These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 boosting alts trying to evade the nerfbat
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#21 - 2012-08-15 13:42:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Why not instead of nerfing off-grid boosting, increase the incentive to put them on-grid?
Because between choosing to risk losing the ship and its fleet-wide benefits (for a damnation, that can easily equate to millions of HP on the field across even a small subcap fleet) and not having those benefits go away three seconds into the fight, anyone with a bit of sense will choose the latter.

You'll have to take into consideration that these are prime targets that will be evaporated once the numbers go up. The on-grid benefits would have to be ridiculously large to outweigh that and that completely breaks them at the lower-end of the fleet size spectrum.

brain-barf edit: …in fact, in a sense, if you'd want to go that way, the solution would probably have to be rather backwards: you reduce the boost they give overall so that losing one won't make that much difference, but then we immediately go into “so why bring one?” territory. I suppose you could fix that issue by making them generally appealing to fly for anyone, even the fleet CSes, so that the actual boosters can hide in the crowd of all those other people flying the same ship, only those others have filled up all their highs with tons of weaponry instead of command modules.



I think you are too much focused on actual command ships to do the job.

EVE allows fleet boosts to be fitted on: tier1/2 BCs, CSs, T3s, Carriers and Titans.

If a fleet is that large that they have to fear having their booster exploded instantely, then maybe they should go with less, but safer boosts p.ex on capitals, or better hidden boosts (Try finding the 3 boosting drakes or the boosting T3 in a pile of several hundred without metagaming). The choices are already present in the game, people just don't want to accept the downsides.
Or you could always bring more commandships than the enemy can destroy in reasonable time.


P.S: The same goes for small gangs, if you don't want to risk a T3/CS then boost from a standard BC, get half the boni and be happy with that.
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2012-08-15 14:03:53 UTC
+1 Go big or go home.

Hows my posting? Call 1-800-747-7633 to leave feedback.
feihcsiM
THE B0YS
#23 - 2012-08-15 14:13:16 UTC
I fully support this initiative to have rorquals sat on-grid in belts with mining ships. Big smile

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#24 - 2012-08-15 14:15:15 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Why not instead of nerfing off-grid boosting, increase the incentive to put them on-grid?
Because between choosing to risk losing the ship and its fleet-wide benefits (for a damnation, that can easily equate to millions of HP on the field across even a small subcap fleet) and not having those benefits go away three seconds into the fight, anyone with a bit of sense will choose the latter.

You'll have to take into consideration that these are prime targets that will be evaporated once the numbers go up. The on-grid benefits would have to be ridiculously large to outweigh that and that completely breaks them at the lower-end of the fleet size spectrum.

brain-barf edit: …in fact, in a sense, if you'd want to go that way, the solution would probably have to be rather backwards: you reduce the boost they give overall so that losing one won't make that much difference, but then we immediately go into “so why bring one?” territory. I suppose you could fix that issue by making them generally appealing to fly for anyone, even the fleet CSes, so that the actual boosters can hide in the crowd of all those other people flying the same ship, only those others have filled up all their highs with tons of weaponry instead of command modules.



I think you are too much focused on actual command ships to do the job.

EVE allows fleet boosts to be fitted on: tier1/2 BCs, CSs, T3s, Carriers and Titans.

If a fleet is that large that they have to fear having their booster exploded instantely, then maybe they should go with less, but safer boosts p.ex on capitals, or better hidden boosts (Try finding the 3 boosting drakes or the boosting T3 in a pile of several hundred without metagaming). The choices are already present in the game, people just don't want to accept the downsides.
Or you could always bring more commandships than the enemy can destroy in reasonable time.


P.S: The same goes for small gangs, if you don't want to risk a T3/CS then boost from a standard BC, get half the boni and be happy with that.

In that case why not make the change on the Modules themselves? 2% command Bonus is current, make is 3% for on Grid, and if you really want to nerf the off grid, reduce the standard off grid to 1%
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-08-15 14:28:22 UTC
which ever way you slice it boosting alts needing to be on grid means a decent number of accounts not being paid any more.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Medarr
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-08-15 14:34:27 UTC
Offgrid boosters... wait werent those them expensive ships sitting by their onesy off grid somewhere in a place they thought was safe?...
jimmy alt
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-08-15 14:42:19 UTC
My Rorqual is an off gride booster. So don't touch nothing basterds.
Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
Valentius Corporation Alliance
#28 - 2012-08-15 14:46:10 UTC
jimmy alt wrote:
My Rorqual is an off gride booster. So don't touch nothing basterds.


Oh come on... that is an exploit pactically, your Rorqual (and my Orca) should LOVE being on grid!... I mean they are fast, agile, well armed mining battleships of awesome power...Just let a on-grid hot-drop try to take them down...Muhahah... never, we are invincible!
Ugh
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#29 - 2012-08-15 14:56:07 UTC
The way to go about this isn't to just kill off-grid boosting overnight - anyone who actually knows anything about boosting wouldn't even think to suggest this - I'm not gonna waste time going into the complex details as most of the opponents to off-grid boosting aren't interested in that and just want something gone that they don't have the ingenuity to deal with and/or don't want to have to put the effort in to fight at the same level.

