These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why do off grid links exist?

Author
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#321 - 2015-12-18 17:29:07 UTC
ya'll be crazy. Kill all the things.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#322 - 2015-12-18 17:43:20 UTC
Zirashi wrote:
Templar Dane wrote:

Where does that leave the solo brawlers?


Lol.

By your own anecdote, before you had links you were reliably winning 1v2 fights, to the point that people would recognize you on sight and immediately escalate because of the threat you posed alone. You even mention 1v6s being the norm (although you didn't specify whether you won those or not). All as a brawler. Then links come in and allow you to take on even MORE. Wtf do you want, invincibility? I think you'll be fine.

Also, fighting with links and calling it "solo" is a stretch. 2 ships in space is 2 ships in space, regardless of the amount of people behind them, especially when talking about OGB.


Yes, but if you'd read my previous statements you'd see how i explained that the game has changed. Everything does more dps. Since that time.......

- projectile dps got buffed
- hybrids got buffed
- tiericide
etc

And at the same time the maximum achievable active tank has decreased.

The only positive thing to change for active armor tanking was the rig penalty change. AAR is trash for a long fight.

Most of those victories still relied on separating the enemy and picking a couple off before taking on the rest.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#323 - 2015-12-18 18:12:21 UTC
So you've established that brawling is inherently inferior to kiting in the majority of cases, even though it doesn't necessarily have to be; it's pretty much up to CCP in the end.

But why don't you see this as a separate issue from off grid boosters?
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#324 - 2015-12-18 18:16:30 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
So, if off grid links are not AFK, and are indeed being actively flown by a player, then what is the problem with having them be actively fielded on grid?

According to you, Crosi, it is simply too much of a risk. But obviously you know about the concept of risk versus reward. Why, if links are supposedly no different from any other game mechanic like Ewar and Logi, must they be allowed to be fielded off grid, potentially hundreds of astronomical units away from the battlefield?

It's true that a command destroyer can't fit as many links as a T3 cruiser, but again, it's risk versus reward. Instead of fitting your Loki to be "unprobable" (so called), you could fit it for mobility and survivability.

The answer is clear. You use an alt as a booster, and since you can't focus on both your main and your alt at the same time, your alt is effectively AFK while you are doing PvP, and when your alt is AFK on grid it is easily going to get destroyed.

If the booster ship is actively flown by a player, being on grid is not a problem (or at least not as much of a problem). But the majority of off grid boosters are AFK alts and that is why they are a problem.

Ships should have to be actively fielded in order to perform their role. Off grid boosters are not being actively fielded. They're effectively AFK.


Because if you're flying OUTNUMBERED and likely to die anyway, why risk an expensive command ship? The only time you'd bring out the expensive command ship would be when you have them outnumbered so bad there's no risk to the command ship.

You're totally okay with gangs having access to links but you don't want solo players having access to links.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#325 - 2015-12-18 18:26:48 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
So you've established that brawling is inherently inferior to kiting in the majority of cases, even though it doesn't necessarily have to be; it's pretty much up to CCP in the end.

But why don't you see this as a separate issue from off grid boosters?


Because after the debacle that is the AAR, and the fact that if nonlinked active tanking became viable then that might mess up solo even more because the bait ships would have better active tanks and you couldn't break them before their backup arrived.

With the way they've been stripping utility highs from ships, the comet and daredevil are about the only feasible options left.
George Gouillot
MASS
Pandemic Horde
#326 - 2015-12-18 18:55:03 UTC  |  Edited by: George Gouillot
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Honorabru 1v1's? The more the merrier. I'm sold. Details can be communicated here or via evemail or ingame chat. I'd personally prefer T1/navy frigs, destroyers (T1) or T1 cruisers.


IG mail sent.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#327 - 2015-12-18 19:21:43 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:


As i have stated, i dont know if removing OGB is the best thing for the game overall, i know that on some levels it is but on others it is not. My point is that a change like this is problematic since it strikes directly at very established play styles from micro gang up to major fleet engagements.

As i have said before, complete removal of the boosting mechanics would be a better solution to putting them on grid if balance was the primary consideration.

Sorry, I actually missed this part of what you said, Crosi. And thinking on it now I see an effect of moving links on grid that I wasn't thinking of at the time; how it would effect fleet PvP, especially on a large scale.

