These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why Off Grid booster nerf won't happen (ever) or won't be what you think

First post
Author
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#61 - 2012-08-14 14:12:23 UTC
Urgg Boolean wrote:
I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.

The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef.



Because EVERY SHIP should need to be on grid and be in the danger of combat to affect the combat!
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-08-14 14:12:30 UTC
Urgg Boolean wrote:
I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.

The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef.



I think the main problem is that T3s are better boosters than command ships and they are fairly safe in SS and basically invincible in a POS. This makes it so that the defenders of a system can perma-run a CS or a T3 in a POS forever and have that permanent edge over anybody that comes in. If it is in a SS, then it can be scanned down and killed. (And yes this does happen alot more often than you think.)

This is why I say remove the ability to boost from a POS.

Limit the T3 to less pilots so small gangs who use these aren't crippled/nerfed. But huge fleets would require a CS to get bonuses as the T3 cannot provide to everybody.

Every ship has it's role, and there are no blatantly overpowered tactics available to some groups.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-08-14 14:12:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Diesel47 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Umm... Why it's so difficult to just train CS5?


Why is it difficult to read a thread and understand every viewpoint on the matter?


Sorry if I'm being harsh, but you really should take a look around the thread and find out why the problem can't just be solved with training one skill.


Yeah, "buff T3s and nerf T2!"...

Diesel47 wrote:
Limit the T3 to less pilots so small gangs who use these aren't crippled/nerfed. But huge fleets would require a CS to get bonuses as the T3 cannot provide to everybody.


What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-08-14 14:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Seishi Maru wrote:
Urgg Boolean wrote:
I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.

The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef.



Because EVERY SHIP should need to be on grid and be in the danger of combat to affect the combat!


Not everybody agrees with you. I personally don't.

This simplifies the game to derp mode IMO.

I think probers being a valuable part of a fleet fight is a good thing. If you want to find that OGB, then get yourself a decent prober. Stop trying to simplify the game :P


Next we are gunna hear "cloaks are OP, all ships need to visible" and "range is OP, all ships need to be 5km or less to fight."

No thanks.




Jorma Morkkis wrote:

What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?



Did this really need asking?

And I never said "buff T3 and nerf T2", I actually said the opposite. Go read the thread harder. :P
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-08-14 14:30:05 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?



Did this really need asking?


Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad.

Why it's so difficult to see the problem?
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-08-14 14:35:10 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?



Did this really need asking?


Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad.

Why it's so difficult to see the problem?



Maybe because to do something like that you would require 120 months of total training on all the pilots and about 10bil worth of tengus?


If they nerf the falcon so that if you want to get the same effectiveness you'd have to bring 20 falcons, does that make the falcon OP?

If they nerf Scimitars so that you need 20 scimis instead of one to do the same rep, are scimis still OP?



I don't think you are being serious.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#67 - 2012-08-14 14:37:15 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?



Did this really need asking?


Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad.

Why it's so difficult to see the problem?


So In fleets to 256 your going to have 25 off grid boosting tengues? Good luck with that Idea. What the OP is saying about limiting boosting T3's to squad mmand only is an option that would limit them. The problem that someone else has mentioned was that boosting T3's are damn hard to probe out. If you made it so that Gang links or better yet the Command Processors so that the more links you fit onto a T3 after 1 makes it easier to scan would be a great idea. My 2 cents
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-08-14 14:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
MIrple wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?



Did this really need asking?


Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad.

Why it's so difficult to see the problem?


So In fleets to 256 your going to have 25 off grid boosting tengues? Good luck with that Idea. What the OP is saying about limiting boosting T3's to squad mmand only is an option that would limit them. The problem that someone else has mentioned was that boosting T3's are damn hard to probe out. If you made it so that Gang links or better yet the Command Processors so that the more links you fit onto a T3 after 1 makes it easier to scan would be a great idea. My 2 cents



They are hard to probe out if the person fitting the T3 is smart and knows how to make it hard-to-probe.

Otherwise they are just like any other ship.


And since the T3 user took counter measures against probing, it is only fair for the prober to have something extra of his own to be able to probe the T3. Which are things like probing implants and faction probes/launcher.

One might say that the prober is investing more money to find the T3 while the T3 only has to fit some ECCM modules.

But the fact of the mater is, the counter measures aren't 100% effective so the increased cost is okay for the prober, seeing as he can always find the T3. Albeit it takes a bit longer, he still always will get a lock if fast or skilled enough.

