These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#381 - 2015-12-24 01:40:58 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
There are already mechanics out there if you want fair fights its called a duel.


Yes, that is true, but what about small gang fights?

I think one of the chief attractions of Eve is the idea of fighting in fleets, but the problem is that this ends up turning into blobs, or it gets perverted by god mode freaks with links.

I think the FW strucutre goes a long way to redressing the blobby problems and the problems of matched ship sizes, but it could maybe be made better.

I do agree with you that the general nefarious environment of Eve should be preserved. I do agree that there should be a time and a place for links, for blobs, for camps, and for the general hunting game.

However, developing the options for small gang warfare is also an interesting way to appeal to lots of folks.

If my corp could be pretty sure of having a few roughly balanced squad fights in a session, we would get online more often.

I think there are a lot of small corps like ours.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#382 - 2015-12-24 06:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Lots of people say this. I guess it should come as no surprise that all these people [put no effort in to creating such content by contacting each other and making it happen. They would rather polish their dream by whining on the forums for years until ccp gives them what they ask for. Blissfully unaware that they will still not get what they want and will just gt blobbed like they did before.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#383 - 2015-12-25 00:44:48 UTC
Lucy Callagan wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Lucy Callagan wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


Combat pilot + links > 5, 10 or more unlinked combat pilots is actually the problem. They'll never catch him...best case scenario is forcing him off temporarily with ewar and long range weapons.


Lol no, especially in low sec where ppl never go more than 2 jumps away their staging. D A N K refitting is so hard.


You literally cannot catch a linked, snaked, defensive scram-fit orthrus or garmur without links of your own. Unless he does something laughably stupid. The garmur does 11k hot and scrams at 25-26k with domination, the orthrus does 6k hot and kills frigates in 4 shots max (if you have a shield buffer fit with high resists).

You can make it leave grid with a griffin, maulus, or sniper corms but he can still harass you any time your fleet splits up or your ewar is out of position and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it short of having a virtue prober devoting 100% effort to forcing the booster to keep moving.

So you either need a vastly outsized investment of resources or a fully active player in a specific fit, just to achieve a standoff against a single pilot and his semi-afk alt.


rapier + keres, any decent gang has one of those (at least I often do)



And for either of those to be effective you need...guess what? Links of your own.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#384 - 2015-12-25 00:51:54 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
George Gouillot wrote:
Bastion Arzi wrote:
why dont people just probe down the links and kill them?

its not as if it cant be done


Because this would involve effort. Whining on forum not that much.


If I'm going to multibox a max skilled prober with a virtue set, I would rather just buy a link alt. Because the first one is useful in a few narrow circumstances while the second makes my ship 30% better, 100% of the time, and requires far less active input.


The first one seems to be useful in a few situations, one of which is what you consider the biggest problem in the game.

From one side of your mouth you say that OGB are prolific and ruin gameplay all over new eden, and from the other side you say that a counter to boosts wouldnt be of much use.

I know why boosts make you angry and i know why you dont put effort in to counter them. Both are the same reason, you are lazy and dislike uncertainty. Personally, i have always admired people who put effort in to solve their problems rather than just complain.


Once again, why would I invest the time and effort in a fully skilled prober with implants when links require the same investment, less effort and are far more broadly useful? They are always the best choice, out of any alt-performed role, because they provide by far the most benefit with the least risk and pilot input. You can continue to ignore that fact but that won't make it go away.

And I have hunted and killed links both on my own and with fleetmates, so please continue to call me lazy for pointing out that the effort and investment required to hunt them is inconsistent with the benefits they provide. Links are always the best option, with no disincentive or tradeoff; in a game allegedly about risk/reward that is clearly out of place.

