These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
#381 - 2013-08-02 13:27:23 UTC
Copypasting my post from FHC

Those navy implants really should be expensive, not like twice the cost of vanilla mindlinks, more like 5x the isk and LP cost. It's a no-brainer, nobody's NOT going to pay that negligible premium for twice the versatility afforded by navy implants. At 400-500M each, maybe then considering cheap 80m isk vanilla implants might not be such a bad idea.

e.g. CONCORD LP rewards are 10,875 LP + 10,875,000 isk for 3% implants, while 6% implants cost 250k LP + 250M isk. But they plan to make double the mindlink functionality only cost barely double and change? Not saying it needs to scale as severely as hardwirings, but it should be at a hefty premium if you choose to fit them. As it stands now it's ******* dumb.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#382 - 2013-08-02 13:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Aloe Cloveris wrote:
Copypasting my post from FHC

Those navy implants really should be expensive, not like twice the cost of vanilla mindlinks, more like 5x the isk and LP cost. It's a no-brainer, nobody's NOT going to pay that negligible premium for twice the versatility afforded by navy implants. At 400-500M each, maybe then considering cheap 80m isk vanilla implants might not be such a bad idea.

e.g. CONCORD LP rewards are 10,875 LP + 10,875,000 isk for 3% implants, while 6% implants cost 250k LP + 250M isk. But they plan to make double the mindlink functionality only cost barely double and change? Not saying it needs to scale as severely as hardwirings, but it should be at a hefty premium if you choose to fit them. As it stands now it's ******* dumb.



They don't want booster alts to cost too much isk.

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#383 - 2013-08-02 13:42:03 UTC
Fozzie

perhaps you could add navy warfare links.. lower fittings slightly better boost strength than the T1.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#384 - 2013-08-02 13:47:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

All defensive (Siege and Armored) links:
T1: 4.8%
T2: 6%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps:
T1: 4%
T2: 5%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5%
Former max bonus: 21%

Information Warfare: Recon Operation:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity:
T1: 9.6%
T2: 12%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75%
Former max bonus: 53%

Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers:
T1: 7.2%
T2: 9%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8%
Former max bonus: 53%

Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment:
T1: 5.6%
T2: 7%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2%
Former max bonus: 35%

Mining Foreman: Laser Optimization and Harvester Capacitor
T1: 5%
T2: 7.5%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 42.2%
Former max bonus: 42.2%

Mining Foreman: Field Enhancement
T1: 13.6%
T2: 17%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 95.7%
Former max bonus: 95%


These numbers are not very descriptive btw.

An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100%

This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.


To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties).

With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties).

This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent!


This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking.

Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost.

Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do.


CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players.

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

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#385 - 2013-08-02 13:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Wasn't a great fan on first read through but warming to it a bit more on consideration, some stuff I really like but other aspects a bit cautious about until I see how they work in reality.

Oh and please don't stop OGB working even if steps are taken to stop the "god mode" (lol really) hard to scan off grid boosters. I'm happy enough to bring links on grid for combat but quite often multi-boxing with different characters on different grids which that would royally mess up not to mention it just panders to the lowest skilled/effort players.
maCH'EttE
Perkone
Caldari State
#386 - 2013-08-02 15:13:39 UTC
VioletRay wrote:
Sigras wrote:
maCH'EttE wrote:
This is one of the conspiracies forwarded by CCP to kill small gang pvp.
Thank you CCP.
Blob warfare = more cash for CCP
small gang = who da f gives a damn.

so by nerfing something that large fleets use, they have buffed large fleets?

please tell me more about how you would balance ships . . .



You don't get it do you? Nerfing T3 links and buffing commandship links mean that the more number you have it's easier to pull one people to be in the commandship. When you have 3 people, putting one of them in commandship loses 1/3 of your entire dps. When you have 20? You lose 1/20.

So making commandship links superier to T3 links ends up to buff larger fleet and somewhat kill small fleet by giving even better links to the larger fleet and worse one to the small fleet. You get this?

You are taking the chances away from small fleet by doing this balancing. Who would want to fight larger numbers when you know they have even better links than yours?

Just make the all links the same or delete the whole links stuff tbh. It's the better way to go.

what you think am sayin chicken head.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#387 - 2013-08-02 15:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobias Hareka
The fact still stands: links belong to grid.

The "fact" that "solo" players need to own small to medium gangs is irrelevant.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#388 - 2013-08-02 15:33:13 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
The fact still stands: links belong to grid.

