These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#401 - 2016-01-01 00:17:49 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.


I find it kind of silly that they blame links for the decline of the game. Must be links, has to be.

It's not like it could possibly be that people left when you couldn't go anywhere in anything bigger than a destroyer without getting hotdropped.

It's not like it could possibly be people getting tired of blob warfare and moving onto other games where a single player matters more.

It's not like it could possibly be people leaving because the number one way to play eve for years was sitting on a titan for eons waiting for someone to light a cyno somewhere so you could jump in and gank a condor with your 50 man gang, and then that playstyle got nerfed.

It's not like it could possibly be people not joining/staying because of the illusion that skillpoints are everything. Why bother joining a game that some people have been playing for over a decade if you can never catch up.

It's not like it could possibly be people leaving because of a spike in suicide ganks in carebearland.

It's not like it could possibly be people leaving because fozziesov.



It took a long time for some pretty basic **** to get fixed. A lot of that did get mostly fixed, but at what cost?

But wait no, must be the links. Something anybody that's willing to fire up another account or use an existing alt account could have.
Arla Sarain
#402 - 2016-01-01 03:22:29 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:

But wait no, must be the links. Something anybody that's willing to fire up another account or use an existing alt account could have.

Whichever side of the argument you stand for, you end up bleeding players out of the game.

It could just as well be that that anybody has no attraction to firing up a mandatory 2nd account.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#403 - 2016-01-01 10:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Arla Sarain wrote:
Templar Dane wrote:

But wait no, must be the links. Something anybody that's willing to fire up another account or use an existing alt account could have.

Whichever side of the argument you stand for, you end up bleeding players out of the game.

It could just as well be that that anybody has no attraction to firing up a mandatory 2nd account.


Except that making boosts AOE will further strengthen the blob while many boosting chars will be out of a role. This will evidently lead to chars unsubbing.

Beyond a few anecdotes, it has not been established that boosing alts, or alts in general have any significant negative affect on sub levels.

Concurrent user rates were steady or rising year on year for many years after boosts were introduced. The downward trend seems to have started after certain other more recent developments that effected the core aspects of manufacturing and bloc level content.

My argument is against the assertion that changing current mechanics to seem fairer will result in more people joining and sticking with the game. The facts seem to be that as alienated old guard leave the game, the huge influx of new players to replace them is predictably absent.

The space submarine point and click RPG drama llama market is already tapped.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#404 - 2016-01-01 21:53:41 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:


Except that making boosts AOE will further strengthen the blob while many boosting chars will be out of a role. This will evidently lead to chars unsubbing.

Making boosts AOE will not strengthen the blob. If boosts become AOE, they will be 1. easier to destroy because of the fact that they are on grid, and 2. easier to separate from the fleet because they don't just have to be in the same system any more; they also have to be within a specific range to have an effect.

Here are the players who would un-sub because of AOE boosts:

1. Players who cannot adapt to an environment where their dual boxed links are put at serious risk. They un-sub because they cannot "solo" they way they could with off grid boosters.

2. Alts who were only used as off grid boosters who now feel like they no longer have a role.

The first one isn't a problem because soloing without links is actually easy. The only players who would un-sub for that reason are terrible players who can't adapt.

The second one, those alts could be sold on the character bazaar and turned into ISK, used as legitimate on grid boosters for fleets or cross trained into other areas of activity.

Anyone who just un-subs because of AOE boosts is basically just a bad player who is unable to adapt.
Dr darkside
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#405 - 2016-01-02 19:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr darkside
Ares Desideratus wrote:
If boosts become AOE, they will be 1. easier to destroy because of the fact that they are on grid,


this is how this scenario will turn out the blob will have more logi and keep thier booster alive, the little gang will have thier booster raped and the big guy will win. stop thinking from a solo pov and start thinking bout gangs. i have a booster and honestly think the best way to solve them is get rid of them all together.

TLDR:- Facing a big gangs booster on grid will be actually harder than probing and killing or command destroyer jumping and killing ogb ones
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#406 - 2016-01-02 20:07:08 UTC
Dr darkside wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
If boosts become AOE, they will be 1. easier to destroy because of the fact that they are on grid,


this is how this scenario will turn out the blob will have more logi and keep thier booster alive, the little gang will have thier booster raped and the big guy will win. stop thinking from a solo pov and start thinking bout gangs. i have a booster and honestly think the best way to solve them is get rid of them all together.

TLDR:- Facing a big gangs booster on grid will be actually harder than probing and killing or command destroyer jumping and killing ogb ones

If solo pilots can fight against blobs, so can small gangs. Just because some, or most, solo or small gang pilots can't directly compete against blobs, does not mean we should keep this broken game mechanic as it is.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#407 - 2016-01-02 22:57:28 UTC
I personally would love to see more command ships on the field. The MJD generator needs a slightly longer spool up time (1+ second for sure) and higher fitting PG to at least 20-25, imo.

Gangs, boosted or not, would probably turn a fight in their favor with more numbers anyway. Bring a rapier and increase your obit ranges to minimize the number of relocated pilots. Have more anchor pilots.
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Two Maidens One Chalice
#408 - 2016-01-03 01:31:56 UTC
So what has actually changed?

