These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rebalancing Warfare Links

Author
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#41 - 2015-03-23 19:53:58 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Not a bad concept, but I would add in a few other items.

1) inactive links need to boost your sig radius (meaning your easier to lock and shoot while they are turned off)

2) Active links need to reduce your sensor strength by 80 to 90% (basically your sig returns to normal, but you are much easier to probe out). basically kills the eccm deal.

3) Active links penalize the velocity bonus of afterburner and microwarp drive modules (similar to what what a warp disruption field generator does). (no more 2 to 4kM speeding link boosters).

The rest is fine.


It's impossible to be unprobeable anymore and I don't like the idea of penalizing signature radius, sensor strength or speed as this would equally much punish on-grid links.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#42 - 2015-03-23 19:59:49 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
2. Require the ship to be on grid.

CCP has previously indicated that this is a deal breaker in terms of server performance. So I don't think it's in the cards, unfortunately.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#43 - 2015-03-23 21:14:46 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
scripts that boost one bonus by 200% at the expense of the other two

if the expense is 100% boost at 25% off the other two, sure.

also, you use links a lot, surely you'd want the values to be higher.

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio

Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#44 - 2015-03-23 21:36:11 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
2. Require the ship to be on grid.

CCP has previously indicated that this is a deal breaker in terms of server performance. So I don't think it's in the cards, unfortunately.


CCP has previously been wrong, lied, and/or pulled excuses out of their a*ses.

Someone pointed out in a thread recently...

Watchlist shows HP bars when a fleet member is On-grid....

And Watchlist does NOT show HP bars when a fleet member is Off-grid...

So... the code is there, no excuses.
Count Szadek
The Aussienauts
#45 - 2015-03-23 23:30:51 UTC
I honestly think there is no problem to Links themselves, however, I do feel there is no counter (as everything in eve should have a counter IMO). So I would instead suggest a counter. Perhaps something like this:

A Drop-able Unit That lays a field around it where ships inside become "unlinked". That way if you dont want to fight with links just bring one of these along, and counter them on the field. This effectively makes off - grid boosting still do-able, but at least it could be countered. And the fact that they are destroyable (y destroying the Unit) , linked fleets can adjust primary as needed.

Essentially it would Work sorta like Cyno Jammers except it would stop the bonus(es) in the field
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#46 - 2015-03-24 00:24:06 UTC
Links themselves are nice, very nice. I use them regularly.

Where they become imbalanced is when I'm boosting safely from the edge of a tower shield or safed up and decloaking at just the right time.

If ongrid boosting was all that you could do, it would be perfect, it would be balanced just right and you could maybe even at that point look at adding links to ships like destroyers and such. Links are a big SP investment and they should be worth it. Links should be fun to have, and lead to engaging roles, not to sitting in a safespot.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#47 - 2015-03-27 15:08:24 UTC
Saede Riordan wrote:
Links themselves are nice, very nice. I use them regularly.

Where they become imbalanced is when I'm boosting safely from the edge of a tower shield or safed up and decloaking at just the right time.

If ongrid boosting was all that you could do, it would be perfect, it would be balanced just right and you could maybe even at that point look at adding links to ships like destroyers and such. Links are a big SP investment and they should be worth it. Links should be fun to have, and lead to engaging roles, not to sitting in a safespot.


You really think a 30% speed increase and 34% signature reduction is balanced? The entire fleet gets high grade Snakes and Halos for basically free. Let's not forget about the tanking links which are similar to Slaves and Crystals.

Off-grid links are only a problem because of their massive boost and near invulnerabilty at gates or stations. The nerf to link strength will fix the first and the weapon timer will fix the second.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2015-03-27 15:18:50 UTC
You (and CCP) are overthinking it.

You dont need to "force" links on grid via convoluted mechanisms.

You beacon the things like a cyno so any idiot can warp to them.

So no, you're not changing any code to "force" them on grid and if people want to run off grid they still can. But tell me.....who is going to?
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#49 - 2015-03-27 18:28:36 UTC
afkalt wrote:
You (and CCP) are overthinking it.

You dont need to "force" links on grid via convoluted mechanisms.

You beacon the things like a cyno so any idiot can warp to them.

So no, you're not changing any code to "force" them on grid and if people want to run off grid they still can. But tell me.....who is going to?



Um mostly everyone still, because most off-grid links are used sitting on gates. So this would do nothing.

Make them only affect fleet members that are on-grid. It's so simple, just do it CCP.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2015-03-27 19:04:29 UTC
Sitting on a gate is stupiditiy itself, unless you're in high sec.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#51 - 2015-03-31 05:02:22 UTC

While I am not fully pleased with the numbers, I 100% agree that links need a MAJOR readjustment.

Frankly, they are way TOO POTENT, and CCP knows it. The last rebalancing pass they did on them was simply unacceptable, leaving them still way overpowered.

The only way to balance the field when fighting ships with links is to bring your own links, and that is simply pisspoor balancing!
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#52 - 2015-03-31 05:54:13 UTC
I'd favour a solution, where ongrid boosts were more potent than offgrid boosts, however, offgrid boosting still worked.

ongrid boosts would be a little less powerful than today (yes, they are still too stronk). offgrid links would be only ~50% as effective as ongrid links.