The "fact" that "solo" players need to own small to medium gangs is irrelevant.



the problem is 'grid's' can and are often broken. if they were to limit to on grid only, they would have to fix grids and remove all gridfu..
id bet they cant actually be bothered or may not even be able to do it.


(gridfu if you don't know is documented by some very clever goons, google it)

OMG when can i get a pic here

Infinite Force
#389 - 2013-08-02 15:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinite Force
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Quote:
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
Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information
Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information
Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information

Not balanced at all:
skirmish - 4 bonuses (all races)
siege - 2 bonuses
armored and information - 3 bonuses.

Swap skirmish bonus on Proteus with siege (there are shield fit gallente ships) to balance things out.


I was wondering who else would catch this!

Balance, balance, balance.




Admiral Douros wrote:
Armor and web nerfs are going to hit wormhole groups pretty hard. Capital escalations are already fairly difficult -- nerfing armor resistances and rep amounts is going to make them even harder, and going with a Damnation for max armor boosts means that a Loki is only going to be able to web to ~40km (maybe less, I haven't run the numbers yet).

Have you considered maybe giving a bonus to warfare links in wormholes? It seems like these changes were designed without wspace in mind, and I'm a big fan of them for kspace PVP and PVE, but I think some attention needs to be paid to wspace implications.


I rarely agree with a goon (it's a matter of principle), but this guy is spot on.

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!

Endeavour Starfleet
#390 - 2013-08-02 15:45:01 UTC
So again CCP Fozzie with this change to links for 1.1 and overall 1.1 being a large change. Will you and CCP also take the time to bring balance to the overpowered ability to go AFK while cloaked? That should be the priority to be fixed over link changes that harms incursion groups and encourages alpha.

When will we get a straight answer about cloaking? If we are getting them for links and HACs why not modules?
Nitko Koraka
Flashover Freight
#391 - 2013-08-02 15:52:49 UTC
Cannot begin to say how happy I am to see the first steps of removing OGB.
Deornoth Drake
Vandeo
#392 - 2013-08-02 16:17:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lexar Mundi wrote:
Mining links should not be given special treatment...

Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame.


We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.


Rorqual ... grant the link bonus without the need to deploy it.

Like command ships both Rorqual and Orca serve a 2nd role.
Command ships fight, Rorqual and Orca store haul ... the hauling stops the mind link which is not good
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#393 - 2013-08-02 16:24:51 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

All defensive (Siege and Armored) links:
T1: 4.8%
T2: 6%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps:
T1: 4%
T2: 5%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5%
Former max bonus: 21%

Information Warfare: Recon Operation:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity:
T1: 9.6%
T2: 12%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75%
Former max bonus: 53%

Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers:
T1: 7.2%
T2: 9%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8%
Former max bonus: 53%

Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment:
T1: 5.6%
T2: 7%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2%
Former max bonus: 35%

Mining Foreman: Laser Optimization and Harvester Capacitor
T1: 5%
T2: 7.5%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 42.2%
Former max bonus: 42.2%

Mining Foreman: Field Enhancement
T1: 13.6%
T2: 17%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 95.7%
Former max bonus: 95%


These numbers are not very descriptive btw.

An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100%

This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.


To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties).

With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties).

This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent!


This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking.

Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost.

Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do.


CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players.


It does take into account cap usage... The self rep bonus greatly increases the speed of reps, and the cap usage bonus decreases the cap needed by the same amount. The result generally is that you rep faster, and use the same cap / second.

Also, I agree that OGB's still are way too potent.

Frozzie: Why aren't you balancing OGB's around Drugs and Pirate Implants? Seriously, both Drugs and Pirate Implants should give as good or better bonuses to self reps than the corresponding triple linked fleet booster!!!!

Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#394 - 2013-08-02 16:31:12 UTC
I think it's time that we either:
a) remove mind-links all together
or
b) remove the racial qualities of the mind-link and reduce it down to a single mind-link that gives bonuses to all types.