For the record I am really sorry your garmur will be reduced to a measly 9k hot...but you'll just have to adapt or die, as they say.
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#385 - 2015-12-25 03:15:27 UTC
IMO OffGB do give small groups wanting to engage larger groups some force multiplier options but I feel this one benefit that may make PVP a little more dynamic doesnt outweigh some of the other problems presented by OGB. I look forward to the new strategies and metas that will be developed once we are using on grid links
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#386 - 2015-12-25 04:10:28 UTC
Off grid boosters in POS's were and are (mining links) overpowered for their investment. Bringing them outside of the shield increased the risk to them quite a bit. Bringing them on grid as AoE makes them a tool almost exclusively for the crowd that can afford to dedicate an active pilot(s) to the role.

Will smaller groups (5-10) still use them? Yes. Will the solo guy use one on an alt instead of a falcon? I tend to doubt it, but we've gotta wait and see what sort of link affects they will have.

The Christmas thread last year was way better.
Lucy Callagan
This Game Is Terrible
Warlords of the Deep
#387 - 2015-12-25 10:39:51 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


And for either of those to be effective you need...guess what? Links of your own.


Sorry but : no

Without links, a rapier can web @ 60 km cold while a triple damp keres can reduce the lock range to a sub-10 range even on a linked recon.

Regarding what you said i just wonder if you ever flown one of those...
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2015-12-30 02:20:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Pestilen Ratte
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Lots of people say this. I guess it should come as no surprise that all these people [put no effort in to creating such content by contacting each other and making it happen. They would rather polish their dream by whining on the forums for years until ccp gives them what they ask for. Blissfully unaware that they will still not get what they want and will just gt blobbed like they did before.


So let me get this straight: I am supposed to spend my time contacting people outside the game to arrange small gang duels. And they are going to agree to fair play because we are all jolly good gents with high standards of gamesmanship.

Are you high?

Crosi, I think you are letting your love of Eve cloud your vision. Look at how you play the game, in your own case. Linked up and solo.

Are YOU contacting all the smashing chaps who can't wait to meet you and your buddies for a duel?

It's fantasy. Not only is it fantasy, it is not what it says on the tin. EVE promotes itself as a sandbox where gangs of friends can engage in interesting PVP pew.

It does not say on the tin that EVE is a game where, of you don't have a job or need money, you can spend your life trying to organize space ship pew pew between likeable and forthright groups of smashing chaps who are, in fact, a most devious and wretched collection of rapacious pirates.

Look, you've lost your mind, so I will tell you a true story. There was a bear out in solitude who had the idea to organize a "frigate festival". The idea was that all the local industrial bears were going to enjoy pew pew amongst friends. Well this idea was supported by all the bears, and as the day drew closer, more and more local bears started fitting their favourite ships and planning all the fun they was going to have.

Then, as the time approached, everyone remembered where they were, and who they were.

Of course every industrial gang knew players from pirate gangs, and so the system became clogged with predatious frigate destroyers, just waiting to gank the happy bears at their happy little festival.

The bears, being bears, saw the dark clouds on dscan, and they docked in station. And stayed their, and started to talk about mining bonuses and the price of ore.

And that was the happy bear frigate festival of Solitude. A pack of wolves waiting for the piggies to come out, and the piggies saying not by the hair of my chinny chin chin.

Mixed metaphors ruin a good story, but the point is, this is EVE. Suggesting that players honourably devise content is the same as suggesting that players get large groups of wide eyed noobs together in one place so that billion skill point linked up predators can gank them like sharks ripping into a bunch of baby seals.

This happens, in FW space. FW gangs get so sick of gate camping for content that they get groups of noobs and lead them into dead end systems. Then the other side gank them on the way out. I have seen this. This is what you call "content creation".

It is absolutely lame, in a game where you are supposed to be fighting a war, to be fed into an enemy gate camp by your own side because they are so bored.

In gaming terms, this is the exact equivalent of blowing up your own guys because there is nothing worth shooting at in the game.

It is absolutely up to CCP to build game mechanics, like plexes in FW, that provide the possibility of game mechanics that suit THE PAYING CUSTOMERS.

In fact, you suggesting that I go do this myself is a frank admission of how CCP have failed.

Asking the customer to build the product is selling them a kit.

Kit deals, where you build it yourself, are always a scam.

They are always a scam because if the thing worked after being built, the folks selling you the kit would have built it and sold it as a working thing.

