These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Off grid boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2013-03-27 17:56:27 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Day after the OGB nerf: Even before the specific nature of the changes are announced:

Interceptor pilots complain that they don't get bonuses after warping after targets ahead of the fleet
Other pilots complain about losing bonuses when the grid breaks
T3 now become completely useless for boosting due to an inability to fit a tank while fitting multiple links
Smaller groups complain about the one advantage they might have had getting blasted out of the sky whenever trying to face larger groups because it's now being forced into the line of fire
Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid
Rorqual pilots complain about being completely useless now for anything except ore compression since nobody dares boosting on-grid with one
People agree that forcing boosting on-grid didn't actually solve anyone's problems and merely created more

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.
Dave stark
#22 - 2013-03-27 18:09:33 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
I don't think mining links should be treated any differently but that's just me. ;)



i think they should, by virtue of not being combat related.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#23 - 2013-03-27 18:17:48 UTC
Poasting in off grid boosting thread #94279


☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
brinelan
#24 - 2013-03-27 18:21:33 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
brinelan wrote:
instead of on grid why not a radius. Say, 50km to start and 100km for each level of a new skill. to fix the issue of mining bonuses in a rorqual, have the mining mindlink have a new bonus that lets mining links only be systemwide.

When I heard of the changes coming this is what I thought they would do.

I guess there are coding issues and implementation concerns that CCP is having to deal with. Hopefully they will come up with an elegant solution.

I don't think mining links should be treated any differently but that's just me. ;)



Having the systemwide ability on a mindlink implant means that there is a lot of skilling up required for it, and if its limited to rorqual only would keep it from getting abused completely since its a non combat ship in a non combat role.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#25 - 2013-03-27 18:26:20 UTC
Dash Bishop wrote:
Working as intended.

...but can be improved.

At least that was the answer I got when asking on hot-drops.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#26 - 2013-03-27 18:31:52 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Linkage
relevant part wrote:

Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.


During the NEO tournament I think it was Soundwave who said the decision to get rid of it is already made. It's all just waiting for implementation.


He also said the idea for ring mining was made & were waiting for implementation too didn't he? Expect OGB change after ring mining gets added? Lol
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-03-27 19:23:35 UTC
Takseen wrote:
2) That'd be a technical issue to fix along with the OGB fix.

That's cute that you think CCP is actually going to fix grid breaking.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#28 - 2013-03-27 20:01:40 UTC
Can't wait for the OGB fix.

The Tears Must Flow
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#29 - 2013-03-27 22:54:20 UTC
DrHekki wrote:
Any one got a link on CCP's intention regarding OBG's?


That's exactly how I read it the first time.

Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#30 - 2013-03-28 01:53:43 UTC
DrHekki wrote:
OGB-ing should be a "direct" thing.

OGB should be that you have to choose who they boost and in all honesty I couldn't care if it was in a pos or not. By the same argument that time in the game should be rewarded more if someone has taken then time to train a character to deliver specific boosts then this too should also be rewarded.

I think the solution is to limit how many and who can receive boosts.

OGB has fleet options that says "boost this guys warp disrupt range", "Boost this guys resistance", imagine having an active OGB that is a specialist role and not one to sit in space "somewhere" delivering boosts. (picture the booster toggling who is to receive boost in essence changing the boostered in relations to the environment) I would like to add that I think if someone is getting boosts it should be known to all in the vicinity and since the boosts are being directed at someone and not just anyone, the boost amount should be increased.

Nobody complains then


How does this change the current practice of "solo" PvPers being boosted by an OGB alt who is parked in a POS and never touched?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2013-03-28 03:37:33 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:




Simply moving the link bonus from the industrial core to the hull (you know, the same as for every other command ship in the game, removing the special case for the Rorqual) will address this issue.




What about the mining mindlink then ? becomes worthless as well for roqualpilots
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-03-28 03:45:55 UTC
DrHekki wrote:
Any one got a link on CCP's intention regarding OGB's?



don't even know what it is Roll

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#33 - 2013-03-28 03:48:52 UTC
Do extra accounts to create OGM specialist toons generate revenue for CCP?

There's your answer.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#34 - 2013-03-28 04:24:31 UTC
Command and conquer

When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships. They are seriously lacking at the moment for two reasons: first, regular tier 2 battlecruisers mostly fill the same combat role for less expensive operational costs, and second, tech 3 hulls are just plain better at gang link boosting.

Our goal is to make them appealing to fly as a whole, not something you keep inside a POS forcefield while watching your favorite TV show. For this reason, we want:

Tech 3 ships to be able to carry more gang links at once than Command Ships, but with less effect
Tech 3 ships to be able to carry some gang links while still maintaining some combat capability
Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) - if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls.
All Command Ships to have a combat role on the field on top of having the possibility to be fit for a pure fleet commanding platform.

