These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#361 - 2013-08-02 08:11:48 UTC
I find that I can make great use of my perfect booster skills when flying a BC, T3 or CS with a link fitted to it, and my alt on a second account. The link ship has about as strong a tank through its own boosts as a link-less fitting would have, and the alt has a much stronger tank from the bonus.

Gangs don't get much smaller than one guy and his alt, so how exactly do links hurt small gangs? They only hurt NOOBS, so quit whining and start training, like everyone who has those links has done before you :p

.

Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#362 - 2013-08-02 08:55:31 UTC
Are there any plans to change the skill prerequisites for using mindlinks? You say that you want to smooth out the advancement path for using links effectively, but since mindlinks require the appropriate warfare spec skill at V, there's a really big jump in effectiveness on going from spec IV to spec V (20% from the skill increase and another 25% from the mindlink), which doesn't seem consistent with the goal of smoothing out the progression. It might be worth reducing the mindlink requirement to spec IV or less if you're going to stick with the proposed link strengths and skill effects.
My Forum Alt
Doomheim
#363 - 2013-08-02 08:55:54 UTC
just a reminder of an idea how to force link ships on grid:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=245209&find=unread
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#364 - 2013-08-02 09:14:09 UTC
Flyinghotpocket wrote:
Bocephus Morgen wrote:
I'm cool with the changes, but would like to point out that this is a buff to stealth bombers. Higher sigs and lower tanks will make it even easier to kill fleets now.

The shield BS fleet was already endangered, it will go extinct with these changes.

funny i never seen bs fleets since 2011


are you high

No sig.

Raging Beaver
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#365 - 2013-08-02 10:16:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Raging Beaver
NaK'Lin wrote:
It does pay off, doesn't it? all that time spent to train and max 4 different T3s and 4 different command ships, while two of each could have been enough.
hooray for wasted SP that i'll (a) never recover and (b) will now be worth ditch when selling a character in the future.


Cry some more Rancer person, I absolutely hate the changes to the Astarte and the Sleipnir (having trained CS to 5 only to fly those two - I ain't much of a CS person) but the links nerf is making this much better, even though it's still nowhere near as big as it should be.
Raging Beaver
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#366 - 2013-08-02 10:20:43 UTC
My Forum Alt wrote:
just a reminder of an idea how to force link ships on grid:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=245209&find=unread



Very cruel idea...I like it!
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#367 - 2013-08-02 10:28:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
Gypsio III wrote:
Shade Millith wrote:
A 35% tackling range link costs -

46 Days to get into a Loki and have level 5 Defensive Systems
48 Days to get Skirmish Warfare Link T2
20 Days to get a Skirmish Mindlink.
42 Days to get Warfare Link Specialist Level V and Command Processors

Costs ~300 million for the Loki.
Costs ~100 million for the Mindlink.

5+ months of training and 400+ million for a 35% increase is not a pittance.


I'm not convinced that either the training time or the cost is really that relevant. We know from supercaps that attempts to balance things by making them expensive or difficult to get can only create a short-term scarcity. As it is, links are already basically ubiquitous and mandatory, so the benefit of any delay in adoption that might have come from the cost or training time is long gone.

In any case, you can eliminate the "cost" argument entirely by just shoving a link on a T1 BC. It's not quite as powerful as a T3 or CS, but the magnitude of the bonus still makes it mandatory.


I wasn't saying whether or not it was balanced. Just that it isn't a pittance obtaining one.



My own thoughts on what to do with links is to keep the original strength, but if the link is off-grid it's only 70% or 50% effective or so. Give an incentive to have it on the field and using a heavily tanked Commandship.
Sollis Vynneve
Destructive Silence
#368 - 2013-08-02 10:33:32 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
maybe first?

e: boom

e2:

Quote:
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield

It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe). Has this been considered?



what would be the point of that. that would simply negate the effects of skirmish link evasive maneauvers.
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
#369 - 2013-08-02 10:37:05 UTC
Even as someone who'd definitely benefit from them, I'm kind of disappointed in the navy mindlinks as proposed. Literally no reason to use vanilla mindlinks because the premium you pay for twice the versatility is laughably small.

I actually want to see them be upwards of 5x the LP and Isk cost of vanilla mindlinks.
Sollis Vynneve
Destructive Silence
#370 - 2013-08-02 10:45:38 UTC
tbh i dont like the changes. ive invested heavily in training time max out all leadership/t3/command ship skills,just to have a load of whiny pilots complain abt boosts. pvp is abt beating your opponents by using whatever tools you have boosts/drugs etc. whats nxt drugs overpowered people need to stop whinning and enjoy the game for what it is. :D
Dilium
Screaming Hayabusa
#371 - 2013-08-02 11:17:52 UTC
Wheres the glory in fighting outnumbered if you need links to do it?

Glad to see all the broken linkalt backbones, but nerf isnt big enough. Dont settle with this, keep working on how to force them on grid.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#372 - 2013-08-02 11:34:54 UTC

jones bones wrote:

Their numbers are ******* wrong and ******** anyways. Crosspoast from FHC:

The following are all Lvl 5s and no implants:

My Incursus without Legion links: 5k EHP, 89 DPS Tank from AAR
My Incursus with Legion links: 7k EHP, 205 DPS Tank from AAR

That's a 40% bonus in EHP and 130% bonus in active tank. That's ridiculous. I could see 10% bonus in EHP and 25% bonus in active tank.

