These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Off-grid boosts with warfare links, etc... discontinuing?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PhatController
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#41 - 2016-04-12 22:44:10 UTC
Mining and Combat links should be treated differently, as they are very different.

Mining links have very little/no effect on other players, where's combat links can have very dire effects for other players.

Combat links can be placed on combat capable ships, that a fairly agile/fast and have at least some ability to fight back, and are relatively inexpensive.

Mining links are placed on expensive, very slow ships, and one of them (rorq) requires to be locked into place for 10mins for the full effect of mining links.

As it stands, rorq's are use for boosting from and POS, or as a poor man's jump Freighter. Removing the first will leave this ship as nothing but a bad jump freighter, unless some other significant changes are made.


From an Risk vs Rewards standpoint, the risk of having an Rorq seiged in a belt, far outweighs the reward.
For the Orca in highsec, having it on grid doesn't increase the risk a whole lot, so the risk vs reward their would pretty fair; but once again, in lowsec and to maybe to slightly lesser degree in nullsec, the risk far outweighs the reward, to have an Orca on grid.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2016-04-13 00:24:11 UTC
PhatController wrote:
Mining and Combat links should be treated differently, as they are very different.

Mining links have very little/no effect on other players, where's combat links can have very dire effects for other players.

Bullshit. Have you seen the ice mining fleets in highsec that multibox their way through ice fields in succession, reducing the ability of competition to mine ice?

Similar happens in some systems with the asteroid belts too.

Mining links do have an effect on others, otherwise if you gain no advantage from them, why use them?

Quote:
From an Risk vs Rewards standpoint, the risk of having an Rorq seiged in a belt, far outweighs the reward.
For the Orca in highsec, having it on grid doesn't increase the risk a whole lot, so the risk vs reward their would pretty fair; but once again, in lowsec and to maybe to slightly lesser degree in nullsec, the risk far outweighs the reward, to have an Orca on grid.

Currently. No one is suggesting the Rorqual shouldn't be changed before this occurs, but a new approach to links, coupled with a new role/bonuses for the Rorq could be a different situation to now.

Hopefully the game designers get the Rorq changes right, before links changes.
Quote:
Combat links can be placed on combat capable ships, that a fairly agile/fast and have at least some ability to fight back, and are relatively inexpensive.

Mining links can also be placed on combat ships. If links are bought on grid, there's always the option to stick links on a T3 or command ship, just not to the same effect as putting them on a Rorq.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
PhatController
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#43 - 2016-04-13 01:06:35 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
PhatController wrote:
Mining and Combat links should be treated differently, as they are very different.

Mining links have very little/no effect on other players, where's combat links can have very dire effects for other players.

Bullshit. Have you seen the ice mining fleets in highsec that multibox their way through ice fields in succession, reducing the ability of competition to mine ice?

Similar happens in some systems with the asteroid belts too.

Mining links do have an effect on others, otherwise if you gain no advantage from them, why use them?

Quote:
From an Risk vs Rewards standpoint, the risk of having an Rorq seiged in a belt, far outweighs the reward.
For the Orca in highsec, having it on grid doesn't increase the risk a whole lot, so the risk vs reward their would pretty fair; but once again, in lowsec and to maybe to slightly lesser degree in nullsec, the risk far outweighs the reward, to have an Orca on grid.

Currently. No one is suggesting the Rorqual shouldn't be changed before this occurs, but a new approach to links, coupled with a new role/bonuses for the Rorq could be a different situation to now.

Hopefully the game designers get the Rorq changes right, before links changes.
Quote:
Combat links can be placed on combat capable ships, that a fairly agile/fast and have at least some ability to fight back, and are relatively inexpensive.

Mining links can also be placed on combat ships. If links are bought on grid, there's always the option to stick links on a T3 or command ship, just not to the same effect as putting them on a Rorq.


But in highsec where these massive ice field stripping fleets are, on grid vs of grid boosts wouldn't make a difference, as having the orca sitting in the field has essentially no adverse effects, and many of them are already in Ice Fields as it is.

On your second point, what change to the Rorq could possibly be rewarding enough to warrant the risk of putting an 2 Bikk ISK ship that takes 3 days to align into an belt? Even if you dropped the siege and gave that bonus as default, it still wouldn't be worth putting on of these in a belt. It's very well saying "we can just fix the rorq to make it work with on grid boosting", but I haven't seen any good ideas from anyone on how to achieve this.

