These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[proposal] limit gang links to a single grid

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
El Geo
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#261 - 2012-05-11 12:36:59 UTC
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players

like transfering the static ded sites to the constellations anomaly lists?

CDIA Based overlay resource for After Effects 6

Eve pathfinders Youtube
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2012-05-11 19:47:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
retracted
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#263 - 2012-07-23 17:43:14 UTC
Any csm interested in this?

It is especially lame for the small scale pvp we get in faction war.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
nomlet
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#264 - 2012-07-24 04:53:56 UTC
Initially I was against this, but after reading all of the responses I've been convinced. It's a good idea.

+1
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#265 - 2012-08-02 21:30:49 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
paritybit wrote:
Gang links should only apply to the grid where they are active.

Off-grid gang links these days are pretty popular with "solo" players and small groups that operate in a single solar system. I believe that if a pilot and ship are affecting your on-grid combat, they should be on-grid with you so that there is a chance to eliminate the force multiplier. This is already the case with every other ship and module that affects combat unless you count assigned fighters -- and in that case you can destroy the fighters to eliminate their effect.

I have no problem with gang links in general as I've been the beneficiary probably more often than the victim, but someone ought to be at the helm and the ship ought to be vulnerable to counterattack.

Likely the main detractors will say that since a gang linked ship has to be uncloaked to provide bonuses it is vulnerable -- but this isn't true if the ship is at a POS.



This means that the whole fleet has to stay together in the system. Eg: you cant have the heavy ships shooting a POS and the lights camping the in gate..


Sure you could they just both wouldn't get the bonuses.

Malcanis wrote:

Also, the Fleet Command ships will need to be reworked to be able to have buffer tanks comporable to the Damnation; the Eos and the Claymore will need to lose their lolrep bonuses in favour of some kind of EHP boost. Shield tanking Fleet Commands may also need their slot layout revising, as the Command Processors replace tanking mids..


This seems reasonable.

Malcanis wrote:

Being required to be on grid would make T3 gangboosters effectively useless.


Well maybe. I really don't know would you still maybe have one in a t3 fleet? Yeah you would probably not want to run the no tank all booster variety but whether any sort of fits with a booster would ever be viable I don't know.

But even if your right the advantages to eve combat as a whole I think far outweigh nerfing the effectiveness of this one ability that t3s have.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2012-08-03 01:24:24 UTC
Overall, I support this proposal. I would like to see a more nuanced change where you had to be within X AU, X km away from a POS/station/gate (unless the fleet is on grid with you), no boosts from inside the POS bubble, etc. (at the end of the day, if you're uncloaked and outside of a POS, you're vulnerable). However, as a quick and initial fix, I support this.
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#267 - 2012-08-03 07:40:36 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
MNagy wrote:
I agree with this ...

I would however leave 'mining' bonus's off the table.

Orca's and Rorqs cost waaaay too much with minimal defenses to force them to be sitting in an asteroid belt in 0.0 space.

Otherwise +1

Damn pharisaism.

+1 for making me go look that up. And yes I agree. There's no reason to apply special treatment to miners. If they want the bonuses then the orca or whatever bonus giving ship should be fulfilling it's role by being on field.



Bugsy VanHalen wrote:


...... Roqual could be kept inside the shield and used for compression but if you want to benefit from the fleet boosts you need to take it out of the POS.

Just my 0.02 isk, and for the record I do run mining fleets and usually have my ORCA in belt with the other ships. So much more efficient and a little risk reduces the boredom.


Unlike the Orca the Roqual goes into indu siege mode for fleet boosting ... making it immoblie and very vulnerable to roams if it needs to be on the grid.

Rorqual transformation
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#268 - 2012-08-03 08:44:48 UTC
I support this!

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#269 - 2012-08-03 08:45:07 UTC
double post

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#270 - 2012-08-06 16:26:25 UTC
Kyshonuba wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
MNagy wrote:
I agree with this ...

I would however leave 'mining' bonus's off the table.

Orca's and Rorqs cost waaaay too much with minimal defenses to force them to be sitting in an asteroid belt in 0.0 space.

Otherwise +1

Damn pharisaism.

+1 for making me go look that up. And yes I agree. There's no reason to apply special treatment to miners. If they want the bonuses then the orca or whatever bonus giving ship should be fulfilling it's role by being on field.



Bugsy VanHalen wrote:


...... Roqual could be kept inside the shield and used for compression but if you want to benefit from the fleet boosts you need to take it out of the POS.