I can't find any other 'profession' in the game that requires the destruction/implantation of an implant every time you want to swap fleet comps and with the halving of effectiveness of the mind-links, I see no reason not to go further with the mind-link changes.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#395 - 2013-08-02 16:35:02 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

All defensive (Siege and Armored) links:
T1: 4.8%
T2: 6%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps:
T1: 4%
T2: 5%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5%
Former max bonus: 21%

Information Warfare: Recon Operation:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity:
T1: 9.6%
T2: 12%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75%
Former max bonus: 53%

Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers:
T1: 6.4%
T2: 8%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5%
Former max bonus: 35%

Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers:
T1: 7.2%
T2: 9%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8%
Former max bonus: 53%

Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment:
T1: 5.6%
T2: 7%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2%
Former max bonus: 35%

Mining Foreman: Laser Optimization and Harvester Capacitor
T1: 5%
T2: 7.5%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 42.2%
Former max bonus: 42.2%

Mining Foreman: Field Enhancement
T1: 13.6%
T2: 17%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 95.7%
Former max bonus: 95%


These numbers are not very descriptive btw.

An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100%

This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.


To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties).

With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties).

This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent!


This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking.

Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost.

Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do.


CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players.


It does take into account cap usage... The self rep bonus greatly increases the speed of reps, and the cap usage bonus decreases the cap needed by the same amount. The result generally is that you rep faster, and use the same cap / second.

Also, I agree that OGB's still are way too potent.

Frozzie: Why aren't you balancing OGB's around Drugs and Pirate Implants? Seriously, both Drugs and Pirate Implants should give as good or better bonuses to self reps than the corresponding triple linked fleet booster!!!!




Thanks

Help me with the math here with respect to the local tank bonus ccp is also giving.

A non-ogb boosted incursus is effectively getting a 15% bonus to rep. A ogb bonused incruses is effectively getting .7x15% + 15% or 25.5% bonus?




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

Nergart
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#396 - 2013-08-02 17:14:10 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.


+1

the usual nerf it 6 times over and should we nerf it once more just because we can , yeh why not

Eve does not have a learning curve, its a learning cliff. Either learn to fly on the way down or its going to be a hard landing

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#397 - 2013-08-02 17:32:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Cearain wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

All defensive (Siege and Armored) links:
T1: 4.8%
T2: 6%
Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9%
Former max bonus: 35%

These numbers are not very descriptive btw.

An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100%

This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.


To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties).

With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties).

This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent!


This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking.

Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost.

Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do.


CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players.


It does take into account cap usage... The self rep bonus greatly increases the speed of reps, and the cap usage bonus decreases the cap needed by the same amount. The result generally is that you rep faster, and use the same cap / second.

Also, I agree that OGB's still are way too potent.

Frozzie: Why aren't you balancing OGB's around Drugs and Pirate Implants? Seriously, both Drugs and Pirate Implants should give as good or better bonuses to self reps than the corresponding triple linked fleet booster!!!!




Thanks

Help me with the math here with respect to the local tank bonus ccp is also giving.

A non-ogb boosted incursus is effectively getting a 15% bonus to rep. A ogb bonused incruses is effectively getting .7x15% + 15% or 25.5% bonus?


The Math (Skip to the TL; DR; if math bores you!):

Base Stat: Current Small Armor Repper II = 80 HP / 6 Seconds = 13.333 HP/s
Repair Systems 5: 5%/Level Faster Repair. At V this increases HP/s by a factor of 1/.75 = 1.3333
Incursus Hull bonus: 7.5% / Level More Repair. At V this increases HP/s by 1.375

So, LvL 5 Incursus Now = 24.444 HP / s

Legion Currently provides:
-35.16 Cycle Time (and cap use); This is effectively a 1 / (1-.3516) = 1.5422 HP/s Modifier (but will stack with Nanobot Accerators)
+35.16 Resists (damage reduction); This is effectively a 1 / ( 1 - 35.16 ) = 1.5422 EHP / s Modifier (but will stack with resist modifiers except Hull bonuses, DCU, & RAH)

So, Currently a LvL 5 Mindlinked Legion boosts any-armor-ships reps by 1.5422 * 1.5422 = 2.3783 as much as the base incursus.

I'm going to use an EFT verifiable example now:

To put this into effect: Base Armor Resists on an Incursus with a DCU is 23.5%, which is a modifier of 1 / (1 - .235) = 1.307
Taking only Exp Damage, the incursus will rep 24.444 * 1.307 EHP/s = 31.95 EHP/s
With Legion Bonuses, it will rep 31.95 * 2.3783 = 75.98 EHP/s

Now for the changes:
Armor Reppers are 15% stronger = 1.15 Modifier. We could go through all the details, but the result is still a 1.15 Modifier

Changing Legion to Damnation, and using max skills
-25.90% Cycle time (and cap use) = 1 / .741 = 1.3495 HP/s Modifier
+25.90% Resists = 1 / 0.741 = 1.3495 EHP / s Modifier