On your third point, you are doing exactly what you said we shouldn't be....treating mining links differently. Why should miners have to use combat ships for their links, and lose most of the bonus, if combat links aren't required to use use mining command ships and lose most of their bonus, and usefulness to?
Siigari Kitawa
New Eden Archery Club
#44 - 2016-04-13 07:03:40 UTC
Why not just make Rorqs untargetable and immune to damage while their industrial core is running? As long as they can be fueled, they can stay put providing boosts.

Need stuff moved? Push Industries will handle it. Serving highsec, lowsec and nullsec - and we do it faster and more reliably than anyone else. Ingame channel: PUSHX
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#45 - 2016-04-13 07:07:03 UTC
PhatController wrote:


But in highsec where these massive ice field stripping fleets are, on grid vs of grid boosts wouldn't make a difference, as having the orca sitting in the field has essentially no adverse effects, and many of them are already in Ice Fields as it is.

I suggest doing the maths on how you can ft an Orca with 3 boosts, and see how many catalysts / thrashers it takes to gank it vs the cost of said orca. You may be surprised at what you find, as well as seeing how many die.
PhatController
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-04-13 07:24:15 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
PhatController wrote:


But in highsec where these massive ice field stripping fleets are, on grid vs of grid boosts wouldn't make a difference, as having the orca sitting in the field has essentially no adverse effects, and many of them are already in Ice Fields as it is.

I suggest doing the maths on how you can ft an Orca with 3 boosts, and see how many catalysts / thrashers it takes to gank it vs the cost of said Orca. You may be surprised at what you find, as well as seeing how many die.


Average Cargo fit Orca 110k ehp? No idea how much an Catalyst can do, but could the catalyst gank not do essentially he same amount of ISK damage to the Hulks/Macks on grid?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#47 - 2016-04-13 07:46:20 UTC
PhatController wrote:
Mining and Combat links should be treated differently, as they are very different.

Mining links have very little/no effect on other players, where's combat links can have very dire effects for other players.
As was said that is patently false. The current situation where mandatory risk-free mining boosts are required to be competitive is bad for everyone. It offers no viable choices, adds no meaningful content to the game, and worse, it hurts new players. Why should you get to boost your yield at no risk or effort to yourself behind your invincible POS shields while the new miners who are just starting out get paid only a fraction of what you do?

Both mining and combat links being off-grid not only not interesting gameplay, they are actively bad for the game. They need to go.

That does mean that getting the Rorqual correct so that it is actually used is an issue, and one that I am afraid is not going to be resolved for the release of the Citadel expansion in a few weeks given the silence so far. Perhaps we will indeed have to wait until the links are redone before we get a Rorqual revamp.



The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
PhatController
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2016-04-13 07:59:27 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
PhatController wrote:
Mining and Combat links should be treated differently, as they are very different.

Mining links have very little/no effect on other players, where's combat links can have very dire effects for other players.
As was said that is patently false. The current situation where mandatory risk-free mining boosts are required to be competitive is bad for everyone. It offers no viable choices, adds no meaningful content to the game, and worse, it hurts new players. Why should you get to boost your yield at no risk or effort to yourself behind your invincible POS shields while the new miners who are just starting out get paid only a fraction of what you do?

Both mining and combat links being off-grid not only not interesting gameplay, they are actively bad for the game. They need to go.

That does mean that getting the Rorqual correct so that it is actually used is an issue, and one that I am afraid is not going to be resolved for the release of the Citadel expansion in a few weeks given the silence so far. Perhaps we will indeed have to wait until the links are redone before we get a Rorqual revamp.




POS shields are far from invincible, and require both risk, and effort.

Maybe an solution is requiring MORE risk and effort in having a POS, IE higher cost, and easier to blow them up?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#49 - 2016-04-13 08:08:07 UTC
PhatController wrote:


POS shields are far from invincible, and require both risk, and effort.

Maybe an solution is requiring MORE risk and effort in having a POS, IE higher cost, and easier to blow them up?
POS shields make any ship behind them 100% invincible to the rest of New Eden, kinda by design. It is completely broken that a ship behind such a shield can provide boosts and yet have plenty of time to escape by logging out if nothing else, if by some chance someone decides to attack the shield.

