These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A thought about Boosters:

Author
David Devant
CTRL-Q
#101 - 2015-07-16 15:12:16 UTC
I remember when I was but a pup and I lived in an alliance called PURE up in Vale of the Silent. Every day a dude called Rhyssa would turn up in his 10billion isk nano phoon and make a mockery of our entire alliance.

It was awesome.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#102 - 2015-07-16 16:18:55 UTC
David Devant wrote:
I remember when I was but a pup and I lived in an alliance called PURE up in Vale of the Silent. Every day a dude called Rhyssa would turn up in his 10billion isk nano phoon and make a mockery of our entire alliance.

It was awesome.



It may not be the same guy, but back in the merc days I was contacted and asked 'How much?' to erradicate a solo phoon problem. We didn't take the contract, but we had a good chuckle over the situation.

To be fair, there may be hundreds of nanophoons in operation today. Back then folks would be all "Bad Man! Bad Man!" which meant ship up, undock and go to it (win or lose). It's stil "Bad Man! Bad Man!" today, it's just that now that means to dock up and get safe.

Hopefully the new structures will have some windows so the nullbears can look out and actually see what they are cowering for.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#103 - 2015-07-16 16:49:56 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:
People who complain about off grid boosts don't realize that if CCP removes them they will be in a much worse off position.


Example:

I'm sitting in a medium plex.

You come to pew pew because 1v1 in an MMO is smart and how it's ment to be played.

I tackle and decloak a falcon because my boost toon is now more useful as an ECM pilot.


That will be the new reality.

Don't think you'll be safe in novice or small plexes either.
99% of frigate fights last long enough for the cloaking lock delay to be well and truly over making a cloaking Griffin very viable. (I have tested this and the tears flowed way more than when I use boosts)


So yeah - keep asking for boosts on grid people. Then you can start complaining about the next thing until all that is left are the things that suit your solo play style in an MMO. Or you could buy Elite Dangerous and get that now. Cool



You really don't understand why this mentality is bad for a game do you?




When I started in low sec - I was a delusional scrub just like you.

Then I realized that it is the 'I wanna play a solo game within an MMO - Imma cry to CCP' mentality that is bad for the game and adapted.




Forcing players to pay for an alt account that they will drag to various safe spots is not good for the game. And forcing pilots that contribute to the battle to be in the battle is not bad for the game. It's only a few people who have gotten used to the crutch that think it's good.


Also like Crosi, you confuse "team play" with "mmo". But what I said above applies to team play as much as any other type of play.

Estella yes they should be on the killmail.

Falcon alts at least have to be on grid.

Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Everyone in eve is pay to win. Well, apart from the whiners in this thread who are pay to lose.


Eve is becoming more and more that way. If you don't pay for your boosting alt you are just paying on your main account to lose. It's true that lots of people are refusing to "adapt" to this extortion by ccp and that only leaves people who can't live without eve.

The players are changing no doubt. They used to take extreme offense to the notion that eve should be "pay to win" as opposed to learning and skill to win. But thanks to off grid boosts ccp is driving them away.

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

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#104 - 2015-07-16 17:11:03 UTC
Cerain, you have never had a good idea for the game in your life. Apart from boosts, which is at least debatable, you havent even identified the problems with eve correctly lol..
El Taron
Doomheim
#105 - 2015-07-16 17:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: El Taron
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
El Taron wrote:

The problem is the lack of balance of OGB's, the way they are now is ridiculous for the reasons stated, and I can only imagine the people defending them are exploiting the hell out of them at the moment. I've not seen any rational argument from anybody to say they shouldn't at least be given a weapons timer and suspect status.

Oh and someone mentioned linked soloers earlier..... Using links isn't solo it's duo, just like having a logi repping you while only being the only person on the killmail. Calling it solo is just an ego thing that people want to pretend they didn't have an overwelming advantage over the guy they just killed.


Thats why weapons and suspect timers are being suggested. To make a single booster countered by a single prober.

And the phrase 'linked solo' doesnt to imply 'trusolo'. And multiple people making an issue out of a term that is perfectly clear is obtuse at best. The word 'solo' isnt anything sacred in EVE, its just a choice that some people have made and props to them.

But the new breed of 'millennial soloist' that want to be just like their heros in the past (who often also used boosts), complaining about solo being too hard, are more of a blemish on the term 'solo' than using the term 'linked solo' ever will be. One is honest and clear, the other are a bunch of whining babies.