Just my 0.02 isk, and for the record I do run mining fleets and usually have my ORCA in belt with the other ships. So much more efficient and a little risk reduces the boredom.


Unlike the Orca the Roqual goes into indu siege mode for fleet boosting ... making it immoblie and very vulnerable to roams if it needs to be on the grid.

Rorqual transformation



Yeah i don't think anyone cares too much about the mining bonuses one way or another.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Terminator56
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#271 - 2012-08-07 17:04:09 UTC
I understand where people are coming from on this, however i disagree with making boosters only work on grid. Since the removal of "unprobeablilty", T3 boosters have become increasingly vulnerable to combat. They have very week tanks and arn't that hard to catch. I feel that most people are whining because they have been killed by someone with a booster, and thus try to use it as an excuse for being bad at PVP. If someone brings a boosted 100mn tengu into your system, undock a webbing loki; problem solved. In my opinion, having a booster in a pos gives the owning corp/alliance a "homefield" advantage to people trying to come into their system and blob them. If you fly smart, boosters are easily countered. People are just stupid and get easily butthurt about some guy killing their lolfit fleets.
Tanae Avalhar
Doomheim
#272 - 2012-08-07 23:59:54 UTC
Terminator56 wrote:
I understand where people are coming from on this, however i disagree with making boosters only work on grid. Since the removal of "unprobeablilty", T3 boosters have become increasingly vulnerable to combat. They have very week tanks and arn't that hard to catch. I feel that most people are whining because they have been killed by someone with a booster, and thus try to use it as an excuse for being bad at PVP. If someone brings a boosted 100mn tengu into your system, undock a webbing loki; problem solved. In my opinion, having a booster in a pos gives the owning corp/alliance a "homefield" advantage to people trying to come into their system and blob them. If you fly smart, boosters are easily countered. People are just stupid and get easily butthurt about some guy killing their lolfit fleets.


100% agree with this. Putting boosters on grid will dumb the game too much. Off grid boodters should provide a bonus to the better prepared fleet. If you can't probe them down because you don't have a scout with skills then too bad, you deserve to be at a disadvantage for being unprepared.

Someones **[u]always[/u] watching**
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#273 - 2012-08-09 14:29:39 UTC
Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Terminator56 wrote:
I understand where people are coming from on this, however i disagree with making boosters only work on grid. Since the removal of "unprobeablilty", T3 boosters have become increasingly vulnerable to combat. They have very week tanks and arn't that hard to catch. I feel that most people are whining because they have been killed by someone with a booster, and thus try to use it as an excuse for being bad at PVP. If someone brings a boosted 100mn tengu into your system, undock a webbing loki; problem solved. In my opinion, having a booster in a pos gives the owning corp/alliance a "homefield" advantage to people trying to come into their system and blob them. If you fly smart, boosters are easily countered. People are just stupid and get easily butthurt about some guy killing their lolfit fleets.


100% agree with this. Putting boosters on grid will dumb the game too much. Off grid boodters should provide a bonus to the better prepared fleet. If you can't probe them down because you don't have a scout with skills then too bad, you deserve to be at a disadvantage for being unprepared.



By "better prepared" you mean people should have a "scanning alt" to find the "boosting alts."

Alts-online.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Terminator56
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#274 - 2012-08-09 17:41:09 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Terminator56 wrote:
I understand where people are coming from on this, however i disagree with making boosters only work on grid. Since the removal of "unprobeablilty", T3 boosters have become increasingly vulnerable to combat. They have very week tanks and arn't that hard to catch. I feel that most people are whining because they have been killed by someone with a booster, and thus try to use it as an excuse for being bad at PVP. If someone brings a boosted 100mn tengu into your system, undock a webbing loki; problem solved. In my opinion, having a booster in a pos gives the owning corp/alliance a "homefield" advantage to people trying to come into their system and blob them. If you fly smart, boosters are easily countered. People are just stupid and get easily butthurt about some guy killing their lolfit fleets.


100% agree with this. Putting boosters on grid will dumb the game too much. Off grid boodters should provide a bonus to the better prepared fleet. If you can't probe them down because you don't have a scout with skills then too bad, you deserve to be at a disadvantage for being unprepared.



By "better prepared" you mean people should have a "scanning alt" to find the "boosting alts."

Alts-online.


