These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#301 - 2013-04-24 15:33:22 UTC
Flying through faction war space its getting to the point where I see more t3s on dscan that combat ships.

CCP claims that they want to do away with OGBs but they don't have the technical know how.

Yet at every phase they buff them. T2 links, buffs to active tanks, buffs to missile kiting platforms. I'm starting to question ccp's word on this one.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
yodayblack
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#302 - 2013-04-26 15:36:09 UTC
You ever been in a real engagement? Dont answer we all know you havent. In real life "off grid" assets effect the outcome of a battle. You ever seen a drone? They can scan the battle field and tell the troops on the ground where every single body is in a 5 mile radius. Ever seen artillery called into a fight? No? Thats way better than some boosts effecting your fight. This is the future in space. Off grid assets have been effecting the battlefield since the invention of the long bow. So why in the future where were flying spaceships cant we use off gird assets to effect combat? Scan them down. Kill them. and quit whining. This is eve people might use tactics to kill you. Whining about it doesnt keep you alive, and guess what 90% of those tactics are "unfair" "honourless" or some other cry baby term. Learn to fly. Learn to kill.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#303 - 2013-05-12 21:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
yodayblack wrote:
You ever been in a real engagement? ....





No sir, I've never even been up in a plane before.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2013-05-13 17:59:54 UTC
yodayblack wrote:
You ever been in a real engagement? Dont answer we all know you havent. In real life "off grid" assets effect the outcome of a battle. You ever seen a drone? They can scan the battle field and tell the troops on the ground where every single body is in a 5 mile radius. Ever seen artillery called into a fight? No? Thats way better than some boosts effecting your fight. This is the future in space. Off grid assets have been effecting the battlefield since the invention of the long bow. So why in the future where were flying spaceships cant we use off gird assets to effect combat? Scan them down. Kill them. and quit whining. This is eve people might use tactics to kill you. Whining about it doesnt keep you alive, and guess what 90% of those tactics are "unfair" "honourless" or some other cry baby term. Learn to fly. Learn to kill.

Wow...there's some flawed logic for you.

I can't say that I can think of a single "asset" in the real world that makes a soldier on the ground kill more efficiently or resist attack more efficiently.

You are comparing fleet boosters to longbow archers...

You know what. This just isn't worth my time.

Do away with off grid fleet boosters. Anybody with a brain will understand why.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Penguin68
Ice Fire Warriors
#305 - 2013-05-16 00:53:45 UTC
Most of us agree we don't like off grid boosters!! It now its time to offer solutions to make the change and not just say a change needs to be made.

The Current hold on this fix seems to be that they are having programming issues making it on grid only.

A Simple-ish solution to require boosters to be on grid.

- Make Warfare link Mods act similar to Warp Disruption Field Generators. Giving the Warfare Link a bubble range of around 250km - 300km affecting friendly targets, thus forcing them to be on grid.

-please add any ideas that you think might work that are manageable for the programmers to implement.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#306 - 2013-05-17 08:13:33 UTC
+ 1

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#307 - 2013-05-17 20:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Blastil
King Rothgar wrote:
Your proposal is based on a false premise. Namely that off grid ganglinks are immune to attack. Back when it was possible to make a ship unprobable, it was broken as they had no risk beyond spies in fleet. Now however, they can be probed just like everything else. There is nothing stopping you from probing and killing them other than your own ineptitude. Some people do put them inside POS's and although that blocks attacking the booster ship, you can always go kill the POS instead. It probably costs more anyways tbh.Blink


I want you to tell a PVP pilot to reship into a prober. And don't say " A probing alt would work !" because I have yet to meet the man who can simultaniously fight AND play the scanning game. Additionally, it is almost impossible to scan down a ship in a time line acceptable to make any kind of impact on a fight.

Off grid boosting should be the realm of capital ships (rorquals, Titans, Super carriers, etc) and not for day to day PVP ships.

Additionally, I think it would be cool to make 'off grid boosters' anchorable objects in solar systems, with reasonable hitpoints, making these structures natural small gang targets.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2013-05-18 04:11:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Andski wrote:
fleet fights would always start with "primary the claymore/vulture/damnation" and the whole point of fleet bonuses would vanish into thin air

(fleet fights usually have command ships on grid though v0v)
As a brilliant person who has potential as a future FC, I believe I would set up a fleet which includes a particular combat battlecruiser doctrine, and I would try to get at least 1 battlecruiser per squad to fit a gang link and fill the squad command role. Enemies won't be able to tell which battlecruisers have the gang links.

Then we might also get a few fleet command ships with super high tank just to draw fire. The FCS pilots may put gang links on if their fit leaves room, but I won't require it. They can take wing command positions if they have gang links. But they're mostly there to be shot at to buy time.

So at which point here do the fleet bonuses stop benefiting us?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Dyscordia
Super Elite Friendship Club
#309 - 2013-05-18 09:42:12 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
yodayblack wrote:
You ever been in a real engagement? Dont answer we all know you havent. In real life "off grid" assets effect the outcome of a battle. You ever seen a drone? They can scan the battle field and tell the troops on the ground where every single body is in a 5 mile radius. Ever seen artillery called into a fight? No? Thats way better than some boosts effecting your fight. This is the future in space. Off grid assets have been effecting the battlefield since the invention of the long bow. So why in the future where were flying spaceships cant we use off gird assets to effect combat? Scan them down. Kill them. and quit whining. This is eve people might use tactics to kill you. Whining about it doesnt keep you alive, and guess what 90% of those tactics are "unfair" "honourless" or some other cry baby term. Learn to fly. Learn to kill.

