These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

[Balance Pass] Revisiting gang links, strategic cruisers and probing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alundil
Rolled Out
#21 - 2014-06-17 18:50:07 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
boosting ships dont have any weapons and the skills involved in perfectly flying one are imense, so you want to make it easier to kill an un-armed ship, put a boosting ship on grid and its instantly primary just making the whole ship pointless to have in a fleet and the months of skills pointless


So you have a problem being primary in a ship that can keep distance on any DPS fleet, has 150-200k EHP and silly resist profiles?

I'm sure the logi flying with you won't mind knowing that you're a high priority for the enemy with fairly high survivability. It makes their job that much easier.


I fly a loki alot and have been primary and the tank of a t3 doesnt hold up that great when 30ships have locked you up even with logi, i dont mind losing ships but if a ship is going to be on grid for less than 30secs then whats the point in using it, so basically what you are implying is you cant fight a fleet with boost off grid the boost needs to be ongrid so you can kill it first.

I understand there are various circumstances but i dont see such a big issue with having boost offgrid

Please read the proposal first.

No where have I said that boosts must be on grid. Under my proposal they can remain off grid . Whether they do or not is obviously CCP's call (regardless of whether I think their approach will work or not).

My proposal is that you cannot boost a fleet while remaining virtually impossible to probe. That is the crux of the proposal -
prohibit un-probable boosters. What else you do is up to you (t3 off/on grid, command ship off/on grid, circling a pos, whatever).

As to your point about being in Loki on grid with fleet.....perhaps the "tried and true" EVE mechanic of everyone in a tight little ball is a bad tactic since it puts key ships like the booster in the think of things (and in range of alpha or high dps ships). Perhaps breaking those out and being mobile while on the same grid would give you more chance of success/surviving.

I'm right behind you
Alundil
Rolled Out
#22 - 2014-06-22 15:55:55 UTC
If there were a way to search Eve kill looking for only ships with links that might help shed some light on this discussion as well.

I'm right behind you
Dehval
Ascendance Rising
Ascendance..
#23 - 2014-06-22 22:02:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dehval
Quote:
Resolution/Proposal:
Add a Signature Resolution penalty to all warfare gang link modules
-- high enough to throw the sigres/sensor strength equation far enough off to render boosting Strategic Cruisers scannable like other ships in that class (e.g. cruisers)
Add a Role Bonus to Command Ships reducing the above penalty by 99%
-- prevents the use of these modules from blowing up the sigres of command ships (BC hull so already not small)
-- potentially extend this same role bonus (or slightly reduced) to T1 BC hulls for the same reasons


Don't tie it to the gang links themselves. Tie it to the Command Processor module. Command ships can already use the needed minimum 3 links without command processors and most t1 BC boosters only have 1 spare high for casual fleet boosting anyways.

T3 boosters on the other hand need to use multiple CPs in order to use more than one link. Giving the penalty to the CPs only negatively affects T3 boosters as nearly all other boosting ships from BCs to Titans (lol) have no need to use said module. That way you don't need to add the role bonuses to all other boosting ships to negate the change. Keeps it simple. If absolutely needed you could add the role bonus to the T1 BCs so those small few who boost with them aren't penalized too much.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#24 - 2014-06-22 23:49:50 UTC
I support the he OP point but in a sligly different way...

I would prefer to see that any ship,other than a command ship when using links create a beacon to their on grid location, and if they leave the beacon's grid, their links stop working and has to be restarted, thus creating a new beacon...

This way command ship keep their inherent advantage, and must be scanned down when using links, as they already can't become un scannable..

Other ships create a new grid fighting area, but still have etheability to maneuver away from the beacon they have created.

FYI, I think that rather than bringing links on grid, it is better for the game play to create multiple fighting grids within a system, and keeping links able to work system wide would do that...

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Katsumi Hanaya
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2014-06-23 02:09:22 UTC
So whats to stop people from just boosting from the undock in a heavily tanked command ship?

