These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#541 - 2013-08-06 22:56:06 UTC
Monsieur Leon wrote:
Lexar Mundi wrote:
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.


That is understandable. ty for the fast response.



Idiots, can only think it would be a great idea to require an industrial ship, a lethargic, very slow to warp ship, with only 5 drones for defensive / offensive capability to be boosting outside the POS.

Its not like the "children of the corn" posting in glee on this forum are flying around null in a 2.3 billion isk frigate.

The last year and this year there seems to be a theme of rebalancing. Well before rolling out that gem of a change lets "balance" things for the miners and indy corps as well.

Rorqual / Orca
ORE ship special boost = +4 warp strength / +125% agility / -125% to sig radius

ORE ships +15% to damage and area of effect for smartbombs per level

+50% bonus to effectiveness of ECM modules.

If your going to force them to be vulnerable, you should at least make them harder to catch.

Like this idea... The problem is, if rorquals and orcas are too hard to kill, ship and module prices don't rise, stable market is no good for plex sales.. Basically, don't expect too much in the rebalance of ORE ships.

Low expectations leaves less room for disappointment..

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sigras
Conglomo
#542 - 2013-08-07 00:47:18 UTC
Monsieur Leon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:

This is a MMORPG, if your able to organize 256 People it should have an advantage for this bunch of Players!

I highly disagree with your opinion, think how long sklling is needed to get, 1 Fleet Commander at V, 5 Wing Commander at V and 25 Squadleaders to V and have Boosters with the skills for Warefare Links... its a !!Year!!


I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough.

-Liang

I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use.

Whats the name of your CCP alt?

Some of us are able to delay gratification and put the good of the game as a whole ahead of our personal interests . . . some of us . . .

That being said, I believe that (as a player with 14 million in leadership) gang boosts need to be nerfed but not removed, just forced on grid. Forcing them on grid means more interesting decisions to make when considering who to bring and what to have them bring.
Removing them would mean reducing the number of options/meaningful decisions to be made in the game.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#543 - 2013-08-07 01:09:30 UTC
Monsieur Leon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:

This is a MMORPG, if your able to organize 256 People it should have an advantage for this bunch of Players!

I highly disagree with your opinion, think how long sklling is needed to get, 1 Fleet Commander at V, 5 Wing Commander at V and 25 Squadleaders to V and have Boosters with the skills for Warefare Links... its a !!Year!!


I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough.

-Liang



I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use.

Whats the name of your CCP alt?

Calm down compadre, just because someone trained some alts to do a task that has been mostly a hide it in a POS and forget about it job, seeing that character actually having a fun role is great. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters believe it or not. I seem to remember hearing similar rage coming from another nerf not too far back, what was it...Oh yeah, Titans i believe. GODDAMNIT I CAN'T DOOMSDAY SUBCAPS IN LOWSEC AND LOG OFF SAFELY WHENEVER I WANT OMGWTFBBQ!

Just because you trained a long time for it, doesn't mean it's not broken. Sometimes it sucks to lose your power, but it's not gonna suck itself.

Take a chill pill man. lYou're embarrassing yourself.

That aside i think gang links are moving in a good direction, especially with making mindlinks easier to obtain, but don't need to be removed fully.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#544 - 2013-08-07 08:14:58 UTC
Sigras wrote:
...That being said, I believe that (as a player with 14 million in leadership) gang boosts need to be nerfed but not removed, just forced on grid. Forcing them on grid means more interesting decisions to make when considering who to bring and what to have them bring.
Removing them would mean reducing the number of options/meaningful decisions to be made in the game.

Fourteen million .. how much does the Fleet Command skill add, I am missing that and Info Spec and the mining fluff with only 5M Big smile

There will be no interesting decision when its on-grid as it stands now, for maximum performance to do the old-old-school all CC gangs .. can you imagine the sheer power of 10 of any or a mix of the CC's after their revision (well apart from the brick)? Big smile

One thing CCP still has not spoken of, something I hope will appear once they have a handle on the off/on-grid code, is that link ships must be presumed high priority targets in most fights which necessitates a more streamlined way of assigning boosters, preferably one that is semi-autonomous (ex. based on pre-made list) so that a gang doesn't have to rummage around to replace bonuses whenever a link goes dead.
Evanga
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#545 - 2013-08-07 10:00:30 UTC
" Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
People can still orbit just outside the forcefield I know, but they will at least have to keep an eye on that character so it's an improvement."