1. Effect of boosted attributes from Warfare links: None (yet)
2. Effect to the the attribute bonus's to all the hulls concerned: None
3. Any hulls removed that provide links: none, one hull type added
4. Effect of links to combat inside novices: no longer possible
5. Effect of links to combat inside smalls: no longer possible
6. Effect of links to combat inside mediums: no longer able to provide many links from one hull (so they'll bring Falcons or Rooks that will show on their killboard performance and mark the pilot)
7. Effect of links in limited complexes: change dependent on "allowed ships"
8. Effect of links in other combat circumstances: links need to be within 6000km. Still only vulnerable to high skilled probes and at nullifying effect not at a significant risk of loss.

Without a further change nothing has really happened other than pilots have been denied "elite level" performance in zones theoretically designed for "low entry level" combat.

If they implement area of effect to the modules it may be the wrong choice but, so far there is very little either side should complain about. The prolific and widespread use of links will be reduced because there is now a choice to avoid targets with links in place. However, they still have plenty of options and more fights under their influence will occur outside plex acceleration gates.

I thnk there are some justifiable increase risks from the changes so far. It will be harder to setup links on the move and in unprepared areas (more BMs inbound).


"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#409 - 2016-01-03 12:50:42 UTC
Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:
So what has actually changed?

1. Effect of boosted attributes from Warfare links: None (yet)
2. Effect to the the attribute bonus's to all the hulls concerned: None
3. Any hulls removed that provide links: none, one hull type added
4. Effect of links to combat inside novices: no longer possible
5. Effect of links to combat inside smalls: no longer possible
6. Effect of links to combat inside mediums: no longer able to provide many links from one hull (so they'll bring Falcons or Rooks that will show on their killboard performance and mark the pilot)
7. Effect of links in limited complexes: change dependent on "allowed ships"
8. Effect of links in other combat circumstances: links need to be within 6000km. Still only vulnerable to high skilled probes and at nullifying effect not at a significant risk of loss.

Without a further change nothing has really happened other than pilots have been denied "elite level" performance in zones theoretically designed for "low entry level" combat.

If they implement area of effect to the modules it may be the wrong choice but, so far there is very little either side should complain about. The prolific and widespread use of links will be reduced because there is now a choice to avoid targets with links in place. However, they still have plenty of options and more fights under their influence will occur outside plex acceleration gates.

I thnk there are some justifiable increase risks from the changes so far. It will be harder to setup links on the move and in unprepared areas (more BMs inbound).



Did these changes actually happen already?
Dr darkside
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#410 - 2016-01-03 15:02:46 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Dr darkside wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
If boosts become AOE, they will be 1. easier to destroy because of the fact that they are on grid,


this is how this scenario will turn out the blob will have more logi and keep thier booster alive, the little gang will have thier booster raped and the big guy will win. stop thinking from a solo pov and start thinking bout gangs. i have a booster and honestly think the best way to solve them is get rid of them all together.

TLDR:- Facing a big gangs booster on grid will be actually harder than probing and killing or command destroyer jumping and killing ogb ones

If solo pilots can fight against blobs, so can small gangs. Just because some, or most, solo or small gang pilots can't directly compete against blobs, does not mean we should keep this broken game mechanic as it is.



Reading is hard yo do i not say best way to solve is to get rid altogether??
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#411 - 2016-01-03 19:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
Yeah true. When you said "I have a booster and honestly think the best way to solve them is get rid of them all together", I actually misunderstood what you meant and assumed you were implying something else.

Anyway, I've said before that removing links all together would be the simplest and best way to fix them but I really disagree with that now. Aside from being a really messy idea in general, it just won't happen, for many reasons.

Removing off grid links, however, and turning on grid or AOE links into a legitimate, interactive ship class, is a great idea because it will bring an end to a lot of the "AFK" off grid boosting alts and promote the active participation of fleet boosters, and it will even benefit solo and even small gang players because if the links are on grid they will know instantly if any of their enemies have them, and they'll be easier to separate because instead of just having to be in the same system the links also have to be within a certain range on grid.

Lazy and bad pilots will complain that their links will get shot down, but really, what kind of a complaint is that? "We can't put links on grid, are you nuts? They'll get shot down!" Well yeah, that's what happens, especially when you're using an AFK alt for the job of a fleet support ship. Adapt or die.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#412 - 2016-01-04 00:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
For the 100th time in case you missed it. An afk booster is a dead booster. No booster is afk. No booster is godmode. No booster is unprobable. No booster is p2w.

Lazy and bad pilots are the ones saying that its too much effort to prevent boosters from operating. My t3 booster will not get shot down, its just not a combat ship no matter how you fit it so it will not be on field. I will just blob or outclass like everyone else who thinks they are good already do lol.

6000km AOE just means the same gameplay after a BM has been set up. It also means that people who want to fight outside plexes can have boosts and those that want to fight inside plexes cant which creates a rift between those two engagement profiles limiting opportunistic, out of profile fights.

