These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[proposal] limit gang links to a single grid

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#61 - 2011-10-26 03:11:13 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:


Like it or not, off grid boosting is currently about the only thing keeping "solo" and small gang pvp alive.

Most idiotic statement said yet. that is the one thing driving solo/smallgang pvp away the most.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Vid Eeomeet
Smoke 'n' Mirrors
#62 - 2011-10-26 06:33:09 UTC
Bump. This is something ccp should have done when the assist mods were released.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#63 - 2011-10-26 11:45:25 UTC
bump

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2011-10-26 13:17:08 UTC
Endovior wrote:
Not supported, unless the grid mechanics are also dramatically reworked as well... after all, if you're wanting to talk about weird meta stuff that affects combat in counter-intuitive ways, there is NOTHING that does this quite so badly as the grid. If you make any kind of 'on-grid' requirement for command ships, then what happens next is that more people start playing grid-fu, and suddenly all sorts of fights are taking place on ridiculous grids designed to isolate the CS from the battle while still keeping it technically 'on-grid'.


Instead of shooting an idea down with a stupid reason such as yours why don't you try suggesting an alternative. Such as...

Instead of making the bonuses grid based make them based on range. 250KM seems to be a nice range to start at. Now Endovior's complaint is resolved and we still accomplish the idea this thread is based around.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#65 - 2011-10-26 13:57:48 UTC
Anna Orkiste wrote:
Henry Haphorn wrote:
I agree as well with the idea of limiting the range of gang links. Especially in respect to mining. I've been in 0.0 before and I have seen plenty of players park their Rorqual/Orca alts in the safety of a POS while other mine (reaping the bonuses). Not much risk there compared to the rewards of mining.



With reward you talking about, reward its none almost spend time and noting els ;( dis days mining is worst profesion in eve, max wath you can ern per hour is 25 milj mining arkonor bistot, so tell me how the poor miner with such income will genareta back his lost rork how much hours its takes to mine so much minerals back to replace it with all fiting.
I not talking that evrage income per hour its verry poor that is 11 milj per hour with one hulk by perfect boosting, by mining randome ores. so for rorqual need to mine around 181 hours with one hulk. So look numbers and befor posting somting calcualte how that guy will ern back that money and if there is eny good reward at all.

This days ppl mining not for money eny more:
1, they minign for fun - to rest from hard work day.
2. they minign thatthey like to mine and chill in chats and voice.

If wie wish keep 0.0 mining att al in eve wie ned to create buble around hiden belts that one shjip with guns cant warp in it, that comes out form current mining incomes.


I'm sorry, but could you re-post this in something approximating English? Or Hell, even American will do Blink

Ni.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#66 - 2011-10-26 17:29:01 UTC

Since command links creately alter the dynamics of a fight, it is sound that they should be vulnerable. I think making them grid-only is nice in principle, but I don't know how well it can be implemented fairly.

How will this hurt shield links? Leaving grid and coming back again means you could lose a lot of shield HP.
How will this alter the role of Orca's and Rorquals and Carriers, etc?
How will this . . .

Moving them to grid only will alter several aspects of this game, from Plexing to Mining to PvP. I don't think this move should be made casually, as it will have significant impacts on too many areas of the game (not just fleet PvP).
Cidwm
Doomheim
#67 - 2011-10-26 21:18:33 UTC
Not sure if its been mentioned but... if you suspect an offgrid fleet gang link there is a way to defeat them... scan the git down and attack him! its one of the reasons combat probes exist. Intel on the target and how it operates is a valuable tool
paritybit
Solarmark
#68 - 2011-10-27 00:00:05 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

How will this hurt shield links? Leaving grid and coming back again means you could lose a lot of shield HP.


Shield links already have a problem here. But it's a problem with gang bonuses in general and not simply links. Fleets are most commonly mobile, and any time you jump through a gate you lose any extra shield HP the leadership bonuses/links grant when they go inactive and activate again on the other side. I think it should be addressed, but I also think it's secondary to this discussion. Also, there are a lot of people who don't think it should be changed because of the additional benefits of a larger number of shield HP (passive recharge).

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

How will this alter the role of Orca's and Rorquals and Carriers, etc?
How will this . . .

Moving them to grid only will alter several aspects of this game, from Plexing to Mining to PvP. I don't think this move should be made casually, as it will have significant impacts on too many areas of the game (not just fleet PvP).