Essentially the only thing this will change is the price on the sensor strenght implants. And possibly give who ever lives in a system a home advantage.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#26 - 2014-06-23 13:54:57 UTC
Thank for the additional responses. In response to:
Dehval wrote:
T3 boosters on the other hand need to use multiple CPs in order to use more than one link. Giving the penalty to the CPs only negatively affects T3 boosters as nearly all other boosting ships from BCs to Titans (lol) have no need to use said module. That way you don't need to add the role bonuses to all other boosting ships to negate the change. Keeps it simple. If absolutely needed you could add the role bonus to the T1 BCs so those small few who boost with them aren't penalized too much.

T3 boosting is precisely what needs to be impacted and that was the aim of my proposal. Adding the sigres penalty to the gang links themselves in order to balloon the sig of ships using those modules. I also stated that the role bonus for Command Ships and, even, T1 Battlecruisers would negate this penalty.
The purpose of this proposal is to specifically make boosting while unprobable impossible. This proposal would do that without negatively impacting either of the two common boosting setups. As for the "....Titans (lol)..." they aren't worried about hiding from probes at all, ever. They also aren't boosting, typically, since the "no warfare links from inside POS" change. But either way, additional signature resolution on the largest ship in the game isn't going to change anything at all for the Titan pilot.

Saisin wrote:
I would prefer to see that any ship,other than a command ship when using links create a beacon to their on grid location, and if they leave the beacon's grid, their links stop working and has to be restarted, thus creating a new beacon...

If unprobable boosting was too easy/safe/riskless in one direction, then I think that this goes too far in the other direction. I'm not looking to make finding off grid boosters effortless. It should take some minimum effort to find and catch off grid boosters. Nothing should create a 'beacon' other than cynosural fields. Dropping combat probes should still be a requirement to finding off grid boosting ships. Only now if this proposal makes it in, there will be a decent chance of finding said booster as opposed to very low chance currently.

Katsumi Hanaya wrote:
So whats to stop people from just boosting from the undock in a heavily tanked command ship?

Essentially the only thing this will change is the price on the sensor strenght implants. And possibly give who ever lives in a system a home advantage.

Nothing stops people from boosting from the undock. This change won't (isn't aimed at) changing that. If someone is boosting from the undock (lowsec & 00), bring alpha ships and force them to dock back up. Boosting interrupted. If this is a High sec concern, then I don't think anything (short of CCP changing aggression mechanics on boosting ships, unlikely though that is) will change this as high sec mechanics are, imo, pretty **** for fleet pvp because of untouchable neutrals.
With the penalties in mind, sensor strength implants won't reduce the penalties in a significant manner so that shouldn't be a concern.
If the system you're operating in "belongs" to someone that you're fighting it is highly likely they have "homefield advantage" either way regardless of this change. I don't see this proposal impacting homefield advantage in any appreciable way (and it wasn't intended to).

Thank you, love the discussion. Keep it coming.

I'm right behind you
Katsumi Hanaya
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2014-06-24 07:53:10 UTC
Alundil wrote:


Katsumi Hanaya wrote:
So whats to stop people from just boosting from the undock in a heavily tanked command ship?

Essentially the only thing this will change is the price on the sensor strenght implants. And possibly give who ever lives in a system a home advantage.

Nothing stops people from boosting from the undock. This change won't (isn't aimed at) changing that. If someone is boosting from the undock (lowsec & 00), bring alpha ships and force them to dock back up. Boosting interrupted.


If someone were off grid boosting, just drop probes. Boosting interupted.

Rectile
Warped
#28 - 2014-06-24 08:25:41 UTC
Halp us CCP Rise you are our only hope!!
Alundil
Rolled Out
#29 - 2014-06-24 13:38:05 UTC
Katsumi Hanaya wrote:
Alundil wrote:


Katsumi Hanaya wrote:
So whats to stop people from just boosting from the undock in a heavily tanked command ship?