Yes. That solution may take the form of Drilling Platforms. They may serve as valuable, yet vulnerable infrastructure to improve mining yields in a system. That could even completely replace mining links if CCP can't figure out how to get them on-grid.

That still leaves the sad situation of the Rorqual however. I am not sure what role that ship would get.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Prof Dr Haxxx
Peoples Liberation Army
Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2016-04-13 17:40:03 UTC
Over the last few years, since their expansion cadence changed from summer/winter where we had clear and concise changes with exact dates to this random, nonsensical, incoherent just-whenever-dafuq-something-slips-out cadence CCP has relied on ambiguity.

They seem to not want anyone to know when or what. I guess murkiness is the new business model in Iceland. Panama Papers ftw.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#51 - 2016-04-13 17:48:20 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it - for mining links or combat links. Yes, ccp dudes have said that they'd like to get rid of off-grid links, and that they're working on it. But they said this years ago, and they've kept on saying it, and links are still here.

Watch what they do (i.e. nothing), not what they say.
ShadowFirestar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2016-05-14 11:41:23 UTC
Another point to this right now. If i had a rorq out in the field sieged. The new capital rats would turn it to dust. Before i could even say help me.
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2016-05-18 09:17:51 UTC
ShadowFirestar wrote:
Another point to this right now. If i had a rorq out in the field sieged. The new capital rats would turn it to dust. Before i could even say help me.


you need to tank your rorqual better, young grasshopper.
1-2 capital shield boosters + resists should be enough although you might eventually succumb...
You only have to tank 5-10k hits (with base resists) every 5-10 seconds.
If you are still worried drop sentries and kill the support cruisers so the capital warps off...(allegedly)
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#54 - 2016-05-18 11:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Black Pedro wrote:
This isn't speculation. CCP Fozzie has confirmed


its gone when its gone, not earlier. CCPs confirmations arent worth anything unless I see the change in patch notes.

OGB are useful and needed when you engage a group of ships solo. Many of these nice youtube fight videos wouldnt exist without OGB.
CCP might remove them however regardless of what we say, yet that would hurt the game some more IMO.
Rogwar Toralen
AZLE FUN STUFF
#55 - 2016-05-18 14:11:06 UTC
Changes to mining boosts may be irritating for my industrial side but open up all sorts of high value game content for my stealth bomber and recon experience. Also I've never understood the bit of negativity toward people who mine. Many I know also pvp and use it as one source of income or build their own ships.

Generally the shiny ships you fly would not exist without ore. Make things notably more difficult for miners and I suppose ore would increase in price. Subsequently ships and structures go up in price.

When boosting changes come about there will be bugs and unintended consequences. CCP will deal with the bugs. We will deal with changes to the sandbox.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#56 - 2016-05-18 15:44:54 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
This isn't speculation. CCP Fozzie has confirmed


its gone when its gone, not earlier. CCPs confirmations arent worth anything unless I see the change in patch notes.

OGB are useful and needed when you engage a group of ships solo. Many of these nice youtube fight videos wouldnt exist without OGB.
CCP might remove them however regardless of what we say, yet that would hurt the game some more IMO.

Oh, they are going away in the next few months: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/summer/#4iQXx

As said at Fanfest the work is well underway and will likely come with the Rorqual rebalance: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/summer/#wxiuJ

You can live in denial if you want (and 'Summer' might indeed become 'Fall'), but if you had intentions of making a YouTube video using them, I would get on the that project right away.

Rogwar Toralen wrote:
Generally the shiny ships you fly would not exist without ore. Make things notably more difficult for miners and I suppose ore would increase in price. Subsequently ships and structures go up in price.

When boosting changes come about there will be bugs and unintended consequences. CCP will deal with the bugs. We will deal with changes to the sandbox.
While indeed the economy needs ore, there is no reason to suggest making mining safer and easier would be better for the game. If you though that, you should just advocate for CCP to give free ore or ships to everyone so that ships would go down in price.

What makes Eve great is that our virtual assets have meaning and they have meaning because they are risky or require effort to get, and can be lost. Miners should be embracing this change as it opens up a window for the brave and organized miners to make more money at the expense of the lazy and risk-averse ones. Further, if mining does somehow get harder as a result of this change, ore prices will go up and the good miners will be making more ISK/h at their profession.

