These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[PROPOSAL] Shuffling gang-link modules, Modifying Mind-Links, T2 BC's and hierarchial boosts.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#1 - 2013-04-04 13:01:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Deerin
According to old CSM notes and several blogs, it looks like we are not going to see boosters on the field any time soon. Although I have nothing against them, it makes people to get multiple accounts to stay competetive, which is a bad game design.

Furthermore, I believe current gang link distribution is too much in the favor of Matari links. I think the gang link bonuses themselves should be reshuffled to reflect racial doctrines.

So here is what I propose. I'll begin with ganglink modules. The values I'm listing are base values for t2 versions of modules

Amarr
Imperial Doctrine - Passive Defense - Armor Resists +%2
Imperial Doctrine - Parasitic Channel - Neutralizer/Nos Amount +%2.5
Imperial Doctrine - Flux Field - Cap Recharge -%2.5

Caldari
Superiority Process - Shield Harmonizing - Shield Resists +%2
Superiority Process - Electronic Superiority - EWAR range (ECM, TD, Damp, Paint), EWAR Str +%1.5
Superiority Process - Sensor Integrity - Sensor Str +%3.75

Gallente
Forced Engagement - Repair Efficiency - Armor Rep Amount +%2.5
Forced Engagement - Interdiction Maneuvers - Point Range +%2.5
Forced Engagement - Inertial Compensation - Agility +%2.5

Minmatar
Skirmish Warfare - Shield Efficiency - Shield Rep Amount +%2.5
Skirmish Warfare - Stasis Extension - Web Range +%2.5
Skirmish Warfare - Evasive Maneuvers - Signature Reduction -%2.5 OR Rapid Deployment - MWD/AB speed +%2

Web range is minmatar recon bonus, whereas point range is gallente. I believe they should be seperated.
I'm still undecided about speed bonus vs signature reduction. IMO they shouldn't exist together.

Mindlink Efficiency should be reduced to %25, and should apply to all links. Having specific booster clones is....not really that nice.

Specialization can be made at T2 Field Command BC's. 10% per level efficiency to racial specific doctrine puts them in today's t3 link levels.

T3's are generalisation ships and they should get %3 per level bonus to all

This way the multipliers at lvl5 skills become (without/with mindlink)

T1 BC's 7.5 / 9.375
T2 Field Command BC's (non-racial - racial) 7.5 / 9.375 - 11.25 / 14.06(<-This value is what a t3 booster today gets)
T3 Warfare Procs = 8.6 / 10.78

As a final touch, the boosting amount should be variable by its hierarchial level.

Squad Booster gives full boost
Wing Booster gives 75% boost
Fleet Booster gives 50% boost

This way, when making your squads you should choose which boost goes where carefully. One ship to boost them all shouldn't work.

/me puts on flame/troll slime retardant suit.

Flame on.
Callic Veratar
#2 - 2013-04-04 16:18:18 UTC
Deerin wrote:
As a final touch, the boosting amount should be variable by its hierarchial level.

Squad Booster gives full boost
Wing Booster gives 75% boost
Fleet Booster gives 50% boost

This way, when making your squads you should choose which boost goes where carefully. One ship to boost them all shouldn't work.


Really like this idea. It's a very strong reason to have more than 1 Command Ship on the field.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#3 - 2013-04-05 08:23:18 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Deerin wrote:
As a final touch, the boosting amount should be variable by its hierarchial level.

Squad Booster gives full boost
Wing Booster gives 75% boost
Fleet Booster gives 50% boost

This way, when making your squads you should choose which boost goes where carefully. One ship to boost them all shouldn't work.


Really like this idea. It's a very strong reason to have more than 1 Command Ship on the field.


Exactly. Combined with other ideas, it would make warfare linked t1 bc's desired ships for fleets.
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#4 - 2013-04-05 12:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Beaver Retriever
I would suggest

1) remove mindlink implants entirely, reimburse owners of mindlinks with their ISK cost. buff links to the point where they equal the old mindlink-less boosts.

2) turn boosting into an AOE-based effect, like a warp disruption field generator. in order to get boosts, stay within the 'boost bubble'. this avoids grid-based mechanics as we all know grids are commonly messed up during fleet fights, not to mention people would just use grid fu to make their boosters safe.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-04-05 12:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
Beaver Retriever wrote:
I would suggest

1) remove mindlink implants entirely, reimburse owners of mindlinks with their ISK cost. buff links to the point where they equal the old mindlink-less boosts.

2) turn boosting into an AOE-based effect, like a warp disruption field generator. in order to get boosts, stay within the 'boost bubble'. this avoids grid-based mechanics as we all know grids are commonly messed up during fleet fights, not to mention people would just use grid fu to make their boosters safe.


1) i thinks a more conservative approach is best here reduce the effectiveness of the implants by half or more.

2) yes very much i proposed this before multiple times.

On the OP i think CCP want to move away from T3 strength boosts as they distort everything too much.
I do like the idea of the varying boost levels at fleet/wing/squad boosts.