Sometimes I just think of how something would affect me, and not others. That is perhaps a quality that as human beings we should work on correcting. :D

The effects of on grid boosting for fleet warfare.

It doesn't really make me change my mind about anything that I said, but it's definitely worth considering.

Ares Desideratus wrote:
So, if off grid links are not AFK, and are indeed being actively flown by a player, then what is the problem with having them be actively fielded on grid?

According to you, Crosi, it is simply too much of a risk. But obviously you know about the concept of risk versus reward. Why, if links are supposedly no different from any other game mechanic like Ewar and Logi, must they be allowed to be fielded off grid, potentially hundreds of astronomical units away from the battlefield?

It's true that a command destroyer can't fit as many links as a T3 cruiser, but again, it's risk versus reward. Instead of fitting your Loki to be "unprobable" (so called), you could fit it for mobility and survivability.

The answer is clear. You use an alt as a booster, and since you can't focus on both your main and your alt at the same time, your alt is effectively AFK while you are doing PvP, and when your alt is AFK on grid it is easily going to get destroyed.

If the booster ship is actively flown by a player, being on grid is not a problem (or at least not as much of a problem). But the majority of off grid boosters are AFK alts and that is why they are a problem.

Ships should have to be actively fielded in order to perform their role. Off grid boosters are not being actively fielded. They're effectively AFK.

Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#328 - 2015-12-18 19:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
Templar Dane wrote:


Because if you're flying OUTNUMBERED and likely to die anyway, why risk an expensive command ship? The only time you'd bring out the expensive command ship would be when you have them outnumbered so bad there's no risk to the command ship.

You're totally okay with gangs having access to links but you don't want solo players having access to links.

I'm actually not totally okay with anyone having access to links, especially in their current form. I've said before that the simplest and cleanest way to fix links is to just strip all boosting mechanics from the game entirely.

But since that seems like a really unlikely scenario, I choose to root for the next best thing; turning links into a legitimate game mechanic that requires active participation and is fun and engaging from a gameplay perspective (basically the opposite of hiding an alt in a safespot).

The obvious answer, or at least a step in the right direction, seems to be to bring them on grid. The obvious answer is not always the right answer, but I still think it is an infinitely better idea than what we have now, even if it is a disadvantage to solo players (like me).

I fight outnumbered 90% of the time, but I'd rather not rely on links. I think if they were a legitimate game mechanic you would not be able to use them "solo" unless they were fitted to the ship you are flying. I'd rather use my ambitious creativity to figure out ways to fight outnumbered without the aid of an AFK off grid booster.

The core philosophy of what you are saying is "it's too risky for me to actively field my link ship", I say too bad. You gotta risk it for the biscuit. Or just fly without links. I really don't think successfully brawling while outnumbered without links is impossible, but even if it was, that's clearly a separate issue. Whether brawling is balanced or not has nothing to do with whether off grid links are balanced or not. So you can't use active armor tanking or brawling in general as an excuse to keep off grid links around.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#329 - 2015-12-18 23:01:32 UTC
IB4 those complaining about links today are complaining about blobs tomorrow.
Dread Operative
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#330 - 2015-12-19 01:33:49 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
IB4 those complaining about links today are complaining about blobs tomorrow.


or "Nice Falcon ***!"
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#331 - 2015-12-19 01:44:35 UTC
George Gouillot wrote:
[quote=Demerius Xenocratus]
Honorabru 1v1's? The more the merrier. I'm sold. Details can be communicated here or via evemail or ingame chat. I'd personally prefer T1/navy frigs, destroyers (T1) or T1 cruisers.


IG mail sent.[/quote

Response provided. Looking forward this no matter the outcome.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#332 - 2015-12-19 12:52:44 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
IB4 those complaining about links today are complaining about blobs tomorrow.

By the way, even if this is true, and some people just like to complain a lot, it has nothing to do with off grid links, so it's worthless in the only context that matters.
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2015-12-20 01:03:08 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
IB4 those complaining about links today are complaining about blobs tomorrow.


True that.

Even so, don't throw away the good in search of the perfect.

Let's get rid of the OGB plague, and then see about offering small gangs a chance to die in a "fair fight".

Not because I think gate camps and blobs are a bad thing, to be clear. The question is rather whether they have to be the only thing.