Wow...there's some flawed logic for you.

I can't say that I can think of a single "asset" in the real world that makes a soldier on the ground kill more efficiently or resist attack more efficiently.

You are comparing fleet boosters to longbow archers...

You know what. This just isn't worth my time.

Do away with off grid fleet boosters. Anybody with a brain will understand why.


I disagree. The logic is not flawed. The OP brings up plenty of examples and rationale on how off-grid assets have directly or indirectly affected how battles play out. Some of these examples, such as the long bow, changed warfare forever. It may not be the best parallel to fleet links on internet space ships, but it's an early example of assets affecting fights that are no where close to the actual foot solider battles.

I also don't understand perceptions like this: " To me it doesn't make sense that a ship that is not participating in a fight can influence the fight."

Satellites don't participate directly in fights and they are an asset that we use constantly to influence fights all over the globe -- they 'link' with computers and feed invaluable information and data to anywhere from smaller units to entire armies. It's an asset that provides incredible amounts of intelligence that can help soldiers kill more efficiently or resist attacks better (and all but the most advanced countries have no chance of destroying them). I'm sure there are plenty of rogue nations or warlords that don't like them either but they exist and they are a decisive tactical advantage that don't actually fire bullets or blow up enemies directly.

Anyways... to actually talk about on-grid boosting...

All these arguments for or against on-grid boosting directly affect a lot of accounts that have spent - like 7-8+ months to max leadership (not to mention a new need to train certain ships/support modules if fleet boosters were forced into a battle situation every engagement) . It's not to be taken lightly and needs to be changed with great care since it's a big aspect of the game and takes a long time to max. And it's not even an active or engaging skill set from a player perspective so you're forced to train something for months that doesn't bring much entertainment value just to be competitive. Links also affects mining - so CCP cannot just make a blanket change of all ships must boost on grid without scrutinizing hard data on how that would affect the economy as well as gaming experience for industrialists.

So while I agree something should be done about off-grid boosting and some of the abuse that comes with it, a blanket change from one extreme to the other is probably not the answer and a more dynamic approach across all forms of pve/pvp should be addressed in an elegant solution that is backed by hard data analysis and sound reasoning. Changes to off-grid boosting should not be done because of these reasons: 'off-grid boosting is unfair, NERF" or "I want to blow up a rorq" or "I just don't plain like it because it rubs me the wrong way!". Which are pretty much the thesis of 80% of all the posts I've read so far in this thread.

I think that the problem with fleet boosting is that it is not interactive or engaging - and being on-grid with such a staple role makes you a big target. At least with ECCM or ewar, you are actively playing/thinking and initiating modules against another player that impacts their ability to perform. Sure you are a target too because no one likes to be jammed, but there is a game dynamic there that makes it fun and exciting while taking a little bit of luck and skill to pull off. Fleet boosting is none of that. And that's the real problem here. It will be the only ship/role that serves no engaging purpose other than existing and fitted to not die in .5 seconds (with no guarantee). Not fun. At least with off-grid boosting you can park an alt somewhere and use a ship that is actually fun to use. So a whole holistic look at how fleet boosting works needs to be done. Demanding on-grid boosting is a lazy remedy that does not promote or develop what could be an interesting part of the game. It just makes FC's shift their primary rotation slightly.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#310 - 2013-05-18 11:42:11 UTC
Dyscordia wrote:
...Satellites don't participate directly in fights...

Transmissions to/from satellites can be jammed, satellites are easily identified/tracked and destroyed (de-militarization of space treaties prevents this, but doubt any space nation doesn't have the ability) .. so yes they do have a significant impact but between equal sides (NATO/Russia/China bombing 3rd world countries hardly counts as equal) they will be easily and immediately neutralized.

Speaking of: Why don't we just add an easily fitted module that jams all signals coming from off-grid .. be it gang links, non-assigned fighters/bombers or the grossly OP Titan effects. One can already buy GPS jamming gear as a private person, imagine what military umpteen thousand years in future will have.
Would not immediately affect carebear grinding or mining, although it should be used as a way to throw grinders a curve-ball from time to time by having a random rat switch such a module on Twisted
Dyscordia wrote:
All these arguments for or against on-grid boosting directly affect a lot of accounts that have spent...

Cry me a river, people deliberately creating alts to take advantage of CCPs shortsightedness/ignorance do not deserve any more consideration than others whose world is turned upside down (changes to ECM, probes, Dramiel Smile, MoonGoo (Soon™) etc.)
Dyscordia wrote:
I think that the problem with fleet boosting is that...

Only applicable in the current environment and with no changes made other than move them on-grid. CCP has already stated that commands will be given teeth (during initial tiericide announcement) and with teeth comes interactivity/fun/mails and you can be damn sure that we will all help to make sure that they are viable when on-grid (provided people are not being stupid about it)
Keep in mind that there is no hard-set rule saying that a fleet should only have one ship with 5 links and the resulting zero tank. Sure, CCP will have to cook up some sort of fleet automation to allow redundancy linkships to come online, preferably based on a FC set priority list (think watchlist) but that too is part of the overall concept of on-grid links.