So, the new Level 5 Mindlinked Damnation Boosts any-armor-ships reps by 1.3495 * 1.3495 = 1.8212

The results:
All 5 Incursus taking only Exp Damage will rep 31.95 * 1.15 = 36.74 EHP / s
With New Damnation Bonuses, it will rep 36.74 * 1.8212 = 66.91 EHP / s





the TL;DR;
Old Incursus against Exp Damage: 31.95 EHP/s
New Incursus against Exp Damage: 36.74 EHP/s
Old Boosted Incursus against Exp Damage: 75.98 EHP / s
New Boosted Incrusus against Exp Damage: 66.91 EHP / s

Notes: 1 SAR2 (No Heat), only Resist mod is DCU2 (adding additional Resist mods will stack with Boosts), No Rigs (adding additional rep or resist mods will stack with Boosts).

Disparity:
A strong Exile/Blue Pill will boost Amror/Shield reps by 30% (and has major chances of drawbacks) for a SINGLE SHIP.
A Full Crystal Implant set will boost Shield reps by 54% for a SINGLE SHIP.
An off-grid booster hugging the POS will boost armor/Shield reps by 82.1% for EVERY SHIP IN THE FLEET!!

That is completely backwards in terms of Risk & Effort vs Reward, and I don't think the booster or implants are very far from where it should be!!!!!! Frozzie's changes are in the right direction, and even appropriate when the booster is ON GRID. But until then, Boosting needs a bigger nerf!!!!
Palamon
0utbreak
#398 - 2013-08-02 17:51:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
"


  • Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100.
  • This goes alongside the balance changes to command ships, battlecruisers and strategic cruisers. We want to be able to balance a ship's fittings such that fitting choices allow people different tradeoffs for the choice of what to do with their unbonused "utility" highslots. Some may want to leave it empty or go with a small neut, some may want to fit a gang link fore 100 or 110 pwg, some may want to go with a medium neut at 175 pwg. All of those choices provide different benefits and will require different sacrifices.

    Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:

    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
  • Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information
  • Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information
  • Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information



  • Is this what happens when the 'Nerf' button is situated next to the 'Buff' button on the DEV console? ;)

    Already seen proposed fits for 6 link loki's and legion's and they will still be off grid.

    I totally understand there might be some serious technical challenges to 'fixing' the off-grid boosting issue, but this seems like a 'one set back, two steps forward' approach with the issue being the enormous gap between the backward step and the step that makes things better. For the command ship changes to be pertinent, there needs to be a reason to field them over the off-grid T3 option, with the current proposal I do not see that happening.

    However, recognising the impact on solo/small gang active tanking and tweaking the rep modules is a definite step in the right direction.


    Sigras
    Conglomo
    #399 - 2013-08-02 19:01:29 UTC
    VioletRay wrote:
    Sigras wrote:
    maCH'EttE wrote:
    This is one of the conspiracies forwarded by CCP to kill small gang pvp.
    Thank you CCP.
    Blob warfare = more cash for CCP
    small gang = who da f gives a damn.

    so by nerfing something that large fleets use, they have buffed large fleets?

    please tell me more about how you would balance ships . . .



    You don't get it do you? Nerfing T3 links and buffing commandship links mean that the more number you have it's easier to pull one people to be in the commandship. When you have 3 people, putting one of them in commandship loses 1/3 of your entire dps. When you have 20? You lose 1/20.

    So making commandship links superier to T3 links ends up to buff larger fleet and somewhat kill small fleet by giving even better links to the larger fleet and worse one to the small fleet. You get this?

    You are taking the chances away from small fleet by doing this balancing. Who would want to fight larger numbers when you know they have even better links than yours?

    Just make the all links the same or delete the whole links stuff tbh. It's the better way to go.

    Awwww how cute, someone who still thinks people only play with one account . . .

    Seriously large fleet or small gang, everyone only ever used cloaky - interdiction nullified - hard to probe out - 100MN AB - command processor fitting - AFK alts sitting in T3s in a safe spot to provide boost, and will continue to do so until CCP forces them on grid.

    After that happens, you may have a legitimate complaint, but until then, everyone ( and I do mean everyone) will just continue to use alts.
    Jooksupoiss Ise
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #400 - 2013-08-02 19:26:13 UTC
    Dear CCP Fozzie! By me nerf it to null but please reimburse my booster alt IP.