And i do feel the links need to be reworked as they do to much under a blanket mod they should be separated into more mods for more variety and to reduce the OP effects some mods offer especially the web+point range it is too good to be combined.

I would also be in favour of drone links to boost their various stats ... speed...tracking...reduce sig radius and more.

'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

Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#6 - 2013-04-05 13:52:48 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:

I would also be in favour of drone links to boost their various stats ... speed...tracking...reduce sig radius and more.


Drone Speed/Tracking Links!!! Perfect for gallente!! Awesome idea
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#7 - 2013-04-05 15:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
I REALLY LOVE the heirarchical boosting (heriarchical - is that even a word?)
OP - you forgot to fit your fanboy disruption module - SQUEEEEEEEE!
and the links themselves, are an excellent first pass on warfare link rebalancing!

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#8 - 2013-04-05 15:32:26 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Beaver Retriever wrote:
I would suggest

1) remove mindlink implants entirely, reimburse owners of mindlinks with their ISK cost. buff links to the point where they equal the old mindlink-less boosts.

2) turn boosting into an AOE-based effect, like a warp disruption field generator. in order to get boosts, stay within the 'boost bubble'. this avoids grid-based mechanics as we all know grids are commonly messed up during fleet fights, not to mention people would just use grid fu to make their boosters safe.


1) i thinks a more conservative approach is best here reduce the effectiveness of the implants by half or more.

2) yes very much i proposed this before multiple times.

On the OP i think CCP want to move away from T3 strength boosts as they distort everything too much.
I do like the idea of the varying boost levels at fleet/wing/squad boosts.

And i do feel the links need to be reworked as they do to much under a blanket mod they should be separated into more mods for more variety and to reduce the OP effects some mods offer especially the web+point range it is too good to be combined.

I would also be in favour of drone links to boost their various stats ... speed...tracking...reduce sig radius and more.

I just don't see any reason to keep mindlinks around because they're nothing but a pain in the ass.

Allow me to quote one of CCP Foxfour's recent DUST dev blogs..

Quote:
One of the things we learned a long time ago in EVE Online development is that if we simply make thing difficult to do, but still with a reason to do them, you guys will do them and hate yourself while doing it. That is no fun and no good.


Now, it isn't *difficult* to use mindlinks.. it's just an annoyance.

Literally no one likes mindlinks. They're a necessity because without them boosts aren't much good. They lock you into a clone for 24 hours for flying just one type of ship. Okay, maybe two, if you count boosting Tengus and Vultures as different piloting styles.

They're the perfect example of minmaxing that doesn't add anything except grief to a few enablers in the player base. Most of the people burdened with flying these ships with these implants are FCs, content creators for literally over 100,000 players.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2013-04-05 17:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ersahi Kir
I would like to see the command processor removed. It's only purpose is to make one boat into a mega booster that sits under a POS shield. That will also make the number of gang links that fit onto a ship a balancing factor.

More types of gang links would also be nice. I would like to get away from the 3 types for every race.
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#10 - 2013-04-06 14:35:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Onnen Mentar
If it's technical difficulties keeping CCP from changing boosts so they work ongrid, the balancing team surely can come up with an alternative way of making them balanced yet offgrid. At the moment their entire design is geared towards being used offgrid by an alt. Fix that, and the need to forcibly bring them ongrid will go away.

With all the major rebalancing ongoing I would personally prioritize a gang link rebalance as it will likely affect ship balance issues greatly. The Nano 2.0 age, shield vs armor debacle and desire for ever further reaching close range weaponry seem a direct result of the higher range/speed provided by gang link boosts.

In addition to a remake as proposed above, I would suggest:

  • slashing fitting costs and cap use dramatically (50% at least) => viable option for combat fits
  • removing command processors from the game => distribute command links as much as possible thus removing alt use benefits. Specialization is good in EVE, just not for gang links. ;)
  • disabling activation inside forcefields => no afk boosting in POS 23,5/7

Minmatar Balancing, 3 suggestions.
Secret Squirrell
Allied Press Intergalactic
#11 - 2013-04-08 01:01:52 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I would like to see the command processor removed. It's only purpose is to make one boat into a mega booster that sits under a POS shield. That will also make the number of gang links that fit onto a ship a balancing factor.

More types of gang links would also be nice. I would like to get away from the 3 types for every race.


That is not true at all regarding command procs. Unless your on your home turf, you rarely will have the luxury of having a friendly POS to put your booster in. Yet in any major fleet op for an alliance of any real size, your going to be using Strategic Cruiser boosters that require command procs to be at all useful. A 3 link cloaky-nullified booster is easy to fit and still maintain maximum probe resistance. (read: virtue implants to probe it)
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#12 - 2013-04-08 10:56:03 UTC
Secret Squirrell wrote:
Yet in any major fleet op for an alliance of any real size, your going to be using Strategic Cruiser boosters that require command procs to be at all useful.


I think that is the main problem itself. t3 ships are generalized ships. If you are in a major fleet op for an alliance of any real size the intended ship to satisfy your boosting needs should be the specialist a.k.a. Fleet Command Ship, which can already fit 3 links.