I agree that we need to consider all the relevant cases.

I don't believe that PvE or mining should be any different than PvP in this regard. If you want the benefits of links, you expose your link ship to the risks associated with the activity. There should not be major differences in the way PvP and PvE work.

Gang bonuses represent command and control improving the abilities of their fleet. If the fleet is not anywhere near the command and control, it shouldn't benefit.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#69 - 2011-10-27 08:39:20 UTC
Jag Kara wrote:
I can go with this one. It always seemed weird that with no intel, sight or any connection to a battlefield, a command ship is "commanding" the fight. This would certainly help aliviate other issues as well. Such as, t3's being better command ships than a purpose built command ship, offgrid/pos boosters, and command alts. (personally, i think if you can play the game afk and still produce a noticable effect you should suffer a nerf.) even froma pve perspecive, this would kill the 6 link tengus for incursion fleets.

This ^^^

the t3 is a better booster than the commandship. should be reverse.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2011-10-27 13:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
paritybit wrote:

Gang bonuses represent command and control improving the abilities of their fleet. If the fleet is not anywhere near the command and control, it shouldn't benefit.


You do realize that in modern warfare command and control is normally not even on the same continent, much less actually at the fight. Modern communications systems, satellites, and computers make it unnecessary to risk your CNC staff at the front lines. All you need on the front are guys to receive and carry out the orders. Surprisingly that's very much how fleet bonuses in Eve work.

That aside, I agree they should still be vulnerable, so how about we simply do not allow them to be effective from inside a POS forcefield. In the same way carriers have to expose themselves to provide fighter support by exiting the POS forcefield, gang link ships will have to be positioned outside those shields.

This means they can be scanned down, and popped by an incoming attack force. And if they play docking games or bubble games, the effect is the same, the fleet loses those bonuses, eliminating the force multiplier of the ship iin question.

Edit:

I also agree T3s should not be better command ships than command ships. Maybe on par, if completely fit for it, but not better.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
paritybit
Solarmark
#71 - 2011-10-27 18:15:44 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
You do realize that in modern warfare command and control is normally not even on the same continent, much less actually at the fight. Modern communications systems, satellites, and computers make it unnecessary to risk your CNC staff at the front lines. All you need on the front are guys to receive and carry out the orders. Surprisingly that's very much how fleet bonuses in Eve work.


Modern-day command and control is not harmonizing your shields, optimizing your armor repair modules, boosting the strength of your electronic warfare, and otherwise increasing the direct effectiveness of weapons and defenses. Modern-day command and control is making troop movement decisions and making general strategy.

You are comparing command staff in a far off bunker (Mittens coming up with strategy for his minions) with platoon and squad leaders on the front lines (the fleet commander, his wing and squad leaders and his boosters). If platoon and squad leaders were not on the front lines with the troops they command they would not be effective.

But that's all just a bunch of worthless comparisons.

What you say about being vulnerable is true; if we force the boosters to be outside of POS shields they are vulnerable ... if you bring a prober and can get your fleet off the gate to go find them. But that's just incentive to bring more pilots. Gang links are indeed vulnerable if your fleet is larger that the fleet you are jumping into and you are able to evade them long enough to find the gang link ship and threaten it -- but if you can do all that you were probably going to win anyway. I think this is what people normally call blob incentive.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2011-10-27 18:51:46 UTC
paritybit wrote:
I think this is what people normally call blob incentive.


The whole thread is blob incentive.

Or did you think people would keep bringing tiny little fleets with their now on grid command ships?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
paritybit
Solarmark
#73 - 2011-10-27 20:34:05 UTC  |  Edited by: paritybit
De'Veldrin wrote:

The whole thread is blob incentive.

Or did you think people would keep bringing tiny little fleets with their now on grid command ships?


Actually I do. I fly in small gangs all the time. If the fleet is too small to support a combat effective command ship on grid with us, then we don't bring one and make do without the links. If the fleet is of sufficient size then we bring a command ship. Sufficient falls somewhere around 8 to 10 dependent upon the fleet composition. That's what EVE is all about, taking risks and either losing in a blaze of glory or reaping the rewards. The risk now for off-grid gang links is so minimal compared to the benefits that it is unbalancing. If somebody can do it practically AFK or on a third instance of EVE, it shouldn't have that much influence over a fight.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#74 - 2011-10-28 07:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tallian Saotome
Too many other broken mechanics in eve prevent fixing this.