On top of that a cov ops is a very safe vessel, so the cost of the modules and implants will work for a very very long time if the pilot isn't dunce. Also a T3 is a very expensive loss.. The skill point reduction also hurts.


I believe this give probers a very important role in PVP, and a reason to invest in things like probing implants and sister's gear.

If they were to remove OGBs, they would also remove this important job for probers.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-08-14 14:48:51 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
If they nerf the falcon so that if you want to get the same effectiveness you'd have to bring 20 falcons, does that make the falcon OP?

If they nerf Scimitars so that you need 20 scimis instead of one to do the same rep, are scimis still OP?


Is Tengu T2? No.
Is Falcon T2? Yes.
Is Scimitar T2? Yes.

Any reason why T3s should remain better at boosting compared to command ships? T2 battlecruisers (aka command ships) should be best at boosting.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-08-14 14:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
If they nerf the falcon so that if you want to get the same effectiveness you'd have to bring 20 falcons, does that make the falcon OP?

If they nerf Scimitars so that you need 20 scimis instead of one to do the same rep, are scimis still OP?


Is Tengu T2? No.
Is Falcon T2? Yes.
Is Scimitar T2? Yes.

Any reason why T3s should remain better at boosting compared to command ships? T2 battlecruisers (aka command ships) should be best at boosting.


Good luck with your life.

Also, post with main.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#71 - 2012-08-14 14:57:57 UTC
Quote:
Why do you think falcons are still viable and not just removed from the game? People pay subs for these alts, and this creates more revenue. They are not short-term alt subs either, I've been running my alt for more than 2 years.


Yes, but Falcon alts are of sharply limited use since they have to be close enough that you have to pay attention to them.
Just like boosting characters will still be useful, but boosting alts will be terrible because you'll actually have to pay attention to them.

Quote:
CCP needs money bad since they are working on two games now instead of one, did you forget that dust 514 existed? Oh wait, theres also world of darkness. Why do you assume CCP doesn't want $?


I don't recall saying CCP doesn't want money, I recall saying that they make more money by fixing their game.

Quote:

And long term balance is more important than subs? LoL. Do you not remember how long hybrids were horrible for? I for one didn't even expect them to ever balance that weapon system. And It isn't "balance is good" It is "greed is good
"
They were mediocre, but not really bad. You're aware that the buff they got was relatively minor, yes?
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#72 - 2012-08-14 15:03:57 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:
Urgg Boolean wrote:
I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.

The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef.



Because EVERY SHIP should need to be on grid and be in the danger of combat to affect the combat!


Not everybody agrees with you. I personally don't.

This simplifies the game to derp mode IMO.

I think probers being a valuable part of a fleet fight is a good thing. If you want to find that OGB, then get yourself a decent prober. Stop trying to simplify the game :P



Luckly is not your opnion that matters but of the main game designers.

And I can return your statement.. if you want to kjeep your booster safe PILOT IT! Stop tryign to dumb down the game to the point where you don even need to be on keyboard!
Whisperen
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#73 - 2012-08-14 15:06:06 UTC
Yeah CCP remove off grid booster because my fictional ten man gang cant pos bash. We dont have dreads you see. Also none of us know how to use probes or have the money for virtues and its bad for the game because we are being dictated to by hundreds of people how dare they play differently or one person and his alt how dare he play that way! And we all know no other gameplay is more important then my fictional lowsec roaming gang!
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-08-14 15:06:14 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
I agree with you on this, you are right.. I don't think this is possible though. I'll explain...SNIP...EvE Online, In general ... Is just easier / maybe more fun when you have multiple accounts. It's just how the entire game is, and changing it would change the game drastically IMO, so it will never happen.


While I agree that the game is definitely easier and perhaps more fun when you have multiple accounts, that's PRECISELY what the problem is! Those should not be alt accounts. All those falcons and haulers and so on should be PEOPLE, not multiboxed alts. What EVE is right now is an ILLUSION of a universe. What it is in reality is a handful of people (relatively speaking) with borderline split personality disorder creating a microcosm of sorts. Instead of depending and playing with other people, they depend and play with their own alts. In a way, EVE is a lot like The Sims.

And a fix for it is quite easy - one client per computer, and if that doesn't work, one login per IP address. But this is where I 100% agree with you that this will never happen. Two reasons. One is that CCP simply cannot afford, financially, mechanically and prestige-wise, to lose 2/3rds or more of its accounts. And the second reason I don't believe they have the guts to make changes to the game that are that drastic, they're walking a fine edge as it is right now, what with Dust (which the popular opinion holds will flop) and WoD in the works. At this stage, it would just kill the game. Too many vets think that their main + 3 alts = "solo". Take that away, and they'll all have massive coronaries. Death toll would be horrific.