Solo is supposed to be hard, thats the whole point lol.


The term solo isn't clear at all anymore. I've seen people claim they're solo with their alt carrier repping them. Loads of people seem to think if you're the only one on a killmail then that is solo, which is ridiculous. Many people think whatever you can box is solo. Just having substantial remote assistance from something that can't be killed and calling it solo isn't ok.

If you're taking away from this that people are complaining that solo is too hard I don't think you're reading very well. The point is that you can't counter links, you usually can't even get to them and even if you can they're protected by sentries (WTF) and can just leave, despite turning the damage dealing ships into god mode. What does that have to do with players wanting to imitate anybody? It's an obvious example of poor game design.

Personally, anybody I suspect of using links gets denied any content as I don't think they deserve it. Unfortunately that means less and less content for everybody though. They don't get a fight, I don't get fight, everybody is bored and these days we're not talking about the odd 1 or 2 "elite pvpers". All it means is people look to other games for better content.
May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#106 - 2015-07-16 17:32:51 UTC
Links are a minor annoyance that anyone playing for a while should be quite accustomed to dealing with, most people who don't own a boosting alt probably knows someone who does. It tends to be more of an issue for newer players who aren't familiar with the concept of running multiple clients at once (it's usually frowned upon, or downright banned in most other MMOs.)

Quote:
Everyhting a player can call upon to give them a leg up can be engaged - everything except the nuetral I'm sitting on a station booster alt. It's just a loophole I want closed.


That booster is in space, therefore a target. You can remove it in any number of ways. There used to be a guy who roamed our area with his links; until we engaged his combat ship, probed down his booster, killed both and his pod. He never came back. Can you always kill it? No, not always. In the above scenario it was in a safe, which made things easier for us. Forcing it off field is usually enough as the sudden loss of performance and attention will tip the balance in your favour.

Should links be changed? Probably, but Suspect/Weapon timers probably aren't the way. Linking boosters to killmails is likely something of a headache as well. I'd rather they use existing mechanics in new ways to increase the risk slightly.

Add a spool up/down timer to link activation, during which time your ship's performance decreases and cloaking isn't possible. Speed, agility, that kind of thing. Once the modules are fully active, your ship behaves as if it has a cyno active, minus the beacon of course (we don't want to make it too easy.) However, the act of broadcasting system-wide should light your ship up like a christmas tree, giving anyone with moderate scanning abilities the chance to probe you down with relative ease. Command Ships can have a bonus that reduces this effect, but prevents previously "impossible to scan" setups. You're now able to do all the things you can currently do with a boosting alt, but with an increased risk. Sitting on a station or gate? You can't jump/warp/dock while the modules are cycling/spooling up/down, giving a reasonable window to do some serious damage. Hiding in a safe? Probers now have a chance to scan you down if they're quick about it. Inheriting timers/flags would be nice, but I expect there are issues here. Maybe there aren't, but remotely assigning a status based upon a passive action isn't quite the same as acquiring them through an action like repping. Who's timers do you inherit if you're boosting several people at once? What if only one person is engaged in combat?
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#107 - 2015-07-16 17:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
El Taron wrote:
Mostly nonsense



The term solo is clear, the term boosted solo is clear, the term tru-solo is clear. If people want to lie to themselves and others then thats not a problem with the game. Also, he didnt call it 'solo', he called it 'boosted solo'. If that somehow offends you even though it describes the situation much better than, for example, '2v1', then you lack the comprehension skills and impartiality to be entertained in any discussion of how eve works.

I dont look at my killboard and see lots of solo kills and think they were all solo. Nor does anyone else that uses boosts. That would be psychotic. And thinking that there are people who are anything other than liars who do this is a terrible way to make the case for no more boosters.

Try sticking to the facts.

THE point is that i, along with other people are asking for boosts to be removed from stations and gates or at least have weapons timers if they remain there. Commandships be with fleets and t3's be in safe sports.

Then all you need to counter a booster is a set of 8 sisters combat probes and an expended probe laumcher all for less than 10m isk. Most of the time you wont even need the skills required to get a hit. Effort counters effort, SP counters SP.

Complaining about the status quo in a thread about making changes is dumb.

As for May, i disagree that a boosting alt with over 12m sp in command should be so probable that a new char with basic skills to level 3 can probe it for example. At least ask people to commit some time to their skills if hunting boosters is the occupation they want.

As for your last comment on suspect and weapons timers being inherited by the booster. The mechaic is already in place and should work exactly the same as logistics in a fleet (assuming the logistics are repping everyone).
El Taron
Doomheim
#108 - 2015-07-16 18:34:16 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
The term solo is clear, the term boosted solo is clear, the term tru-solo is clear. If people want to lie to themselves and others then thats not a problem with the game. Also, he didnt call it 'solo', he called it 'boosted solo'. If that somehow offends you even though it describes the situation much better than, for example, '2v1', then you lack the comprehension skills and impartiality to be entertained in any discussion of how eve works.

I dont look at my killboard and see lots of solo kills and think they were all solo. Nor does anyone else that uses boosts. That would be psychotic. And thinking that there are people who are anything other than liars who do this is a terrible way to make the case for no more boosters.

Try sticking to the facts.

THE point is that i, along with other people are asking for boosts to be removed from stations and gates. Commandships be with fleets and t3's be in safe sports.

Then all you need to counter a booster is a set of 8 sisters combat probes and an expended probe laumcher all for less than 10m isk.

Complaining about the status quo in a thread about making changes is dumb.


Well my point is it's as dumb as saying logi solo, or solo with his friend. What he means is clear, flying with his link alt which is duo. But I agree I guess it's pointless to argue, even though it's dumb.

You're also claiming to speak for what everybody who uses links thinks and then tell me to stick to the facts, seriously lol.

Continually undermining contributors who actually make sense is also dumb, such as what you wrote about Cearain's post. You're just coming across as very arrogant.

Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Cerain, you have never had a good idea for the game in your life. Apart from boosts, which is at least debatable, you havent even identified the problems with eve correctly lol..


Nice contribution to the discussion.

You're right about this being pointless to continue though so I'll stop, especially since we both agree on that they should be removed from being immune on gates and stations.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#109 - 2015-07-16 18:41:36 UTC
Cerain needs to be put down otherwise this thread will just consist of posting after posting of ill informed 10,000 word essays.

As for 'boosted solo', the term is perfectly fine. It is not absurd like the examples you gave and is the best and most concise way to express that scenario.

If we assume people are using words to convey a point rather than assume people are trying to gleam some sort of respect from certain words i think we will be in a better place to communicate.
May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#110 - 2015-07-16 19:09:31 UTC
Quote:
As for May, i disagree that a boosting alt with over 12m sp in command should be so probable that a new char with basic skills to level 3 can probe it for example. At least ask people to commit some time to their skills if hunting boosters is the occupation they want.

As for your last comment on suspect and weapons timers being inherited by the booster. The mechaic is already in place and should work exactly the same as logistics in a fleet (assuming the logistics are repping everyone).


Well no, and I said as much. You provide options to counter the effect, subsystems, hull bonuses, new skills, implants whatever. The idea of a ship broadcasting complex signals across an entire solar system being "hard to find" is ridiculous though. Someone scrubbing it up with a BC and active link modules should be easy to find. Someone in a dedicated boosting ship set up correctly should be harder to find, but not as hard as they are now. Balance as required.

Concerning weapon/suspect timers, I expect it's a bit more complicated than you think (it might not be, I'm guessing.) Sure, a weapons timer would be easy, you turn it on when the module is activated and sustain it until it's turned off. Gaining a status from fleet members though? Not quite as simple. The reason it works for logistics is because it's a simple process, you activate a module, check the targets condition, and copy any that apply.

Assuming you have one pilot and one booster, there's little issue and however you apply the flags, the process remains the same as with a logistics pilot. The more complicated your fleet setup becomes, the more demanding things become for identifying and selecting which flags to assign. Does a squad/wing leader also qualify for inheriting status by being part of the chain? What about someone with just the basic leadership skills trained if they're selected as fleet booster? In any case, you're now checking multiple pilots for various conditions constantly and selecting which apply to your booster. It's certainly not impossible to do, but it certainly isn't a quick fix like people seem to think it is.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#111 - 2015-07-16 19:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
I dont really entertain 'technical issues' while talking about changes to eve. Thats CCPs job not ours :p

However, a booster could just be assumed to be activating a module on all fleet members (as it is) and receive the most recent aggression just like you would if you were were repping people.

Lots of guardians are lost on a regular basis because they keep repping someone who failed to pull their drones in during a disengagement. Even if this were to follow through to boosts, boosts are at least in less danger since they are not sat on the gate or station during the fight.

Or, as you say, could just get weapons timer from turning on links. Which imo IS a quick fix lol.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#112 - 2015-07-16 19:40:32 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

The Falcon Trope is a red herring that doesn't hold up logically. Delicious tear-scented smoke from people who bought a booster and are afraid their link-dependent solo god is gonna get a much needed risk injection.


Still obsessing over the solo meta in an MMO.

If multiple accounts counter boosts and falcon, why not just bring as many accounts as you need?


By accounts, I assume Crosi means "friends". After all it is an MMO.


It would be neat if people had to build contacts with other players to bring additional support on grid wouldn't it?

It's easier to just whip out the credit card and buy another alt.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#113 - 2015-07-16 19:48:45 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

It would be neat if people had to build contacts with other players to bring additional support on grid wouldn't it?

It's easier to just whip out the credit card and buy another alt.


Now you are just blithering. EVE is not even close to full of people who just run a dozen alts. Before we get on the slippery slope can i ask you to take a breath?
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#114 - 2015-07-16 20:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
I think most of us are in agreement that links need to be subject to some of the same risks as other forms of assistance, or at least be slightly more vulnerable than they are now with respect to hiding behind crimewatch mechanics.

There's a separate discussion going on regarding the extent to which using alts and multiboxing represents paying to win. I don't think you can logically argue that this is any different than EA making a shooter where players can pay real world cash for more effective weaponry. That's not a stretch at all. I fully recognize that ship has sailed, but it doesn't make the point any less salient when arguing with people whose response to any suggested nerf of a mechanic or play mode that they've invested in is "anyone can do it." The issue of OGB is more or less settled amongst the player base in favor of at least some kind of timer - whether CCP gets around to making booster changes this decade is another matter entirely.

However, claiming that something is a positive because it "anyone can do it" is not a valid argument. In my view, having outcomes of ingame conflict too closely tied to the amount of real world money invested is not a positive trend. It should not take precedence over player choices, experience and relationships. Once again I realize that ship has sailed with respect to what CCP permits, but player choice is still a thing and I believe the game is more interesting when people shy away from a risk averse playstyle that capitalizes on overpowering trump cards.

That's my opinion, nothing more.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#115 - 2015-07-16 20:12:14 UTC
This thread is not about pay to win. The fact you have to incite pay to win in this thread says something.
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#116 - 2015-07-16 21:24:24 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I think most of us are in agreement that links need to be subject to some of the same risks as other forms of assistance, or at least be slightly more vulnerable than they are now with respect to hiding behind crimewatch mechanics.

There's a separate discussion going on regarding the extent to which using alts and multiboxing represents paying to win. I don't think you can logically argue that this is any different than EA making a shooter where players can pay real world cash for more effective weaponry. That's not a stretch at all. I fully recognize that ship has sailed, but it doesn't make the point any less salient when arguing with people whose response to any suggested nerf of a mechanic or play mode that they've invested in is "anyone can do it." The issue of OGB is more or less settled amongst the player base in favor of at least some kind of timer - whether CCP gets around to making booster changes this decade is another matter entirely.

However, claiming that something is a positive because it "anyone can do it" is not a valid argument. In my view, having outcomes of ingame conflict too closely tied to the amount of real world money invested is not a positive trend. It should not take precedence over player choices, experience and relationships. Once again I realize that ship has sailed with respect to what CCP permits, but player choice is still a thing and I believe the game is more interesting when people shy away from a risk averse playstyle that capitalizes on overpowering trump cards.

That's my opinion, nothing more.


Dude, it's obvious you never played when OGBs sat in a POS providing boosts with zero risk.

CCP has already said they are looking to bring them on grid in the future (whenever that is).

The best case scenario at the moment would be to at least give them a weapons timer and a suspect timer.

Of course this will prolly **** of the booster alts of hisec trade hub huggers the most.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#117 - 2015-07-16 22:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Not as much as bringing them on grid will **** them off. No sane person will be willing to field a booster unless there is a reasonable chance of winning. Therfor, the stronger side not only has the best fleet, but they likely have the only booster too. Thus doubling the effect.

Without doubt, removing boosters completely is a better solution than bringing them on grid (without a massive overhaul of commandships and T3's). Of course, most ships will be much more easily alphad so alpha doctrine would be a sensible choice for everyone. So Alpha fleets with a much lower threshold will be pretty much all there is any sense in flying. What a wonderful day that will be.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#118 - 2015-07-17 01:37:32 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Not as much as bringing them on grid will **** them off. No sane person will be willing to field a booster unless there is a real chance of winning. Therfor, the stronger side not only has the best fleet, but they likely have the only booster too. Thus doubling the effect.

Without doubt, removing boosters completely is a better solution than bringing them on grid (without a massive overhaul of commandships and T3's). Of course, most ships will be much more easily alphad so alpha doctrine would be a sensible choice for everyone. So Alpha fleets with a much lower threshold will be pretty much all there is any sense in flying. What a wonderful day that will be.


So we'll see fewer small gangs of linked kitey blingmobiles playing hit and run? Forgive me if I do not weep.

There will actually be a reason for people to field groups of command cruisers; I can see those ships becoming far more common than they are now. You'll also see an interesting new element to fleet fights as moving your own fleet's booster around the battlefield and attempting to tackle/force off enemy boosters takes on primary importance.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#119 - 2015-07-17 01:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Not as much as bringing them on grid will **** them off. No sane person will be willing to field a booster unless there is a real chance of winning. Therfor, the stronger side not only has the best fleet, but they likely have the only booster too. Thus doubling the effect.

Without doubt, removing boosters completely is a better solution than bringing them on grid (without a massive overhaul of commandships and T3's). Of course, most ships will be much more easily alphad so alpha doctrine would be a sensible choice for everyone. So Alpha fleets with a much lower threshold will be pretty much all there is any sense in flying. What a wonderful day that will be.


So we'll see fewer small gangs of linked kitey blingmobiles playing hit and run? Forgive me if I do not weep.

There will actually be a reason for people to field groups of command cruisers; I can see those ships becoming far more common than they are now. You'll also see an interesting new element to fleet fights as moving your own fleet's booster around the battlefield and attempting to tackle/force off enemy boosters takes on primary importance.


Nothing here makes sense.

Hatred of harder to fly doctrines, imaginary command cruisers, moving on grid boosters around grid while avoiding 8km/second ceptors from the fleet that doesnt HAVE to move their command ship around grid.

All stupid.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#120 - 2015-07-17 04:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Not as much as bringing them on grid will **** them off. No sane person will be willing to field a booster unless there is a real chance of winning. Therfor, the stronger side not only has the best fleet, but they likely have the only booster too. Thus doubling the effect.

Without doubt, removing boosters completely is a better solution than bringing them on grid (without a massive overhaul of commandships and T3's). Of course, most ships will be much more easily alphad so alpha doctrine would be a sensible choice for everyone. So Alpha fleets with a much lower threshold will be pretty much all there is any sense in flying. What a wonderful day that will be.


So we'll see fewer small gangs of linked kitey blingmobiles playing hit and run? Forgive me if I do not weep.

There will actually be a reason for people to field groups of command cruisers; I can see those ships becoming far more common than they are now. You'll also see an interesting new element to fleet fights as moving your own fleet's booster around the battlefield and attempting to tackle/force off enemy boosters takes on primary importance.


Nothing here makes sense.

Hatred of harder to fly doctrines, imaginary command cruisers, moving on grid boosters around grid while avoiding 8km/second ceptors from the fleet that doesnt HAVE to move their command ship around grid.

All stupid.


Kiting with links + snakes is not hard. The Tech II battlecruisers are not imaginary, though one might think otherwise from their rarity. You have hundreds of kilometers to play with you should be able to avoid enemy frigates by warping between bookmarks, or actually dedicate a squadron of your own frigates or other anti frigate fits to warding off tackle.

If you are so badly outnumbered that you have no hope of keeping a brick tanked CS alive...well.

To repeat your own words, it's an MMO. Bring more friends to even the odds. Isn't that the entire point?

All that aside, I can't speak to what CCP has said about bringing boosters on grid. I would be perfectly fine with adding them to killmails and making them gankable with a weapons timer. I don't have a problem with links so much as their having much lower risk than any other form of assistance while being just as or more useful than on grid assistance in many cases.