Is it possible to innovate (there's a word) new game play that allows small gangs with real world commitment to quickly and easily find roughly balanced small fleet fights?

And can this be done without doing any harm to the vast, rich ecosystem of Eve as it currently stands (blobs and linkers and gate camps)?

Maybe it can't be done, but imagine if it could!

Wouldn't it be great?

All that extra small gang pew!

As well as gate camps, N+1 blobs and linked gimp freaks.

It would be great. Everyone would be happy.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#334 - 2015-12-20 03:22:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
There are already mechanics out there if you want fair fights its called a duel.

Ive never expected or felt entitled to a fair fight, in fact i would suggest that the whole point of eve is to engineer a situation where fights are as unfair as possible under the assumption that the opposition will do the same thing. Thats what makes EVE pvp interesting. Not vanilla, rinse / repeat kestrel vs punisher brawls.

Now i understand your thinking that fair fights = most desirable outcome. I would just suggest to you and most other people out there, they are not really the fights you remember. You remember the ones where you engaged hostiles that thought they had it in the bag but pull something extra out to clinch it.

The stories that project to the wider gaming world are not perfectly balanced 1v1s either.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#335 - 2015-12-20 07:07:48 UTC
Once again, the disparity in risk/reward between OGB and every other form of advantage has been covered. Blobs require friends...it's an MMO. Falcons/logi/etc. have to be risked on grid and provide a far more narrow advantage than OGB.

None of the aforementioned red herrings is anywhere near as oppressive as the semi-AFK booster pet.

Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#336 - 2015-12-20 07:09:33 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
There are already mechanics out there if you want fair fights its called a duel.

Ive never expected or felt entitled to a fair fight, in fact i would suggest that the whole point of eve is to engineer a situation where fights are as unfair as possible under the assumption that the opposition will do the same thing. Thats what makes EVE pvp interesting. Not vanilla, rinse / repeat kestrel vs punisher brawls.

Now i understand your thinking that fair fights = most desirable outcome. I would just suggest to you and most other people out there, they are not really the fights you remember. You remember the ones where you engaged hostiles that thought they had it in the bag but pull something extra out to clinch it.

The stories that project to the wider gaming world are not perfectly balanced 1v1s either.


Fair/unfair should be a function of in-game rather than out of game investment.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#337 - 2015-12-20 10:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Another p2w aegument. As i have said, from every functional level you cannot distinguish between my booster as either an alt or another person beyond a presumption. Your obsession with the people behind the screen is not healthy. Focus on the pixels.

Multip[le accounts are accepted in eve anyway. Less of the p2w lol. Ive just created 4 alts to watch choke points. These chars will never train a single SP but will save me a lot of trouble and time which even a booster could not do as well.

Non of them will cost my any out of game money (nor do any of my accounts) so your argument does not hold.

If you think that its all the same because someone else bought a GTC then i would suggest that your argument is against the existence of PLEX so you are at odds with another time honoured function of how eve works.

If i was so averse to fundemental aspects of a game i would asking other questions to myself not complaining on a forum.

Lets stick to the perfectly valid reasons people dont like boosts without resorting to emotional and misapplied accusations like p2w/afk/godmode. Just makes you look clueless and upset.
peinrikoudu
United corporation of Manchester
#338 - 2015-12-20 14:04:45 UTC
I'm almost always out solo looking for an honest fight and most of the time I die. I accept this because I'm clumsy. One thing I hate, for example, is being pointed @70km by an orthrus because I was expecting a 40km point. You can imagine I died a crappy death without throwing a punch back. Sometimes it's a massive advantage and I'm with the op questioning ccp's motives. You just need to expect players to have links and you're gonna die.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#339 - 2015-12-20 15:43:33 UTC
Sees Orthrus. Doesnt expect links. Blames other people. Classic.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#340 - 2015-12-20 16:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
Crosi, the fact that it is impossible to know if your booster is an alt or a real player is a part of the problem.

If links were on grid, it would be possible to know if someone's booster is AFK or if it is being actively piloted.

I've already clearly demonstrated that off grid links are effectively AFK (when used by an alt) and you have no argument against this.

If they aren't AFK, then you can actively field them on grid and put them at real risk, the same way people do with their falcon / logistic alts / friends.