CCP, Why is this not for mining links. Again the miners get all the nice things.
Sigras
Conglomo
#546 - 2013-08-07 10:08:28 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Sigras wrote:
...That being said, I believe that (as a player with 14 million in leadership) gang boosts need to be nerfed but not removed, just forced on grid. Forcing them on grid means more interesting decisions to make when considering who to bring and what to have them bring.
Removing them would mean reducing the number of options/meaningful decisions to be made in the game.

Fourteen million .. how much does the Fleet Command skill add, I am missing that and Info Spec and the mining fluff with only 5M Big smile

My character sheet shows fleet command 5 being 3,072,000 SP wing command 5 being 2,048,000 SP, warefare link specialist 5 being 1,536,000 plus each warefare skill and specialization skill being 1,792,000 SP * 4 (no mining)
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
There will be no interesting decision when its on-grid as it stands now, for maximum performance to do the old-old-school all CC gangs .. can you imagine the sheer power of 10 of any or a mix of the CC's after their revision (well apart from the brick)? Big smile

The effects for links are very apparent, just shoot the ships with links running . . .

Veshta Yoshida wrote:
One thing CCP still has not spoken of, something I hope will appear once they have a handle on the off/on-grid code, is that link ships must be presumed high priority targets in most fights which necessitates a more streamlined way of assigning boosters, preferably one that is semi-autonomous (ex. based on pre-made list) so that a gang doesn't have to rummage around to replace bonuses whenever a link goes dead.

Also, I would say that CCP shouldnt streamline assigning boosters when the command chain is broken; it is disruptive and it should be. This is one of the "interesting decisions" I was talking about along with "do i really want to have to dual box my command ship instead of just being able to put it in a safe spot at the start of the fight?"
Isaak Artorius
Perkone
Caldari State
#547 - 2013-08-07 10:19:14 UTC
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.


I wouldn't mind at all the above for my mining corp, but then again I use my Orca actively rather than passively (POS/station loitering).


I am for sale! 74M SP Tengu/Industrial/R&D Pilot!

Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#548 - 2013-08-07 10:37:57 UTC
It would also help if the Warefare links need sometime to charge Up (only would work with OnGrid Boosting only) every cycle it gets 10% of its Full boosting amount After 10 Cycle it runs 100% of the usual amount.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2013-08-07 12:49:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:

Also, I would say that CCP shouldnt streamline assigning boosters when the command chain is broken; it is disruptive and it should be. This is one of the "interesting decisions" I was talking about along with "do i really want to have to dual box my command ship instead of just being able to put it in a safe spot at the start of the fight?"


Its not an "interesting decision" at all, its a boring, ****** task with an awful UI. With modern fleet combat the way it is boost ships will just get alphad off the field as soon as they appear and you'd end up having to have one person playing a full time fleet organisation mini-game and contemplating suicide. That person is going to be sat in a POS or safespot (or worse, out of system), affecting the battle.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#550 - 2013-08-07 13:33:35 UTC
Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.

I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Evanga
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#551 - 2013-08-07 13:39:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.

I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception.


please have the following done and i wuv you longtime!

1. Increase blops bs fuel bay to same as carrier
2. Make it possible to refit on black ops bs, only for covert ops vessels
3. decrease the fuel need consumption

:* :*

and welcome back !
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#552 - 2013-08-07 13:39:33 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Sigras wrote:

Also, I would say that CCP shouldnt streamline assigning boosters when the command chain is broken; it is disruptive and it should be. This is one of the "interesting decisions" I was talking about along with "do i really want to have to dual box my command ship instead of just being able to put it in a safe spot at the start of the fight?"