Think of cars, toasters, rifles, software, or anything else that is a real thing people buy.

The only thing the paying customer needs to do is pay, and I have been paying. So have a lot of other people.

CCP need to sort it out. They wont be the first company to go broke selling a kit.
Lucy Callagan
This Game Is Terrible
Warlords of the Deep
#389 - 2015-12-30 02:31:34 UTC
So CCP is the Ikea of video games. Interesting....
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2015-12-30 04:13:04 UTC
Lucy Callagan wrote:
So CCP is the Ikea of video games. Interesting....


What?

Ikea are cheaper than everyone else. EVE is the most expensive game around.

But, I like your thinking!

Make subscription 50 cents a month and leave it as a kit!

I would pay that, happily.

The problem is that we are paying through the nose for a product that doesn't really deliver what it says on the tin.

I have a nasty suspicion that the root problem is sheer laziness by CCP. They hide behind the "it's a sandbox" mantra to avoid criticisms for the lack of user friendly game play mechanics. Instead of investing in code that changes combat gameplay, like FW plexes, they produce more and more graphically impressive objects you can look at whilst spinning your ship in station. That is easier to do. So they do that.

The sandbox argument is so lame. Nothing about EVE is truly sandbox. Gate camps are created by deliberate game structure mechanics. So are FW plexes which restrict ship types. Eve the security divisions of space are arbitrary options decided by CCP. Players built none of the rules that dictate how the game play in combat operates.

Links, the subject of this thread, are a great example of this. How are links a "sandbox" innovation? What player built links? Links are the exact opposite of a sandbox innovation, because they mimic having extra players for money. Sure is strange to have a "buy god mode" option in a sandbox.

What CCP have done is gradually built a highly complex game environment that requires a certain type of game play, and they call it a sandbox to escape criticisms of it.

That leads to weird folk suggesting that it is up to the customer to generate game content, as if it is in the players power to design the end product.

That is the same as Ikea selling you a rough log and a saw, and calling it a deluxe table kit. For ten thousand bucks.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#391 - 2015-12-30 08:12:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Pestilen Ratte wrote:

So let me get this straight: I am supposed to spend my time contacting people outside the game to arrange small gang duels. And they are going to agree to fair play because we are all jolly good gents with high standards of gamesmanship.

Are you high?

Crosi, I think you are letting your love of Eve cloud your vision. Look at how you play the game, in your own case. Linked up and solo.

Are YOU contacting all the smashing chaps who can't wait to meet you and your buddies for a duel?

It's fantasy. Not only is it fantasy, it is not what it says on the tin. EVE promotes itself as a sandbox where gangs of friends can engage in interesting PVP pew.

It does not say on the tin that EVE is a game where, of you don't have a job or need money, you can spend your life trying to organize space ship pew pew between likeable and forthright groups of smashing chaps who are, in fact, a most devious and wretched collection of rapacious pirates.


I engage in objective driven pvp and i am not above calling for help as and when its needed. I dont accept 1v1 or any other kind of arranged fight. I do fly in regular fleets though where the FC will contact other entities and reasonable expectations are met with regards to ship classes and numbers. For the most part we manage to avoid getting roflstomped by third parties. Though when it does happen we accept that as our mistake and i would hope learn to protect against that mistake in the future.

But im not the one complaining about how some content is distasteful to me or incorrectly applying terms like godmore or p2w or judging other people who quite happily maintain more than one account as if it matters to me how many people are behind the pixels lol. Im not the one who thinks that putting links on grid is going to make the game fairer overall.

I just made a suggestion that would lead to the kind of content you seem to want with all these like minded forum whiners who feel entitled to a fair fight. Build your own community.

EVE doesnt say anything on the tin. If a misconception of what a sandbox is prevents you from doing what you need to get the content that you want, that is another malfunction on your part. You are fractally wrong about what a sandbox is.

As for me losing my mind and then you going of on a completely irrelevant tangent, there be irony here.
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2015-12-30 11:29:50 UTC
You're fighting a straw man of your own creation, Crosi.