You are right, the sandbox will adjust. The bigger change for miners could be coming in the Drilling Platforms: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/winter/#2z5cx

Changes are indeed incoming. New Eden will not be the same.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#57 - 2016-05-18 15:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Black Pedro wrote:

Oh, they are going away in the next few months: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/summer/#4iQXx


"we will be looking blablabla... "

Your link is full of certainty. you can keep posting 15 of then, I'd only believe when its done, which I dont see tbh - links are needed and they give options, effectively removing them is a very bad idea IMO.

You think blinking on field, activating AoE effect, then warping off and cloaking will fix anything?
Rogwar Toralen
AZLE FUN STUFF
#58 - 2016-05-18 16:01:13 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
This isn't speculation. CCP Fozzie has confirmed


its gone when its gone, not earlier. CCPs confirmations arent worth anything unless I see the change in patch notes.

OGB are useful and needed when you engage a group of ships solo. Many of these nice youtube fight videos wouldnt exist without OGB.
CCP might remove them however regardless of what we say, yet that would hurt the game some more IMO.

Oh, they are going away in the next few months: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/summer/#4iQXx

As said at Fanfest the work is well underway and will likely come with the Rorqual rebalance: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/summer/#wxiuJ

You can live in denial if you want (and 'Summer' might indeed become 'Fall'), but if you had intentions of making a YouTube video using them, I would get on the that project right away.

Rogwar Toralen wrote:
Generally the shiny ships you fly would not exist without ore. Make things notably more difficult for miners and I suppose ore would increase in price. Subsequently ships and structures go up in price.

When boosting changes come about there will be bugs and unintended consequences. CCP will deal with the bugs. We will deal with changes to the sandbox.
While indeed the economy needs ore, there is no reason to suggest making mining safer and easier would be better for the game. If you though that, you should just advocate for CCP to give free ore or ships to everyone so that ships would go down in price.

What makes Eve great is that our virtual assets have meaning and they have meaning because they are risky or require effort to get, and can be lost. Miners should be embracing this change as it opens up a window for the brave and organized miners to make more money at the expense of the lazy and risk-averse ones. Further, if mining does somehow get harder as a result of this change, ore prices will go up and the good miners will be making more ISK/h at their profession.

You are right, the sandbox will adjust. The bigger change for miners could be coming in the Drilling Platforms: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/winter/#2z5cx

Changes are indeed incoming. New Eden will not be the same.


I did not suggest or even intend to hint that mining should be made safer. Was just commenting along the same lines about the eve economy and risk vs reward.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#59 - 2016-05-18 16:03:35 UTC
PhatController wrote:
But in highsec where these massive ice field stripping fleets are, on grid vs of grid boosts wouldn't make a difference, as having the orca sitting in the field has essentially no adverse effects, and many of them are already in Ice Fields as it is.

^^^^^ this is true. I was mining Glaze on Sunday and there were 14 ships on station mining the field. Four of those ships were Orca's with three of them having Mackinaws doing the supply side. One had three Procurers feeding it.

I personally think all boosting/logistics ships need to be within 100km of any ship getting benefits from it. This way they can be seen and attacked. Otherwise it's just stealth bonus points that's risk free and 'risk free' =/= EVE.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Black Pedro
Mine.
#60 - 2016-05-18 16:18:27 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Oh, they are going away in the next few months: https://updates.eveonline.com/coming/summer/#4iQXx


"we will be looking blablabla... "

Your link is full of certainty. you can keep posting 15 of then, I'd only believe when its done, which I dont see tbh - links are needed and they give options, effectively removing them is a very bad idea IMO.

You think blinking on field, activating AoE effect, then warping off and cloaking will fix anything?
What makes you think you will be able to warp and/or cloak after using them?

But yes, even if you have to be on grid only for a short while it is a better situation that what we have now with hidden, or even invulnerable ships in the case of mining boosts, being used to influence a fight (or resource gathering). You will still be able to get an advantage from your support boosts though, it just won't be so risk-free.

There will still be plenty of options on the table if you have support links available and there will be reasons to bring them. Your advantage from having boosts isn't going away so there is no need to fear this change.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?