Essentially the only thing this will change is the price on the sensor strenght implants. And possibly give who ever lives in a system a home advantage.

Nothing stops people from boosting from the undock. This change won't (isn't aimed at) changing that. If someone is boosting from the undock (lowsec & 00), bring alpha ships and force them to dock back up. Boosting interrupted.


If someone were off grid boosting, just drop probes. Boosting interupted.


Those in unscannable boosting T3s know that they do not have to move very quickly. The smart ones have multiple safes setup. The chances of catching them are very, very small. That is the issue. Catching and killing boosting ships ought be possible. Boosting T3s should not be unprobable. That's the point. Pretty simple.

I'm right behind you
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#30 - 2014-06-24 19:21:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Command Processors should go, period. If the ships on field, it should be in play, not in some lone corner dscanning for probes and/or afking. You'd relegate fleet boosters back to Command Ships.

Yes this nerfs quite a few ships, but to hell with it already. A dedicated booster should be a dedicated person to flying that booster. Increase the potential of the command ships and give them a offense worthwhile for being in the fleet.

Redo the warfare processors for all T3's. Make them able to use it and use a combat system to be viable on the field, rather than some floating junkheap off to the side. In otherwords, your a T3 and your a booster, fit a booster module, fit your T3 for combat, go fight while boosting. The subsystem should not junk your T3 ships tank totally.

Yaay!!!!
Alundil
Rolled Out
#31 - 2014-06-24 22:05:37 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Command Processors should go, period. If the ships on field, it should be in play, not in some lone corner dscanning for probes and/or afking. You'd relegate fleet boosters back to Command Ships.

Yes this nerfs quite a few ships, but to hell with it already. A dedicated booster should be a dedicated person to flying that booster. Increase the potential of the command ships and give them a offense worthwhile for being in the fleet.

Redo the warfare processors for all T3's. Make them able to use it and use a combat system to be viable on the field, rather than some floating junkheap off to the side. In otherwords, your a T3 and your a booster, fit a booster module, fit your T3 for combat, go fight while boosting. The subsystem should not junk your T3 ships tank totally.

And I could agree with this as well - in the sense of making boosting ships combat capable for on grid purposes. I'm not opposed. However this ^ is potentially a long ways off due to the necessity of T3 rebalancing and the current pace of Tiericide. My suggestion would "fix" some of the issues in short order without "nerfing" any ships other than, specifically, boosting T3s which are setup to be un-probable. Those are the only ships, that I am aware, that would take a hit in this suggestion. If there are others, please highlight them.

Thanks

I'm right behind you
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
#32 - 2014-06-26 08:31:28 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:

RavenTesio - implants are not really imbalanced, because they are expensive and they can be destroyed pretty easily. So while there is a lot of reward, there is most definitely a lot of risk. In fact, implants can be destroyed almost too easily. I know someone that put in a crystal set and lost it that same day to a smartbomber in lowsec. To destroy an implant set, all you have to do is bring a smartbombing ship into the fight, approach, wait until they are close to dying and turn on your smartbombs. Or wait at a a gate if they aren't insanely careful with their pod. This is ridiculously easy. Too easy, IMO because that smartbombing ship can just fill its lows with warp core stabs so you don't even have to worry about slow align issues, etc. in low sec.


Price is a non-issue when talking about Balance, after all there are some basically unused High-Grade Implant sets that would cost you 1 Billion for the set; where-as popular ones like Crystal, Slave and Snake are closer to 3 Billion for the set.

In a situation where prices / cost of effort is a fluid concept, you just have to look at the completely out-of-control Supers to see how much of a bad idea using that as a basis for balance is.

Still my point wasn't that Implants are completely over-powered, although I do believe they honestly should be removed from the game; my point was more the fact that when bonus' all stack up basically the man with the most ISK ends up in not just the best position but one that is beyond an unfiar advantage.