I never said I wanted EVE to be fair. I just said I wanted it to be worth the subscription and, to that end, be fun for folks who don't have all day to spend on puter games, "creating content".

As for what it says on the tin, check out the popular "This is Eve" videos.

That right there is CCP's tin, and they are saying what's inside.

Fleet fights. Lots and lots of fleet fights.

Lots of ships in the air, fighting.

Pew pew.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what we say, the market will dictate the outcomes.

Take a good look at the data:

At year end 2013, there were about 52'000 active players.

At year end 2014, there were about 44'000 active players.

At year end 2015, there are about 32'000 active players.

Eve is being abandoned by more players than are signing up, and at this rate it will be dead in 3 years.

That is not my opinion, that is market data.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that this kind of market data follows enterprises that try to scam their customers and sell something that is not what it says on the tin.

CCP have 3 years to shape up before most of them are out of a job.

I say that with absolutely no pleasure, and regrettably as a man who has said it before to people who thought they were immune from the market and their opinions of their customers.
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#393 - 2015-12-30 15:09:54 UTC
Was wondering when this thread get into an "EVE is dying" rant.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#394 - 2015-12-30 16:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
IIRC the 'OGB is killing eve' was covered early on by cearain, along with everything else he doesnt like is also killing eve since his punisher/kestrel anti newbro solo gameplay is the only thing that will save eve.

Lets not bother considering the reality that the built in playerbase is getting older and moving on to real life responsibilities, and eve as a niche game that attracts a weird demographic in a market with substantial churn that ties up a lot of younger gamers in the perpetual and rapid cycle of disposable novelty games, is failing (for obvious reasons) to attract substantial numbers of new players in this gaming ecosystem.

Nah, its because of OGB that eve has terrible player retention. Most newbros quit before they even know what an OGB is, because of OGB?

The objective of CCP going forward is to try and change eve substantially enough to be more appealing and accommodating to new players without alienating their older established player base. They have not done a very good job so far and continue to take massive risks in the hope that they know what they are doing.

Unfortunately, i dont think that the core of EVE has a mass appeal. Its a game of great patience with great payoffs. Patience is not an attribute in abundance with modern gamers.
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#395 - 2015-12-30 17:32:35 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
IIRC the 'OGB is killing eve' was covered early on by cearain, along with everything else he doesnt like is also killing eve since his punisher/kestrel anti newbro solo gameplay is the only thing that will save eve.

Lets not bother considering the reality that the built in playerbase is getting older and moving on to real life responsibilities, and eve as a niche game that attracts a weird demographic in a market with substantial churn that ties up a lot of younger gamers in the perpetual and rapid cycle of disposable novelty games, is failing (for obvious reasons) to attract substantial numbers of new players in this gaming ecosystem.

Nah, its because of OGB that eve has terrible player retention. Most newbros quit before they even know what an OGB is, because of OGB?

The objective of CCP going forward is to try and change eve substantially enough to be more appealing and accommodating to new players without alienating their older established player base. They have not done a very good job so far and continue to take massive risks in the hope that they know what they are doing.

Unfortunately, i dont think that the core of EVE has a mass appeal. Its a game of great patience with great payoffs. Patience is not an attribute in abundance with modern gamers.


That's because the majority of new players don't know what it is like to play a game without having a save point.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#396 - 2015-12-30 17:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
IIRC the 'OGB is killing eve' was covered early on by cearain, along with everything else he doesnt like is also killing eve since his punisher/kestrel anti newbro solo gameplay is the only thing that will save eve..


Not surprisingly you ignore the actual data that shows removing ogb was one of the most popular proposals in assembly hall, that still hasn't been implemented. Yep just claim I'm the only one who doesn't like them.

I am not sure what is so anti-new bro about flying around solo in unboosted t1 frigates. But really I don't care why you think it is so don't bother to respond.

I don't know what age has to do with having a real life. I had a real life when I was younger too.


Crosi Wesdo wrote:

Nah, its because of OGB that eve has terrible player retention. Most newbros quit before they even know what an OGB is, because of OGB?