My condor without Loki links: 24km point range, 3618m/s velocity
My condor with Loki links:36.7km point range, 4705m/s velocity

That's a 53% bonus in point range and 30% bonus in velocity. Keeping it real yo.

My Hawk without Tengu links: 6.3k EHP, 189 DPS Tank
My Hawk with Tengu links: 8.7k EHP, 411 DPS Tank

That's a 39% bonus in EHP and 120% bonus in active tank. I've got a DPS tank higher than any frig/dessie can even output.

Links are so overpowered the concept of fighting without them is alien to us.
This isn't "We have a 10% edge on tanks thanks to HERO ITSMEHCK in the Damnation!"
This is "We have a 30% bonus in EHP and a 100% bonus in reps thanks to ::RANDOM COWARD ALT:: sitting in a safe somewhere in system."
******** game mechanic is ********. I haven't lost an Incursus in weeks because nothing I engage can kill me. It's awesome.


What sort huge advantages will links get now that ccp is also buffing local reps to compensate for this slight nerf to ogbs?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Kikusama
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#373 - 2013-08-02 12:24:50 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?



This is dumb. How the hell can you counter a Falcon or a Logi if you're scrammed and webbed? How is less of a force boost being permajammed or the opponent having 5-6 large reppers on him?

I do fully agree with all the changes, but stop offering stupid explanations. One ECCM will do fsck-all agains a Falcon and you can't counter a T1 logi (nevermind a T2 one) being on field and aiding your opponent.

Eagerly awaiting ECM to be deleted from the game, promising a bottle of Bollinger for the dude that does it Pirate

Guns make the news. Science doesn't.

Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#374 - 2013-08-02 12:27:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
I am wondering why energy neutralizers are not getting any boost from EWAR links. As far as I remember neutralizing is also reviewed as an ewar.
Also, since I mentioned ewar and neuts: why pilgrim is only ship that doesn't have same bonuses as curse has. All other recons have exactly same ewar bonuses but differ with high/low slots and that's it.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2013-08-02 12:27:38 UTC
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:
1. It takes skill to not get caught dual boxing with links while being shot at. If you can't be bothered to dedicate time to train leadership skill and get better at pvp to counter the player who spent their time on fine tuning their skills, then you ought to be at disadvantage. It's a fair game, more effort, more reward.

2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them

3. Pilot who spent their time training command ship to level 5 for that extra 3% wafare bonus just had their effort wasted, because now every single command ship will perform the same as far as the warfare link goes whether they have command ship skill level 1 or 5. Another 37day training time differences.

The nerf to the warfare link strength is absolutely unfair to those who dedicated months of time in training for that extra 5% of chance to come out on top in a fight. If you are going to nerf the strength of the links, then it would only be fair to reinburse the skill points that was nerfed along with the skill. It is simply unfair to have to spend a month for additional 2% difference at links.

- For pilots that have all specialization skill to 5, they have just lost half year of game time in training for that worthless 2% differences.

- For pilots that have spent their time to command ship 5, they lost 37 day of game time in training because now everyone will do just as good as command ship level 5 pilots as far as warfare module goes.

Please consider the pilots that dedicated their time in warfare links in hope to have better chance against overcoming blobs in a small gang.


I payed 12bill isk for a character specifically for boosting, she has 11 551 059 sp in leadership and I find your butt hurt hilarious.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#376 - 2013-08-02 12:32:27 UTC
A couple of questions regarding availability, pricing, and sourcing of T2 mindlinks in your proposal:

1) Will T2 mindlinks still be available as a reward from the 'Shipyard Theft' mission if the proposed changes are acted on?

2) It seems to me that 20,000 Concord LP plus the small amount of ISK (I've forgotten that figure.Oops) is far too cheap for warfare-related T2 mindlinks. I'm not sure how much these mindlinks should be priced at but this doesn't seem enough.

2a) Regarding T2 mining mindlinks has Dr Eyjo, the CCP economist, been consulted on making these also available at a nominal cost as opposed to the current market value for these particular mindlinks?? There are already far too many people mining and this part of the proposal will only make the current situation worse.
If you were going to make the Rorqual boost only work outside POS forcefields I suppose I could see cheap T2 mining mindlinks being a idea but not if they will still work inside the forcefields. Even allowing for that idea I still feel lowering the price will be a dangerous idea for the economy of New Eden.

I fear this just looks like more 'dumbing-down' of the game. Sad

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#377 - 2013-08-02 12:37:51 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Awesome.


So, the nerfs is awesome ? Another idiot licking CCP @....
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#378 - 2013-08-02 12:41:23 UTC
Nice changes, roughly 10% nerf, or so? Leave it like that and it's gg
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#379 - 2013-08-02 13:17:31 UTC
One thing I've always wondered... why are the armour-related bonuses labelled as 'Armoured Warfare', but shield-related bonuses are 'Siege Warfare'?

Also, are titan fleet bonuses being touched in this patch (or in the near future)?
Astecus
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#380 - 2013-08-02 13:25:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links:
  • Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish

  • Will the Loki really have bonus to both Siege and Armored warfare links, or is this just a typo?

    If yes, will there be navy mindlinks with bonuses to these two as well?

    Reloaded Main: Astevon | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net