Its not an "interesting decision" at all, its a boring, ****** task with an awful UI. With modern fleet combat the way it is boost ships will just get alphad off the field as soon as they appear


Don't be silly, those excellent active repair bonuses will surely be adequate to keep them alive! Roll

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Mara Maken
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#553 - 2013-08-07 13:40:16 UTC
I don't think moving links on grid is the only answer. I think the best option is to allow them both on and off grid but make it much more enticing to have them on grid. Also, off grid should be more risky than just having them 1km outside of POS under protection of POS guns. How about 100km+ away from any structure (gates, stations, etc.) and as suggested before, a sig bloom to allow for easier probing. The proposed implementation does not introduce any really risk other than requiring the link to not be completely afk.

On that note, since we do want on grid to be a thing, command ships need to offer more appealing boosts and have to be that much more survivable.

In the end, completely eliminating off grid does not sound legitimate, what happens in FW where Larges deploy once in a blue moon or missions with size restrictions. Keep off grid but make it more dangerous and less appealing.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#554 - 2013-08-07 14:24:35 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.

I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception.


So you are doubling the nerf?

Good man!

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

sten mattson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#555 - 2013-08-07 14:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: sten mattson
Wrong thread sorry

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#556 - 2013-08-07 15:11:07 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.

I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception.


So you are doubling the nerf?

Good man!


hopefully we can get a more potent change than that!!!!!

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#557 - 2013-08-07 15:13:48 UTC
it would be nice if command ships had a stronger bonus than T2 mindlinks
- a new T1 mind-link
- navy being weaker than T2

- new navy warfare link would be nice too

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

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#558 - 2013-08-07 15:29:37 UTC
Ok update time!

Thanks as always to everyone providing constructive feedback. There are several changes we're making to the proposal thanks to issues you brought up. I posted these changes to the CSM yesterday and got positive reception so we're ready to send them to you.

I'm going to go over the changes to the 1.1 proposal, as well as talk a bit about later changes we want to make, that won't be in 1.1 but can potentially come fairly soon. Anything mentioned there is unconnected to the technical project for removing offgrid boosting, so does not need to be connected to that project's timeline.

Changes to the plan for 1.1!

  • We're moving the link bonuses on the command ships back to the command ships skill and away from a role bonus. They'll be a 3% per level third bonus for that skill.

  • We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus.

  • We're reducing the base strength of the Interdiction maneuvers link to 8% for T2 (6.4% for T1). This gives it a maximum strength of 34.5% as opposed to 38.8% in the earlier proposal and 53% on TQ currently.

  • We're dropping the change that would have given all gang link bonuses to capital local reps until we have the testing bandwidth to deal with some interactions with wormhole effects that the CSM correctly pointed out would become a problem.

  • We're changing the LP store offers for the Navy Mindlinks, so that they require 100k LP, 100m isk, one of each of the T2 mindlinks that they combine. (This adds about 150m to their price total)


  • Near future stuff

  • We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1.

  • We're planning to fix the issue where Wing Commanders don't get the fleet level bonuses. There's a few gnarly bits of code to get through before we can tie a bow on this, but the way it works now is stupid and in general we want to reduce the number of stupid systems in our game.

  • We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.

  • Expanding the link bonuses to local capital tanks is something we still want to do, because we want the bonuses and effects to as much as possible behave in a logical and consistent manner. Special cases should only be used when absolutely necessary. This is dependant on us figuring out what we want to do with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet wormholes first.

  • I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category.

  • Obviously the usual disclaimers apply to future stuff, but the timeline for these kinds of things would ideally be either Winter or earlier.

    I'm gonna update the OP, then go post updates into the other threads.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #559 - 2013-08-07 15:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
    come on fozzie really no T1 mindlink and T2 is worse than navy mind links?
    Also why are mindlinks still more effective then the bonus on the command ships?
    Also a missed opportunity for navy warfare links

    Also links are still too strong especially the skirmish and the ecm based link and armour/siege ..
    also think about calling the siege links shield links .. makes more sense

    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

    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #560 - 2013-08-07 15:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ok update time!



    Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place.

    P.S. The "future" changes look EXCELLENT: Command Processor Rigs instead of midslot modules and "oh-please-let-us-have-it-now" weapons timers for activating warfare links!!!