ~2.5 mil in leadership myself, the links currently have two tiers of skills. Not sure how you could roll that SP into a single set of skills that would not make them take outrageously long to train for new comers. I don't see them as comparable to the other support skills as they have a very narrow scope of effect. And I won't think there would be anything wrong in allocating SPs to those that trained it.



Of course I would not mind seeing the ability to re-allocate SP once a year as a game mechanic with a 20% penalty. So have have a bias as well I suppose.

--edit to add--
Most fleets have BCs anyway, so I don't think its particularly harmful to give them a bonus role that does not stack by numbers.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#258 - 2012-08-02 19:33:48 UTC
Ezra Tair wrote:

I could see the re-distribution of SP into general skills to improve strength. But while I only have ~2.5 mil in leadership myself, the links currently have two tiers of skills. Not sure how you could roll that SP into a single set of skills that would not make them take outrageously long to train for new comers. I don't see them as comparable to the other support skills as they have a very narrow scope of effect. And I won't think there would be anything wrong in allocating SPs to those that trained it.

Of course I would not mind seeing the ability to re-allocate SP once a year as a game mechanic with a 20% penalty. So have have a bias as well I suppose.

--edit to add--
Most fleets have BCs anyway, so I don't think its particularly harmful to give them a bonus role that does not stack by numbers.


There's nothing wrong with it taking a long time to train up max leadership skills as long as leadership skills are actually useful.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
chris elliot
Treasury Department
Plug N Play
#259 - 2012-08-02 19:36:33 UTC
Confirming that an entire flatbed truck full of 55 gallon drums has been filled with the OP's tears in this thread.

Fear not, I have more trucks on the way.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#260 - 2012-08-03 16:33:01 UTC
Cpt Branko is correct about most things including off grid boosters. I could go into why Liang is wrong, with regard to small gangs and somehow benefiting it or hurting it with off grid boosters removal. However, its not worth the detailed non BOSS/nerdy words. It's been beaten to death and even those who use them cry and b!tch @ others that do. Often not engaging another player using off grid boosters unless they turn off links etc...

It also helps terribubble and lame pilots and makes those who were good, reliant and incompotent without them (sad). There are some guys I fly with who I thought were good, but they never played the game without a t3 booster (new school). You get them into a 2 - 3 man fleet and they seem ******** (sad really). It's like those terribubbles and lames thta sit on titans all day and roam in fleets with logi who think they're good... I could go on but yeep.

The whole "help small gang" argument was ******** from the beginning. A falcon alt can help a small gang = / or a neutral rr oni/scimi. Dif is those are used on grid and can b esploded.

t3 booster on stand by for a single pilot is as lame as using a falcon imo.

In fleets its another matter though. I have no issues with them in gangs or large fleets.

Just saying that losing that ability wont hurt small gang pvp at all. Never needed them before and sh!t was REALLY GOOD.


- end of transmission

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]