Yep the ship wasn't even on grid so they probably have no idea why the other guy was so much faster and tankier.
Crosi Wesdo wrote:

The objective of CCP going forward is to try and change eve substantially enough to be more appealing and accommodating to new players without alienating their older established player base. They have not done a very good job so far and continue to take massive risks in the hope that they know what they are doing.

Unfortunately, i dont think that the core of EVE has a mass appeal. Its a game of great patience with great payoffs. Patience is not an attribute in abundance with modern gamers.


The way you play eve may require allot of patience and set up. But there is no reason some areas of eve shouldn't allow players to get some quality pvp without having to essentially take on a second job. Faction war/low sec would be the obvious choice. Not everyone in eve likes the idea of sitting for hours waiting for a deer to wander within range of his shotgun.

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

Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#397 - 2015-12-30 17:50:00 UTC
Since we can't reasonably describe OGBs as AFK, we need a term that accurately describes the type of gameplay.

Something like "non-piloted, inactive alt" seems to fit the bill nicely. Whatever it is, it's terrible gameplay.
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2015-12-30 23:13:44 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
IIRC the 'OGB is killing eve' was covered early on by cearain, along with everything else he doesnt like is also killing eve since his punisher/kestrel anti newbro solo gameplay is the only thing that will save eve.


That is fair enough, it isn't reasonable for anyone to say with certainty what, exactly, is killing Eve.

But we do know that it is dying.

You are honest enough to accept the data (be careful you don't get accused of "ranting" because you do).

There are probably numerous factors that all add up to the outcomes we see. As you also noted, it is ultimately a failure of CCP leadership. They get paid to answer the question of "what is killing eve and how do we fix it?", and it appears they have not worked it out.

That is why I made the title of this thread "Why do OGBs exist?", and not "OGBs suck and need to be removed at once".

I am more interested in analysing the culture that believes OGBs, and mechanisms like it, are acceptable conduct. I take the view that people who accept a certain standard of behaviour will likely have done so in the past, and will do so again in future. This is what we mean, when we speak of the culture of leadership in an organization. In essence, what are they like?

It seems almost certain that the leadership at CCP value the older play base far more than the new player base. They value those who devote large amounts of time over those who don't have large amounts of time to devote.

They favour people like themselves, in other words, which is very understandable human nature.

There have been sincere efforts to engage and retain new players, and to try to create PVP opportunities that break down the blob meta. The problem seems to be that those efforts are not front and centre. They are something a few folks at CCP are doing while the rest of the staff design new capital assets that only a few cherished friends in the player base will ever use or appreciate.

CCP should create a separate unit to study the opinions of FW and newb fleet players, in order to build new game structures that allow easy access to small gang and solo combat. Inside FW space, that unit ought to have leeway to experiment with novel mechanics and new ways of solving old problems. They should also have significant resources.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#399 - 2015-12-31 23:50:18 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Since we can't reasonably describe OGBs as AFK, we need a term that accurately describes the type of gameplay.

Something like "non-piloted, inactive alt" seems to fit the bill nicely. Whatever it is, it's terrible gameplay.


Mining? Mini game that if you fail your ship blows up

Ratting with drones? oh no you didn't, that's too close to afk better make the drones turn on you if you don't actively shoot rats

Market alts? well sheet. Better just nuke the stations

Heck, falcon alt feels kind of afk once you lay down the jams. Logi too. Better remove them from the game.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#400 - 2015-12-31 23:57:57 UTC
Pestilen Ratte wrote:


There have been sincere efforts to engage and retain new players, and to try to create PVP opportunities that break down the blob meta.



Pestilen Ratte wrote:


efforts to try to create PVP opportunities that break down the blob meta.



WTF are you smoking? There hasn't been a change to this game that I can think of that hasn't been a direct buff to blobs.

Tanking the blob got harder thanks to link nerfs and dps buffs

cheap logi ships. back in the day you had to at least risk one or more 200+mil cruisers for the same effect

buffed ewar ships