How this for an easy solution: Each ganglinks blows up your sigrad. 1 will turn a cruiser into a BC, 2 will turn it into a BS, 3 will turn it into a carrier, etc.

6 links, your a freaking titan as far as scanning down.

Combine that with blocking activation of ganklink mods inside pos shields, and oops, now bored scouts have something to do while the fight goes on(your scouts ARE fit with probe launchers, right? that is a pretty basic piece of gear for a scout to have, along with a point, and a cyno if you have hotdrop capabilities)

This would also result in gank boosting being a bit more active because you have to balance your boosts against playing tag with the enemy scout, and the scout gets tos to play tag with the traps. Even pulls extra people OFF grid in a large blob fight

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Larg Kellein
Bacon Appreciation Society
#75 - 2011-10-28 11:21:43 UTC
Not supported. The only change needed is to make them not work from inside pos shields. Oh, and make the t2 gang links exclusive to actual command ships, instead of the jack of all trades t3 making a specialized ship class utterly redundant.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2011-10-28 15:04:05 UTC
paritybit wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:

The whole thread is blob incentive.

Or did you think people would keep bringing tiny little fleets with their now on grid command ships?


Actually I do. I fly in small gangs all the time. If the fleet is too small to support a combat effective command ship on grid with us, then we don't bring one and make do without the links. If the fleet is of sufficient size then we bring a command ship. Sufficient falls somewhere around 8 to 10 dependent upon the fleet composition. That's what EVE is all about, taking risks and either losing in a blaze of glory or reaping the rewards. The risk now for off-grid gang links is so minimal compared to the benefits that it is unbalancing. If somebody can do it practically AFK or on a third instance of EVE, it shouldn't have that much influence over a fight.


I agree that the risks are minimal. I agree that needs to change.

I don't agree with your solution. Putting them on grid is only going to add incentive to people (in general) to bring more ships to protect those assets, increasing blob warfare.

Ganglinks already cannot be used while warping. All that really needs to change is making them unusable from inside a POS shield - now if they are in use, they are uncloaked, stationary, and vulnerable.

What else do you need aside from a change in tactics to deal with them?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#77 - 2011-10-28 18:32:12 UTC
it takes way too much effort to kill off-grid gang booster compared to HUGE combat stat gain you get from gang boosters. there would be much less problems if booster would have to be on same grid, even though you could still use long distance spots to gain relative safety.

just putting booster outside pos forcefield has minimal effect on this. it is obvious that previous poster only thinks 1001 man fleets where you can have dedicated probers, bubblers, tacklers and several gang boosters. and there booster balance has very little meaning since everyone has them anyhow. you can't just ask people to have max skill prober with 1 bil implants just to TRY killing gang booster, that's assuming it sits still without changing ss while someone probes it out FOREVER.

problems arise when you go roaming with small gang against bigger force of noobs like IRC where they have gang booster sitting in every system. or when some "SOLOPVP" guy is "OWNING" people with gang link boat, neutral RR, ECM alt and "pwnmobile".

also tech 3 gang boosters are too good compared to command ships, which should be better at boosting anyway. ISK shouldn't make difference cos it has very little meaning in MMO. Tech 3 can have cov ops cloak and nullifier they alone are enough to make it better even if bonuses wouldn't be so good compared to command ship.

DURR
Kalar Freno
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2011-11-10 15:06:44 UTC
Supported
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#79 - 2011-11-11 13:00:55 UTC
As it should be, what you would like is for these ships to be even more vulnerable than they already are.

Miners ALREADY have the worst job and worst pay in the game with the highest risk because they are in the worst possible combat capable ships - **** shields, armor, reps.

And you'd like to nerf mining even more because you're a piece of **** ?

Grats ***.

.
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2011-11-15 18:00:26 UTC
Requiring the Command Boosting ship to be on greid is dumbing down the game

removes the role of the scan down ship for the planet hugger ship or removes the advantage of getting to the fight early and putting up a POS.

The Key is to adapt. - Possibly take out the Command Boosting ship before it makes it into system.
Trick you enemey to fight on YOUR terms. have the terrain on your side.

-1 I will not support dumbing down the game to a bunch of ships sitting on 1 grid and just calling primary.
A little hide and seek .

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships