These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

offgrid boosts

Author
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2015-11-30 18:54:01 UTC
Removing off grid boosts will be bad for ccp's income.
personaly i run 3 off grid boost toons, which is 3 accounts paid for each month.

remove the offgrid functionalty, and why would i need them anymore?
it restricts where i will want to fight, so i wont bother fighting else where.
i dont even see any point to keeping them subbed if i have to move them every where to benefit from them.
so that would make it 3 less paid for accounts per month, from me alone.

now if every corporation in null runs a similar setup, thats 1500 corps no longer using 3 accounts per system each.

so 4500 unsubbed accounts, just from removing off grid boosts.

plus less people will be willing to fight without boosts, so less content, less happy pvper's, more people unsub.

way to kill the game with such a simple change.

so please reconcider the removal of offgrid boosts. we have had them for many years, with few issues, why change them now?
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#2 - 2015-11-30 19:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Removing off grid boosts will be bad for ccp's income.


It should be telling that, instead of trying to present a strong gameplay argument in favor of OGB, your first move out of the gate is basically hostage-taking.

Anyway, if you could be so kind as to contract me your stuff on your way out, I'll just thank you ahead of time.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-11-30 19:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
There is a bigger picture. CCP changes are more focused on removing alt play. It is true we see fewer accounts, but there are more unique account holders despite that. This means more retention and a wider market. Logins are a false story. I am a prime example of this.

I am a huge fan of eve's large combat and open fleet mechanics, but I am also a solo player. I literally spent years in eve training to become a full on support. Then along came T3 and plex. Suddenly my style of fighting on grid was gone. To be fair, on grid boosting is more powerful in that it takes more than a scan probe to end boosts. In addition, command link carrier for win.

Point of this is that they lose say the 4500 accounts but gain 9000 single account holders? By making combat more difficult and focused on solo vs multiboxing, it opens the game up to a wider diversity of players. Also to add, it was hinted at in the stream that ogb changes would make it easier to have backup command links. How this will work is unknown, but that will definitely improve things.

A good example in recent business is General Motors and Cadillac. Younger crowd might not know or remember but in the eighties and nineties, caddy was focused on catering to existing customer base instead of developing with the changing demographic. It was to the point they would have awesome cars (24v Omega) and rebadge them as a caddy. But to sell them to an aging and shrinking demographic, detuned it into a horrible lemon (Catera)

How is this eve? Well the old play style is not competitive or innovative. CCP can keep those accounts, but they will still leave with few players wanting to fill the roles. Even goonswarm recognized the change in demographic years back and how they operate.

Edit: add to this that for even many indie steam games, 4500 can be a drop in the bucket. That statement alone shows that the changes are needed.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-11-30 19:33:42 UTC
I trained mine in via command ships and not T3......awwww yeah.

Although now would be a good time to review the fittings of command processors etc, perhaps create a low slot version or move it to a rig as well as review the hulls in general. And the subsystems for those poor T3D folks.
Leonardo Adami
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-11-30 19:46:50 UTC
I don't think they're doing enough. They need to either remove all boost or make it so the booster has to target specific people to apply boost imo.

I feel removing ogb only helps make the blob stronger and doesn't help small roaming gangs at all.

If they didn't want to remove boost they could keep the non specialist leadership skills that allow the fleet to receive a small boost whole you're on grid and in fleet. Then rework the attribute systems so that the attributes give a small boost to specific stats if you're mapped a certain way. Then they could allow up to say four remaps a year. This would keep some level of leadership skill useful. Still require you to be in fleet and on grid. It'll also add some flavor to the attribute systems.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-11-30 20:20:52 UTC
Leonardo Adami wrote:
I don't think they're doing enough. They need to either remove all boost or make it so the booster has to target specific people to apply boost imo.

I feel removing ogb only helps make the blob stronger and doesn't help small roaming gangs at all.

If they didn't want to remove boost they could keep the non specialist leadership skills that allow the fleet to receive a small boost whole you're on grid and in fleet. Then rework the attribute systems so that the attributes give a small boost to specific stats if you're mapped a certain way. Then they could allow up to say four remaps a year. This would keep some level of leadership skill useful. Still require you to be in fleet and on grid. It'll also add some flavor to the attribute systems.


CCP has mentioned the intention of removing attribute implants. Perhaps leadership or other boosting implants help.

For small gang, having a good command pilot is a bonus once OGB is gone. I flew T2 and T1 command fit ships small gang, and it was make or break. Mentality is a part of it. For an on grid booster, survival and fleet support is your focus, not killmails and damage. I would heavy tank, focus on positioning to force the targets out of position if they wanted to get me, etc. Since commands are active modules, it also means they can be neuted out.

The concept CCP stated was to make commands an AoE which also means supplimental command ships are easier, making it potentially harder to break the chain. In addition, they said they were looking at debuff style warfare links. Either way, combined with large grids, I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link. In my first forays into pvp, I flew a command link drake with my friends. When sansha incursions started, it was a prophecy. With drifters, I plan the same once the ogb is done.

If people cannot use an alt for combat, that means combat has become more engaging. More engaging means more subs. Want proof?

http://img3.mmo.mmo4arab.com/lol/2014/09/18/league_of_legends_2014_world_championship_620.jpg

Instant gratification is a beautiful thing. When there is meaning to a win and loss, it becomes more important to the player. Eve is in an extremely unique position of executed right.

We have a wide striation of ships. Stuff from newb to the supercaps. If all have relevance in a fight, that means instant gratification, but also goals to work for. The composition and makeup of a fleet should be pyramidal. With many at the bottom, and a few at the top. This allows all to get in on the action, but at the same time, roles to shoot for. That does not exist in eve. Eve is a puddle for composition. Here is the one ship doctrine and done. Train X and Y and then you can fly with us instead of tiered training.

So anything that puts onus on the players is good. It puts goals and incentive on newbs, and puts incentive on veterans to include them as foot soldiers. Pawns on the chessboard. Instead, we have tokens on a checkerboard right now.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

The Ginger Sith
Attero Industries
#7 - 2015-11-30 20:26:23 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
Point of this is that they lose say the 4500 accounts but gain 9000 single account holders?


made up stats are funny (and i am referring to both original poster and yours)

they would lose many more subs cause there are activities where ongrid boosting just is not viable since the booster would replace a more useful DPS ship reducing the fleets productivity. for example wormhole anoms and sites, also incursions so on top of all the alts that unsub from null alliances another large number of alts would do the same from wormhole corps and dedicated incursion runners and even solo multi boxers who do wormholes there are even missions runners who use off grid booster alts. the number of lost accounts would prolly be well over 10,000. and of those made up 9000 new acts you claim maybe 1/100 of them will actually stick around many will quit with in the first few days.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2015-11-30 20:28:59 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link.



This disadvantage is the ONLY command ship you'll actually see boosting is the damnnation. Everything else will be alpha'd off grid in a heartbeat.

Seriously, they're going to be headshot the minute grid loads because the difference links makes is so substantial to do otherwise would be simply stupid.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#9 - 2015-11-30 20:29:18 UTC
The Ginger Sith wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
Point of this is that they lose say the 4500 accounts but gain 9000 single account holders?


made up stats are funny (and i am referring to both original poster and yours)




And yours as well, I assume?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#10 - 2015-11-30 20:32:52 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link.



This disadvantage is the ONLY command ship you'll actually see boosting is the damnnation. Everything else will be alpha'd off grid in a heartbeat.

Seriously, they're going to be headshot the minute grid loads because the difference links makes is so substantial to do otherwise would be simply stupid.


I'm pretty happy by now over those announced changes. I'll just keep flying them ongrid, and other people won't use theirs offgrid anymore. Good times ahead :D
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-11-30 20:35:01 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link.



This disadvantage is the ONLY command ship you'll actually see boosting is the damnnation. Everything else will be alpha'd off grid in a heartbeat.

Seriously, they're going to be headshot the minute grid loads because the difference links makes is so substantial to do otherwise would be simply stupid.


I'm pretty happy by now over those announced changes. I'll just keep flying them ongrid, and other people won't use theirs offgrid anymore. Good times ahead :D



You're missing my point.

When a damnation gets 2x the EHP of the other command ships with a standard fit, there's literally no way anyone will use anything else to boost on grid with.

Some semblance of balance is needed.

I can't even get the gallente ones to be at the races compared to a damnation, never mind competitive.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-11-30 20:38:59 UTC
The Ginger Sith wrote:


made up stats are funny (and i am referring to both original poster and yours)

they would lose many more subs cause there are activities where ongrid boosting just is not viable since the booster would replace a more useful DPS ship reducing the fleets productivity. for example wormhole anoms and sites, also incursions so on top of all the alts that unsub from null alliances another large number of alts would do the same from wormhole corps and dedicated incursion runners and even solo multi boxers who do wormholes there are even missions runners who use off grid booster alts. the number of lost accounts would prolly be well over 10,000. and of those made up 9000 new acts you claim maybe 1/100 of them will actually stick around many will quit with in the first few days.


Quite right, it was numbers out of my arse, but it is a very valid business mentality. Hence why I gave the Cadillac example. Somebody at General Motors said "Okay, we got to just forget catering to our existing and focus on the actual market place and new customers" Result is in less than ten years, the Caddy nameplate, and buick in just a few short years, went from being a joke nobody bought into a highly competitive and respected name again.

The basis of the discussion is what I cited before, how while active accounts are down, player retention is actually up with an increase in unique subscription IDs. Reputation is everything. Eve needs to be known as the game for fleets and big fights. isn't a should, it is a MUST! The sandbox is importance, but eve's scale is the real beacon. Unfortunately, as with B-R, people saw it and learned this was the exception and not the norm.

You said what I consider a dirty word. DPS. The whole purpose of command ships is to modify fleets. Yeah, you lose ONE dps ship a bit, but with my boosts for example, even on a T1 battlecruiser effectively reduces the entirety of the entire other fleet's effective DPS. Toss in Debuff, and that is even more insane.

Prime example, A heavy hero tank ecm burst scorpion with smartbombs and the spectrum breaker. DPS is nil, but when half of the red's drones disappear off the field or are not applied, plus the time I have held up an entire fleet and their neuts is worth a hell of a lot more than the dps myself and a couple others would bring. It also can mess up their logistics, etc for even more effective damage. That is why they are called force multipliers.

In addition, the DPS loss isn't very much depending on how they are played. Single link ships do just dandy. Increased disruption range is a thing of beauty.

My dream for eve? Have all the EFT dps mean diddly squat. DPS application is all that should matter. So what if you got 2x the spreadsheet damage vs my fleet if the applied dps is only half thanks to good FC, fleet composition and pilot skill.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-11-30 20:41:47 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:



You're missing my point.

When a damnation gets 2x the EHP of the other command ships with a standard fit, there's literally no way anyone will use anything else to boost on grid with.

Some semblance of balance is needed.

I can't even get the gallente ones to be at the races compared to a damnation, never mind competitive.


Valid point, and one worthy to be brought up and looked at for sure. The T1s would be used if cost is an issue as well. With insurance and the lower cost, they do make valid alternatives. But in the large fleet, no disagreement. Damnation or Vulture was all I even considered. Only reason I would fly a different one would be the minmatar to get the skirmish links in a shield fleet.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#14 - 2015-11-30 21:02:09 UTC
The tears will flow..

"How will I ever PvP again?"

You dont NEED links to kill people. You dont NEED links to outsmart or outfit your opponent. You dont NEED links to run PVE sites.

Comes down to 2 arguments:

"But MAH isk ticks"

and

"You really want me to commit to a fight, boosters and all? Why cant i keep using my risk averse I-win button?!"

Remove links entirely. Everyone is on equal footing then. You can claim the small gang needs them to fight the big gang. You dont. You use strategy and misdirection. Ive been soloing without links for a few years now without much issue. Ive killed people who were linked, when i was not. Ive out manuevered and killed gangs of 15-20:1 without links.

People are just too scared to commit and be innovative in their fits/fleets/doctrines.

Im glad OGB are being dumpstered, its been a long time coming.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#15 - 2015-11-30 21:10:44 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Removing off grid boosts will be bad for ccp's income.
personaly i run 3 off grid boost toons, which is 3 accounts paid for each month.

remove the offgrid functionalty, and why would i need them anymore?
it restricts where i will want to fight, so i wont bother fighting else where.
i dont even see any point to keeping them subbed if i have to move them every where to benefit from them.
so that would make it 3 less paid for accounts per month, from me alone.

now if every corporation in null runs a similar setup, thats 1500 corps no longer using 3 accounts per system each.

so 4500 unsubbed accounts, just from removing off grid boosts.

plus less people will be willing to fight without boosts, so less content, less happy pvper's, more people unsub.

way to kill the game with such a simple change.

so please reconcider the removal of offgrid boosts. we have had them for many years, with few issues, why change them now?


Null is only 15% of the population of the game. What if removing OGBs pushes the other 85% of players to PvP more, since it would be a whole lot easier for newer people in small groups to hold their own in fights? That boosts CCP's income, if anything.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2015-11-30 21:12:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The tears will flow..
Remove links entirely. Everyone is on equal footing then. You can claim the small gang needs them to fight the big gang. You dont. You use strategy and misdirection. Ive been soloing without links for a few years now without much issue. Ive killed people who were linked, when i was not. Ive out manuevered and killed gangs of 15-20:1 without links.

People are just too scared to commit and be innovative in their fits/fleets/doctrines.

Im glad OGB are being dumpstered, its been a long time coming.


So why remove the links all together though. If it is a counterable and vulnerable force multiplier, is that not good? Like you said yourself, it can affect, but it does not in the whole make or break a fight. Eve combat is kinda unique in that there are lots of things that give players an edge. the OGB is just an issue with things like sitting outside a pos and the like. While counterable, it is still disengaging combat. That is my issue. Not that it is some magic invincible, but it is disengaged.

I loved on grid boosting and the evasive flight tactics and positioning needed to keep alive...

http://i.imgur.com/XO9CfoP.jpg

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-11-30 21:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The tears will flow..

"How will I ever PvP again?"

You dont NEED links to kill people. You dont NEED links to outsmart or outfit your opponent. You dont NEED links to run PVE sites.

Comes down to 2 arguments:

"But MAH isk ticks"

and

"You really want me to commit to a fight, boosters and all? Why cant i keep using my risk averse I-win button?!"

Remove links entirely. Everyone is on equal footing then. You can claim the small gang needs them to fight the big gang. You dont. You use strategy and misdirection. Ive been soloing without links for a few years now without much issue. Ive killed people who were linked, when i was not. Ive out manuevered and killed gangs of 15-20:1 without links.

People are just too scared to commit and be innovative in their fits/fleets/doctrines.

Im glad OGB are being dumpstered, its been a long time coming.



Stitch that viewpoint os exclusively from your small gang/solo experience.

In a large fleet things are somewhat different and with these changes (on grid) you'll see people making choices about what links to run due to fitting issues, or doubling down on boosters. Either way it is a game changer and creates a world far, far harsher for those who do not have boosters coming out of their ears.

Since I said things are different I should probably list a few: skirmish links and the respective tank rigs significantly raise the bar when it comes to being alpha'd off field as numbers climb. Webbers supporting blap dreads need the range (tracking). They make fighting against the odds by upshipping and using links to bridge the numbers gap possible (when you're fighting over an asset, you don't get to leave field, or split the enemy fleet). Those are just a couple of examples to show its not all about linked Orthrus and garmurs: the meta is huge.

I have absolutely no issue with links on grid, save that my ship choices are damnation, damnation or maybe vulture.

Even if I want skirmish links, it will still likely remain wiser to run unbonused ones which survive vs the bonused hulls which are twice as squishy.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#18 - 2015-11-30 22:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Removing off grid boosts will be bad for ccp's income.

This isn't always the best argument to start off with. It indicates the concern is money and not game health.

"But the PCU!"

:getout:

You know what the best part about this is? BC/BS doctrines just got a healthy relative buff furthermore, armor also got an indirect buff.

Why? The only ships that can now run links effectively, and have decent ability to stay alive for a decent time in fight, are command ships. And on top of that, armor CS can fit extra links withou massively gimping their fits compared to shields.

Most CS won't do well in a fleet of cruisers, either too big or too slow. So what's left for frigs/cruisers? New command destroyers and T3s. CD can currently only use 1 link, and potential for extra is very low due to fittings for the link and processor. T3s also can only fit one link, but they have more flexibility for extra links. Fortunately, the link subsystem is defensive, meaning they make significant sacrifices in tank compared to their line ships.

There will be some odd ways to try and keep links out of harms way by sitting on the edge of the new massive grids, but all of those methods will keep them on grid, vulnerable, and more importantly, disruptable.

I'm very curious to see how the meta shifts for this. Especially for those micro-gangs that use links/implants/boosters/magic to outdo their opponents so well.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-11-30 22:05:36 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Either way it is a game changer and creates a world far, far harsher for those who do not have boosters coming out of their ears.

...the meta is huge.
.


And these are key points. We don't know what all changes are going to happen to make the OGB. It could be some massive all encompassing overhaul where the only things in common with current are probably somoe of the types of the bonuses and the ship names. At this time, the fitting, effectiveness, and ship attributes are entirely up in the air. How they get applied? My cat's optinion is probably just as valid as any we can theorycraft.

Let people sell their boosting alts six months in advance. This could end up being hell of a deal getting one now.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#20 - 2015-11-30 22:11:55 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Either way it is a game changer and creates a world far, far harsher for those who do not have boosters coming out of their ears.

...the meta is huge.
.


And these are key points. We don't know what all changes are going to happen to make the OGB. It could be some massive all encompassing overhaul where the only things in common with current are probably somoe of the types of the bonuses and the ship names. At this time, the fitting, effectiveness, and ship attributes are entirely up in the air. How they get applied? My cat's optinion is probably just as valid as any we can theorycraft.

Let people sell their boosting alts six months in advance. This could end up being hell of a deal getting one now.

I don't think CCP has mentioned changing any attributes or stats. So far I've only heard that off grid is gone. Not sure if it's necessary to change the stats atm. At least not until the meta settles.
123Next pageLast page