As an example:
Hawk Pilot... using a Small Shield Booster Tech 2

Basic Rep = 17.5 HP/s
Level 5 Skills = 24.1 HP/s (+38%)
Hi-Grade Crystal = 37.0 HP/s (+50%)
Siege Links + Faction Mind Link = 49.9 HP/s (+35%)

Total = 285% Bonus
That is just the Raw HP/s, if we also bring in the Resist Bonus' as well.

Basic Rep = 55.1 HP/s (Omni - 60.4 - 82.5 - 73.8 - 56.2)
Level 5 Skills = 75.7 HP/s
Hi-Grade Crystal = 116.4 HP/s
Siege Links + Faction Mind Link = 202.3 HP/s (66.3 - 87.0 - 80.5 - 67.0)

Total = 367% Bonus

Now I'm using Omni as it's a "Worst Case Scenario" and believe it or not things get a little ridiculous using Faction Boosters, as here's the thing the smallest improvement ends up having a massive impact given the sheer level of Bonus.
Even if we were look at for example Armour instead, or a pure "Buffer" Fit... you end up seeing very similar result.

For example, a Dramiel with a Siege Harmonising link (just the one) with a standard Shield fit goes from 7k Omni, to 9.2k Omni.
Because you can use Genolution + Shield Extender Impants; that will rise to 11k.

Which makes it an extremely dangerous ship at that point that is completely broken unless someone else can bring similar Links and Implants to take it on; even then it will ALWAYS end up being faster, so if it doesn't like the odds of a fight - just disengaged and buggers off.

The bigger the size of the ship, the greater the bonus that ends up getting received.
There in is unfortunately the biggest issue with the Implants to me; and Warfare Links too, to a degree.

Skills already provide quite a substantial advantage, which honestly is fine; because that's an advantage that is easily obtainable by everyone ... but not everyone is earning billions, nor can they afford to maintain a second account fo links (as let's be honest it is rare to see a main who's job is to Link for a fleet; particularly in small-gang warfare)

There need to be mechanics in place, where really the Implants and Links /should/ be used by High-Skill and ISK players to help bring lower-skilled players up in terms of their fighting potential. Rather than simply as a means of providing themselves with an over-whelming advantage.

No doubt few other players, particular *as old* as I am would agree with this; but I'd rather see a reduction in the gulf between players, as it would encourage new players to get involved in PVP and I don't mean in the ridiculous 100+ man fleets you see in Null, Eve Uni or RvB ... which frankly are just a cluster **** of fail, but really get them involved in more small group stuff such-as Wormholes, Incursions, Faction Warfare, Piracy, etc... and actually being closer in terms of their effective capabilities than simply "additional numbers"

I mean let's be honest right now Implants are Pay-to-Win mechanics pure and simple, sure we're not talking real money (so apparently that makes it perfectly fine and legitimate) but it still favours those with far larger incomes; which certainly isn't newer players who really could use such a boost.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#33 - 2014-06-26 13:16:17 UTC
RavenTesio wrote:
Gavin Dax wrote:

RavenTesio - implants are not really imbalanced, because they are expensive and they can be destroyed pretty easily. So while there is a lot of reward, there is most definitely a lot of risk. In fact, implants can be destroyed almost too easily. I know someone that put in a crystal set and lost it that same day to a smartbomber in lowsec. To destroy an implant set, all you have to do is bring a smartbombing ship into the fight, approach, wait until they are close to dying and turn on your smartbombs. Or wait at a a gate if they aren't insanely careful with their pod. This is ridiculously easy. Too easy, IMO because that smartbombing ship can just fill its lows with warp core stabs so you don't even have to worry about slow align issues, etc. in low sec.


Price is a non-issue when talking about Balance, after all there are some basically unused High-Grade Implant sets that would cost you 1 Billion for the set; where-as popular ones like Crystal, Slave and Snake are closer to 3 Billion for the set.

In a situation where prices / cost of effort is a fluid concept, you just have to look at the completely out-of-control Supers to see how much of a bad idea using that as a basis for balance is.