More money for CCP that way, why would they want to change it?
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#275 - 2012-08-09 19:24:46 UTC
Terminator56 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Terminator56 wrote:
I understand where people are coming from on this, however i disagree with making boosters only work on grid. Since the removal of "unprobeablilty", T3 boosters have become increasingly vulnerable to combat. They have very week tanks and arn't that hard to catch. I feel that most people are whining because they have been killed by someone with a booster, and thus try to use it as an excuse for being bad at PVP. If someone brings a boosted 100mn tengu into your system, undock a webbing loki; problem solved. In my opinion, having a booster in a pos gives the owning corp/alliance a "homefield" advantage to people trying to come into their system and blob them. If you fly smart, boosters are easily countered. People are just stupid and get easily butthurt about some guy killing their lolfit fleets.


100% agree with this. Putting boosters on grid will dumb the game too much. Off grid boodters should provide a bonus to the better prepared fleet. If you can't probe them down because you don't have a scout with skills then too bad, you deserve to be at a disadvantage for being unprepared.



By "better prepared" you mean people should have a "scanning alt" to find the "boosting alts."

Alts-online.


More money for CCP that way, why would they want to change it?


It may seem like a good idea to basically require everyone to have alts logged in to pvp. But I think this just turns people off from the game. Not to mention how eve will be a nonstarter for new players, if it continues to foster a reputation that you need to play several alts to be competitive. Alt scouts, alt boosters etc. I think the alt haulers are ok because they can be one of your 3 characters on the same account.

But for things like boosters and scanning alts you need to buy multiple accounts. This emphasis has to be hurting the game.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#276 - 2012-08-11 18:15:16 UTC
I agree, boosts should be on grid.

Miners may not like their orca on grid with them in a wormhole but then again that's the price of getting boosts.
Riku Klayton
Ember Inc.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#277 - 2012-08-11 19:51:18 UTC
paritybit wrote:
Gang links should only apply to the grid where they are active.

Off-grid gang links these days are pretty popular with "solo" players and small groups that operate in a single solar system. I believe that if a pilot and ship are affecting your on-grid combat, they should be on-grid with you so that there is a chance to eliminate the force multiplier. This is already the case with every other ship and module that affects combat unless you count assigned fighters -- and in that case you can destroy the fighters to eliminate their effect.

I have no problem with gang links in general as I've been the beneficiary probably more often than the victim, but someone ought to be at the helm and the ship ought to be vulnerable to counterattack.

Likely the main detractors will say that since a gang linked ship has to be uncloaked to provide bonuses it is vulnerable -- but this isn't true if the ship is at a POS.



this could be difficult since sometimes the Grid is not correct and you cant see 35km anything... I am having it right now where I only see 70km radius of this Icebelt, and not the full ~300 kilometers
gall turk
Doomheim
#278 - 2012-08-16 08:06:15 UTC
Its all well and good making booster limited to a single grid, but often gangs would like have different kind of gang, take the shield gang wanting information links aswell as the siege/skirmish they either shield tank and eos??!?! or they have to put them onto another claymore and not get the full affect.

Or a bigger problem I believe comes with armour gangs wanting skirmish links, armour claymors are not likely and whilst it is possible to armour tank an on field booster loki but only 2 links but if they are looking at changing t3's these will not be affective so again it would be a damntion with skirmish links on.

Now many will say that's a worth while penalty but it puts armour fleets in worse position not been able to get armour links and skirmish links to full affect whereas as a shield gang can have both siege and skirmish link to full affect.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#279 - 2012-09-19 15:04:37 UTC
gall turk wrote:
Its all well and good making booster limited to a single grid, but often gangs would like have different kind of gang, take the shield gang wanting information links aswell as the siege/skirmish they either shield tank and eos??!?! or they have to put them onto another claymore and not get the full affect.

Or a bigger problem I believe comes with armour gangs wanting skirmish links, armour claymors are not likely and whilst it is possible to armour tank an on field booster loki but only 2 links but if they are looking at changing t3's these will not be affective so again it would be a damntion with skirmish links on.

Now many will say that's a worth while penalty but it puts armour fleets in worse position not been able to get armour links and skirmish links to full affect whereas as a shield gang can have both siege and skirmish link to full affect.


Although you can now have an armor gang with skirmish links thanks to off grid boosting that doesn't necessarilly mean you must be able to have this.

If it is decided you must be able to use every sort of booster with every type of gang then they can address this issue.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2012-10-29 20:07:47 UTC
CCP still hasn't figured this one out. Gotta keep it on top so that the CSM can see it.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821