And even if they did this, they would have to do it in stages as well. For example, they can't just kill botting/AFK harvesting for miners. Miners would no longer be alts, they would be dedicated players who only mine. This means mining would have to be interesting and as profitable in ISK/hr as other professions, otherwise nobody would do it. Currently it's done AFK by alts and bots, which sort of works.

Sometimes I feel EVE is flawed at the very core by design. There's too many terrible, stupid, boring mechanics in this game (mining, missions, etc.) that no sane human being would dedicate their time to as a "main". Hence the alts. Hence anything that threatens "alt-itis" will not happen or be ineffective. Because they can't afford to do it any other way. Sad but true.

Bottom line - my wishful thinking aside - I think you're right. It's not going to happen, or at least not the way people think. Too many of the game's mechanics depend on alts for the game as a whole to continue to function. Though I still maintain it is very risky for CCP to continue to ignore it. One good solid slip, like Inarnageddon last year, and it could easily see this game off. It's happened before. Nobody quite knows what the critical mass for a collapse of a game is, but once it is reached, that's it. The next step to trying to save it is full blown F2P item shop (see Age of Conan, SWTOR, etc.) Alts are good, but they make for a much too fragile game population.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-08-14 15:08:11 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Good luck with your life.

Also, post with main.


Because T3s are more expensive or is the fact that you need less SPs to be better?
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#76 - 2012-08-14 15:19:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Kahega Amielden wrote:



I don't recall saying CCP doesn't want money, I recall saying that they make more money by fixing their game.


What is the reasoning behind that?

Alot of people don't think the game is currently broken. Me included.

Seishi Maru wrote:

Luckly is not your opnion that matters but of the main game designers.

And I can return your statement.. if you want to kjeep your booster safe PILOT IT! Stop tryign to dumb down the game to the point where you don even need to be on keyboard!


Every killmail you've been on has 40+ people on it. Just because you've never had a pvp encounter that wasn't a blobfest doesn't mean that other forms of pvp doesn't exist.

If anything, blob warfare has to be some of the "dumbest" pvp in the game. Unless you are the FC.


And my booster is never safe, if my enemies are worth a damn they will scan down my alt and kill it.


Kahega Amielden wrote:

They were mediocre, but not really bad. You're aware that the buff they got was relatively minor, yes?


I think that blasters are a great weapons system now. They are competitive with the other turrets now.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2012-08-14 15:58:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugia3
As of right now, the OGB is out of harms way for the most part, and open to be found by enemy scouts. If OGBs were to be removed, it would bring some heavy changes, some positive and some negative.

Shield fleets would have a harder time keeping their booster alive, as he would have to give up tank for command modules. Armor fleet boosters wouldn't have to sacrifice any tank for command modules, due to his tank being in low slots.

For example, with Incursions, we park our fleets OGB in the trailer park while he provides boosts next to the refitting orca. Shields would lose there edge over armor, due to the on-grid booster being fragile. Armor wouldn't be affected as much, due to the booster being much easier to keep alive.

Personally, I don't want on-grid boosters. I see no problem with the off-grid boosters if you know what to do about them.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-08-14 16:06:02 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Why not just put a limitation on the boosters themselves that prevents warp for a short period of time and prevents use inside a POS?

While in a POS you cannot boost, fleet boosters do not work while in warp and you cannot initiate warp for 5 seconds after disengaging fleet booster.

This will require the booster to be in system and provides ample time for anybody trying to scan for him to scan him down and kill him. No more invulnerable fleet boosters but still off grid.

This guy got it right. He is a genius!

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

Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-08-14 16:31:51 UTC
Quote:
1. No boosting inside a POS bubble (this is just downright unfair)

your idea would be the death of the rorq. many people pay for accounts just to use a rorq to support their mining operations. but since the beast is very expensive, has no defense of it's own, and must be in siege mode to do it's job, your idea would guarentee that no one could use the ship again.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-08-14 16:34:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Quote:
1. No boosting inside a POS bubble (this is just downright unfair)

your idea would be the death of the rorq. many people pay for accounts just to use a rorq to support their mining operations. but since the beast is very expensive, has no defense of it's own, and must be in siege mode to do it's job, your idea would guarentee that no one could use the ship again.


I didn't even consider that ship when I made the thread. Lets see what CCP does... or doesn't.

But any other type of boosting inside a POS should be not allowed.