Still my point wasn't that Implants are completely over-powered, although I do believe they honestly should be removed from the game; my point was more the fact that when bonus' all stack up basically the man with the most ISK ends up in not just the best position but one that is beyond an unfiar advantage.

As an example:
Hawk Pilot... using a Small Shield Booster Tech 2

Basic Rep = 17.5 HP/s
Level 5 Skills = 24.1 HP/s (+38%)
Hi-Grade Crystal = 37.0 HP/s (+50%)
Siege Links + Faction Mind Link = 49.9 HP/s (+35%)

Total = 285% Bonus
That is just the Raw HP/s, if we also bring in the Resist Bonus' as well.

Basic Rep = 55.1 HP/s (Omni - 60.4 - 82.5 - 73.8 - 56.2)
Level 5 Skills = 75.7 HP/s
Hi-Grade Crystal = 116.4 HP/s
Siege Links + Faction Mind Link = 202.3 HP/s (66.3 - 87.0 - 80.5 - 67.0)

Total = 367% Bonus

Now I'm using Omni as it's a "Worst Case Scenario" and believe it or not things get a little ridiculous using Faction Boosters, as here's the thing the smallest improvement ends up having a massive impact given the sheer level of Bonus.
Even if we were look at for example Armour instead, or a pure "Buffer" Fit... you end up seeing very similar result.

For example, a Dramiel with a Siege Harmonising link (just the one) with a standard Shield fit goes from 7k Omni, to 9.2k Omni.
Because you can use Genolution + Shield Extender Impants; that will rise to 11k.

Which makes it an extremely dangerous ship at that point that is completely broken unless someone else can bring similar Links and Implants to take it on; even then it will ALWAYS end up being faster, so if it doesn't like the odds of a fight - just disengaged and buggers off.

The bigger the size of the ship, the greater the bonus that ends up getting received.
There in is unfortunately the biggest issue with the Implants to me; and Warfare Links too, to a degree.

Skills already provide quite a substantial advantage, which honestly is fine; because that's an advantage that is easily obtainable by everyone ... but not everyone is earning billions, nor can they afford to maintain a second account fo links (as let's be honest it is rare to see a main who's job is to Link for a fleet; particularly in small-gang warfare)

There need to be mechanics in place, where really the Implants and Links /should/ be used by High-Skill and ISK players to help bring lower-skilled players up in terms of their fighting potential. Rather than simply as a means of providing themselves with an over-whelming advantage.

No doubt few other players, particular *as old* as I am would agree with this; but I'd rather see a reduction in the gulf between players, as it would encourage new players to get involved in PVP and I don't mean in the ridiculous 100+ man fleets you see in Null, Eve Uni or RvB ... which frankly are just a cluster **** of fail, but really get them involved in more small group stuff such-as Wormholes, Incursions, Faction Warfare, Piracy, etc... and actually being closer in terms of their effective capabilities than simply "additional numbers"

I mean let's be honest right now Implants are Pay-to-Win mechanics pure and simple, sure we're not talking real money (so apparently that makes it perfectly fine and legitimate) but it still favours those with far larger incomes; which certainly isn't newer players who really could use such a boost.

Interesting points Raven. Thanks for contributing. Though I'll disagree slightly on implants being PtW as everyone is equally able to acquire them. But because of the additive nature of percent bonuses they will, as you mentioned, benefit older players more than newer ones (Malcanis' Law). On the issue of affordability, just looking at some of the 'ALOD' reports written about on tmc ought to illustrate that not only older wealthier players can afford dead space and officer mods, but it will usually be the newer ones that do so with no idea on the proper usage of those mods.

That said, thanks for bumping my thread ;)

I'm right behind you
rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2014-06-26 16:13:32 UTC  |  Edited by: rsantos
"I WANT TO SCAN BOOSTING ALTS WITHOUT SKILL INVESTMENT OR RISK TOO"!