Further adjustment would be needed ofc, like boosting ships being easily probed out and links not working near POS. The weapons timer thing would also be a neat way to expose boosting ships to danger.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#53 - 2015-03-31 11:26:30 UTC
Reina Xyaer wrote:

CCP has previously been wrong, lied, and/or pulled excuses out of their a*ses.

Someone pointed out in a thread recently...

Watchlist shows HP bars when a fleet member is On-grid....

And Watchlist does NOT show HP bars when a fleet member is Off-grid...

So... the code is there, no excuses.

Except Watchlist code is not the same as fleet boosting code.
And is highly limited in the number it can apply to.

Also watch list works over 5000km with Grid Fu creating a mega grid.

So.... when you are a CCP coder working on Fleet boost coding, I'll believe you if you claim the code exists. Till such a time, quit talking out of... well, the same orifice you accuse CCP of using in fact.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#54 - 2015-04-19 02:19:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:

CCP has previously been wrong, lied, and/or pulled excuses out of their a*ses.

Someone pointed out in a thread recently...

Watchlist shows HP bars when a fleet member is On-grid....

And Watchlist does NOT show HP bars when a fleet member is Off-grid...

So... the code is there, no excuses.

Except Watchlist code is not the same as fleet boosting code.
And is highly limited in the number it can apply to.

Also watch list works over 5000km with Grid Fu creating a mega grid.

So.... when you are a CCP coder working on Fleet boost coding, I'll believe you if you claim the code exists. Till such a time, quit talking out of... well, the same orifice you accuse CCP of using in fact.


The watchlist code would be perfect for this. Too bad there's a limit to how many you can have on your watchlist.
Cade Windstalker
#55 - 2015-04-19 06:06:06 UTC
For everyone's information there's been an update on the back-end work for OGB changes :)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5677008#post5677008
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-04-19 07:06:31 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
For everyone's information there's been an update on the back-end work for OGB changes :)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5677008#post5677008


Seems like it's going to improve congested systems too, big fights, tidi etc. Big smile
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#57 - 2015-04-19 09:02:43 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
For everyone's information there's been an update on the back-end work for OGB changes :)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5677008#post5677008


Seems like it's going to improve congested systems too, big fights, tidi etc. Big smile


It won't hit big fights (once established) as much as congested systems, but it should™ reduce the number of ships completely screwed over by server problems.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Cade Windstalker
#58 - 2015-04-19 10:19:02 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
For everyone's information there's been an update on the back-end work for OGB changes :)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5677008#post5677008


Seems like it's going to improve congested systems too, big fights, tidi etc. Big smile


It won't hit big fights (once established) as much as congested systems, but it should™ reduce the number of ships completely screwed over by server problems.


If I recall correctly from the Command Ship changes (and ensuing talk about OGBs) they want to bring the level a Node can operate on down to a single grid, which improves parallelization and lets them take a massive Null fight that might be all over a single system and split it among multiple servers. I suspect this is one part of the reason behind the Sov capture Node event's design.

This has the happy side-effect of letting them confine boosts to a single Grid instead of everywhere in the system.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#59 - 2015-04-19 10:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
Why don't we just take the HIC Bubble and change it a bit so it becomes the Command Sphere? (Doesn't need a visual tbh, maybe just a flag that indicates you're getting bonuses)

Change warp-strength-modifier to current fleet boost modifiers, adjust range of the module to be more adequate, and maybe add a script for obscene range but only on 1 target. 100mn Boosters, yay! (At least they're ongrid).

And maybe, but just maybe, keep the 'Disallows Assistance' attribute.


Edit: Or drop the range scripted single target one on purpose, so there is actually NO 100mn faggotry on links, just manly brawling command ships.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#60 - 2015-04-19 12:20:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
I really like the consoidation of links into fewer modules encouraging a combat fit CS, but those numbers are awfully weak. This would effectively cut down WL effectiveness to a tenth. THe boosts that'd give would be unnoticable, and no one would bother with links most of the time.

I mean: +600m disruptrange, +300m webrange, those things make a difference with two scramkiting frigates circling each other, but it's so weak a med neut on the CS might be better else. Armorresists before mindlink go up by 2.5%, yeah.

Seems like all this proposal does is eliminate the chance of multiple ongrid Boosters working together to field all desired links, to a single morale CS carrying all the links that would apply. In any fleet, everywhere. The best though: It wouldn't matter if you fly a CS or a CBC, nothing*1.15 is still nothing.


In my opinion, it would be cool if they were lowering link numbers towards the proposal for specialized links and then introduce T3 links that behave like those, significantly weaker but all-in-one and suitable to be fitted to boosting T3s in the smallest of gangs.

Edit: Overread the scripting part. Now the thing seems very biased towards multiple CS and large fleet setups, essentially saying *no* to the few engaging the many even harder than currently. The idea of generalized and fitting restricted is good, scripting tho is very bad and caters to bigger fleets/gangs by simply not allowing smaller gangs through restrictions to benefit from many scripted links.

I've been into ongrid boosting for a while.