What does that mean in practice? We are removing the distinction between “fleet” and “field” Command Ships. All of them will now have 3% bonuses to two Warfare Link fields and be able to fit three warfare link modules simultaneously (instead of 3 for fleet versions only). That also means that the previous fleet Command Ships will be rebalanced to fit combat roles. Want to use an Eos as a truly effective drone ship? You can. Or the Damnation as a sexy Khanid missile platform beast? Be our guest. All that matters is the specialization choices you make before undocking by deciding to fit gang links or not, not something forced to you from the arbitrary "field" versus "fleet" hull.

Tech 3 treatment will focus on making them more generalized. Their Warfare Link bonuses will be reduced from 5% to 2% effectiveness; however they will have bonuses to three racial Warfare Link fields while being able to fit three Warfare Link modules simultaneously.

As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble.


Source: Back to the Balancing Future Devblog 06.11.2012 14:49
By CCP Ytterbium

HTH

Oderint Dum Metuant
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-03-28 06:19:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Day after the OGB nerf:

Interceptor pilots complain that they don't get bonuses after warping after targets ahead of the fleet
Other pilots complain about losing bonuses when the grid breaks
T3 now become completely useless for boosting due to an inability to fit a tank while fitting multiple links
Smaller groups complain about the one advantage they might have had getting blasted out of the sky whenever trying to face larger groups because it's now being forced into the line of fire
Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid
Rorqual pilots complain about being completely useless now for anything except ore compression since nobody dares boosting on-grid with one
People agree that forcing boosting on-grid didn't actually solve anyone's problems and merely created more


This.

I hope CCP never fixes it.

I also hope that they make it not possible to activate a gang boost module inside a POS. I think it would be a simple change.

activationInPos == 0; Or whatever it is.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#36 - 2013-03-28 08:07:18 UTC
There Will be salty, juicy tears :)

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
DrHekki
Confederacy of Independent Forces
#37 - 2013-03-28 19:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: DrHekki
Mara Rinn wrote:
DrHekki wrote:
OGB-ing should be a "direct" thing.

OGB should be that you have to choose who they boost and in all honesty I couldn't care if it was in a pos or not. By the same argument that time in the game should be rewarded more if someone has taken then time to train a character to deliver specific boosts then this too should also be rewarded.

I think the solution is to limit how many and who can receive boosts.

OGB has fleet options that says "boost this guys warp disrupt range", "Boost this guys resistance", imagine having an active OGB that is a specialist role and not one to sit in space "somewhere" delivering boosts. (picture the booster toggling who is to receive boost in essence changing the boostered in relations to the environment) I would like to add that I think if someone is getting boosts
Quote:
it should be known to all in the vicinity
and since the boosts are being directed at someone and not just anyone, the boost amount should be increased.

Nobody complains then


How does this change the current practice of "solo" PvPers being boosted by an OGB alt who is parked in a POS and never touched?


In all things eve you point out a very small number of people who play their game this way but I've highlighted the change that perhaps you skipped over. If you engage a target you know is being boostered and die that's your problem.
Kirluin
#38 - 2013-03-28 21:01:25 UTC
It would be interesting to see boosts not only be on-grid with a radius, but also limited to your squad. then formations would matter, staying with your wingmen would be important.

The fleet/wing/squad system would have meaning beyond a mechanic thats really only used to manage raw fleet size. fleets with smarter wing/squad composition would have an advantage over those that dont

positional space tactics beyond 'target called, f1'
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2013-03-28 21:54:00 UTC
Kirluin wrote:
It would be interesting to see boosts not only be on-grid with a radius, but also limited to your squad. then formations would matter, staying with your wingmen would be important.

The fleet/wing/squad system would have meaning beyond a mechanic thats really only used to manage raw fleet size. fleets with smarter wing/squad composition would have an advantage over those that dont

positional space tactics beyond 'target called, f1'

No.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
DrHekki
Confederacy of Independent Forces
#40 - 2013-03-29 01:29:29 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kirluin wrote:
It would be interesting to see boosts not only be on-grid with a radius, but also limited to your squad. then formations would matter, staying with your wingmen would be important.

The fleet/wing/squad system would have meaning beyond a mechanic thats really only used to manage raw fleet size. fleets with smarter wing/squad composition would have an advantage over those that dont

positional space tactics beyond 'target called, f1'

No.


I agree with James. Radius boosting is just stupid.

Just limit the number that receive the boost and make it known in overview that this dude is receiving a little boosting love and everyone is happy.

Like I said I couldn't care less that the booster is safe in a pos when it becomes a disadvantage for me is when there are tons of people receiving the boost from the ship safe in a pos.
Previous page123Next page