Sorry to say but "On-Grid Boosting" favors the "BLOB" and "BLOBBING" even more... Buff Off-Grid Boosting!
Alundil
Rolled Out
#35 - 2014-06-26 17:01:37 UTC
rsantos wrote:
"I WANT TO SCAN BOOSTING ALTS WITHOUT SKILL INVESTMENT OR RISK TOO"!

Sorry to say but "On-Grid Boosting" favors the "BLOB" and "BLOBBING" even more... Buff Off-Grid Boosting!

You're terrible at hyperbole. But in any event that's not, at all, what I'm suggesting. Thanks for playing the "Look at me mom, ALL CAPS" though.

I'm right behind you
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#36 - 2014-06-26 23:02:43 UTC
dude wtf?

A) It's NOT possible to make any ship unprobable.
B) No one uses T3s for boosting anymore since theyre garbage at it now.

This was an issue like 3 years ago, it's really not anymore.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Alundil
Rolled Out
#37 - 2014-06-27 00:53:01 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
dude wtf?

A) It's NOT possible to make any ship unprobable.
B) No one uses T3s for boosting anymore since theyre garbage at it now.

This was an issue like 3 years ago, it's really not anymore.

Jack - there are more than a few people that have/and do still use them. And more than a few who have posted in this very thread (and possibly others) about that. Fact while, by definition, they aren't unprobable any longer there is still the very real point that unless the scanner is maxed/virtued it'll be pointless to attempt because you'll never catch them in time on grid.

As for "no one uses them any longer" - the fight we tried two nights ago (4a > > 2a > 2c) had a boosting tengu. The boosts from t3s are not significantly lower than those from a CS so there are still people who use them - even if YOU don't.

Not everyone has maxed/pimp scanners.

I'm right behind you
rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-06-27 14:01:03 UTC
Alundil wrote:
[quote=Jack Miton]dude wtf?

As for "no one uses them any longer" - the fight we tried two nights ago (4a > > 2a > 2c) had a boosting tengu. The boosts from t3s are not significantly lower than those from a CS so there are still people who use them - even if YOU don't.

Not everyone has maxed/pimp scanners.


Not everyone flies with High-Grade implants, not everyone uses combat boosters ...
Yeah! I lost many fights because the my opponents had links and what not ... Most of the fights in eve are not fair and to some extent that is what makes eve unique ...
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#39 - 2014-06-27 15:16:35 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
dude wtf?

A) It's NOT possible to make any ship unprobable.
B) No one uses T3s for boosting anymore since theyre garbage at it now.

This was an issue like 3 years ago, it's really not anymore.

Jack - there are more than a few people that have/and do still use them. And more than a few who have posted in this very thread (and possibly others) about that. Fact while, by definition, they aren't unprobable any longer there is still the very real point that unless the scanner is maxed/virtued it'll be pointless to attempt because you'll never catch them in time on grid.

As for "no one uses them any longer" - the fight we tried two nights ago (4a > > 2a > 2c) had a boosting tengu. The boosts from t3s are not significantly lower than those from a CS so there are still people who use them - even if YOU don't.

Not everyone has maxed/pimp scanners.




Well its your fault for not having the proper skills for the job. Also you don't need to kill the booster just force to warp as links drop as they enter warp. and any decent scanner can manage that.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#40 - 2014-06-27 15:55:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
We lost the fight purely for numbers reasons - sometimes that happens.

I'm certainly not seeking "fair fights" as I know that those don't happen in EVE.
I haven't lost a fight due to a booster, that I am aware of.
I know that this has been an issue in the past (and judging from some of the responses here - continues to be an issue).
This is simply an idea/proposal for CCP to modify how link modules effect sigres on certain hulls to address that once (and still current issue) without breaking a lot of other things (like attempting to force all boosters on grid via grid-based AoE which as I've stated I don't feel confident that they'll pull it off).

I'm right behind you
Previous page123Next page