Boosters become the focal point of any larger fight. All one side has to do to win is commit as much as is needed to vaporize the hostile booster(s) which will leave the victim one choice in most scenarios unless they have a number of backup boosters on standby.

Creating a scenario where one sides engagement choices let them have boosts and another side cannot due to other engagement choices will not lead to more content.

I remember a day when gatecamps were the best viable way to make people engage where you wanted them. I see a strong return of those days.

Just remove boosts. CCP is very well committed to alienating the old guard so why go half measures?
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#413 - 2016-01-04 03:18:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Desideratus
Yeah, I just used the term "AFK" because that's the generally understood term that people use even though it's wrong, and I was worried that Dr darkside would not understand me if I used a different term.

You can replace "AFK" with "non-piloted, inactive alt", and the point is valid. Proper AOE links would bring an end to this type of gameplay. And those players who choose to do the same thing with AOE links would now have to put them at the same risk as other non-piloted inactive alts like logi and falcons.

Links are going to get rebalanced so it should be obvious that ships that use links will also most likely get rebalanced. So if links are on grid AOE then T3s will most likely be balanced accordingly. I don't know what your blobbing and thinking you're good has to do with it, but if that's your way of adapting then good on you.

Can you explain how a 6000km AOE means that people inside plexes can't have boosts? The only way this is so is if it is specifically intended to be so, in which case it is not a consequence of AOE boosts but a purposeful denial of links in plexes.

And can you explain how destroying an enemy fleet's booster to win the battle is any different from destroying their logi to win a battle, and explain why it's bad? You make it sound so easy too. "Everyone just shoot the booster and we'll win!" With that kind of simple-minded strategy I'd say you're really likely to lose more than anything. Did you forget the logi can rep the command ship too?

Quote:
6000km AOE just means the same gameplay after a BM has been set up.

Quote:
Creating a scenario where one sides engagement choices let them have boosts and another side cannot due to other engagement choices will not lead to more content.

These two statements seem really contradictory. If it's the same gameplay then how is it a scenario where one side can have boosts and the other can't? If you're talking about links not being allowed in plexes, I've already covered that, correct me if I'm wrong.

And what about gatecamps? I thought gatecamps were still a huge part of the game. I run into gatecamps all over the place, but mostly in null sec. But there's nothing wrong with gatecamps anyway.

Also, links are COMPLETELY pay-to-win, they're like the definition of pay-to-win. You pay for the extra account and you get increased ship stats across the board. How is that not pay-to-win?

By the way, I've been playing since 2006 so I think I actually qualify as old guard, not that it really matters.
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2016-01-04 11:20:33 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:

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.



Phantom Cookies.

Look, I haven't been around that long. I was being nice.

It does seem that not much has been done to reduce the blob nature of the game.

I think the answer here is to make new space in the game for evenly matched fleets of various sizes.

I made a proposal at one time about this, it involved using faction rat ships with the same group jump capability as Black Ops battleships. So the idea is that two opposing rat Blops BS would both jump to a predetermined complex somewhere in New Eden, and that both could jump a certain tonnage of ships.

The idea was that the jumps of both sides would be co-ordinated, and that if you kept your Blops alive it could jump you back with your loot. If it died..... well. Content, in the far reaches of Eve, as stragglers return home.

It would not be hard to fit this into the lore, especially faction warfare. There are already ships that do this, just not NPC ships.

One team could have a mission to smash and grab some item or NPC character, the other side would be sent to stop the mission.

Faction war badly needs some order, and some strategic incentive to go fight for the faction.

Anyway, CCP are spending their time on structures, so, yay for that.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#415 - 2016-01-04 17:42:20 UTC
So you want evenly matched battles, like in call of duty?
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#416 - 2016-01-04 19:32:18 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
So you want evenly matched battles, like in call of duty?


Then he should go play Call of Duty. EVE isn't Call of Duty. EVE is a bit more realistic.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#417 - 2016-01-04 21:04:18 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
So you want evenly matched battles, like in call of duty?


Then he should go play Call of Duty. EVE isn't Call of Duty. EVE is a bit more realistic.

I agree, but I am still not entirely against the idea of some kind of CONCORD-sanctioned battle arena. If it was done right it would bring lots of content and entertainment. It would have to be restricted to a specific group of high-sec systems to work properly, to keep it spectacular, like an exhibition or something. Gambling could be encouraged. It could even be integrated into the war-dec system. For instance, if both parties agreed to settle the war over a duel. This would make sense, since CONCORD sanctions all war-decs as well, correct me if I'm wrong.

It is worth considering, at least. But even if it were to be done, it should not be for a long time because it is just too unimportant to take it off the back burner.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#418 - 2016-01-05 00:58:47 UTC
That's already in the game. It's called Alliance Tournament. It's not around all the time. It has a point value system and a limited number of participants. Prizes. Every year.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#419 - 2016-01-05 02:47:41 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
That's already in the game. It's called Alliance Tournament. It's not around all the time. It has a point value system and a limited number of participants. Prizes. Every year.

Yeah, I guess so. Never really thought of it like that.
Tiffany Starr
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#420 - 2016-01-05 03:01:02 UTC
Tears of impotent rage.