What CCP should do is put some work in to making on-grid boosting more attractive and move the focus away from off-grid boosting over time. I quite enjoy flying my eos as part of a fleet on grid but its far from ideal and only really feasible with a bit of luck in what you go up against and being a bit creative with the fit.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2012-08-15 14:58:28 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
I think you are too much focused on actual command ships to do the job.

EVE allows fleet boosts to be fitted on: tier1/2 BCs, CSs, T3s, Carriers and Titans.

If a fleet is that large that they have to fear having their booster exploded instantely, then maybe they should go with less, but safer boosts p.ex on capitals, or better hidden boosts (Try finding the 3 boosting drakes or the boosting T3 in a pile of several hundred without metagaming). The choices are already present in the game, people just don't want to accept the downsides.
Or you could always bring more commandships than the enemy can destroy in reasonable time.
Sure. That's certainly one way of doing it, but you'll also lose out on breadth of bonuses if you do that, so the less-bonus bit hits twice. You'd have to waste an awful amount of fitting space to get more than one command mod on those other ship, so you'll get maybe one or two bonuses out of every booster… and you run out of booster slots fairly quickly.

I suppose it's a bit less of a problem for T3s since you can squeeze some pretty silly fitting space out of those if you play around a bit, but smaller gangs would struggle.


…and anyway, fleet CSes could use a boost regardless, the poor things. P
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-08-15 15:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Quote:
Besides stating the obvious, command ships can easily fit a gang link while maintaing good combat strength. You'll just have to make some choices.


LOL.

You guys would say anything to buff your blobs, wouldn't you?

Just get one of your many derp pilots to train a scanning ship, there are more to a fleet than just dps and tank.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2012-08-15 15:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Rroff wrote:
The way to go about this isn't to just kill off-grid boosting overnight - anyone who actually knows anything about boosting wouldn't even think to suggest this. I'm not gonna waste time going into the complex details as most of the opponents to off-grid boosting aren't interested in that and just want something gone that they don't have the ingenuity to deal with and/or don't want to have to put the effort in to fight at the same level.


The CSM fully agreed with CCP Ytterbium that off grid boosting should not exist. I guess they are all clueless in your view?

Won't you enlighten us with the complex details on why nobody with a clue would ever suggest to kill off grid boosting?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#33 - 2012-08-15 15:06:13 UTC
Sheynan wrote:

P.S: The same goes for small gangs, if you don't want to risk a T3/CS then boost from a standard BC, get half the boni and be happy with that.


Thats a good point actually its very easy to forget regular BCs can run a ganglink or 2.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#34 - 2012-08-15 15:10:07 UTC
What if CCP removed the fleet booster restrictions and allowed every ship with an active gang link to contribute to the total fleet boost (in a way that the highest link in each category counts) together with making boosts on-grid ?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#35 - 2012-08-15 15:14:49 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
What if CCP removed the fleet booster restrictions and allowed every ship with an active gang link to contribute to the total fleet boost (in a way that the highest link in each category counts) together with making boosts on-grid ?


Its better imo to make it a tighter and more specialised part of the fleet structure, kind of how it is now but with more refinement - it encourages better preparedness for fights and higher levels of skill involved in fights. Most of the people I see vocally against off-grid boosting are the people who want to just go off half arsed into a fight with an adhoc fleet structure and they shouldn't really be suprised that someone better prepared will generally beat them, even when ostensibly outnumbered or outgunned, but they don't want to see it that way.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-08-15 15:24:03 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Rroff wrote:
The way to go about this isn't to just kill off-grid boosting overnight - anyone who actually knows anything about boosting wouldn't even think to suggest this. I'm not gonna waste time going into the complex details as most of the opponents to off-grid boosting aren't interested in that and just want something gone that they don't have the ingenuity to deal with and/or don't want to have to put the effort in to fight at the same level.


The CSM fully agreed with CCP Ytterbium that off grid boosting should not exist. I guess they are all clueless in your view?

Won't you enlighten us with the complex details on why nobody with a clue would ever suggest to kill off grid boosting?


The CSM?

You mean those owners of huge corps and alliances? The cause of blobbing in the first place?

Of course they would, those guys fear small gang warfare having any chance to succeed at all.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-08-15 15:24:37 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Sheynan wrote:

P.S: The same goes for small gangs, if you don't want to risk a T3/CS then boost from a standard BC, get half the boni and be happy with that.


Thats a good point actually its very easy to forget regular BCs can run a ganglink or 2.


Yeah, with like no bonuses at all. Making them extremely weak.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#38 - 2012-08-15 15:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Diesel47 wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Sheynan wrote:

P.S: The same goes for small gangs, if you don't want to risk a T3/CS then boost from a standard BC, get half the boni and be happy with that.


Thats a good point actually its very easy to forget regular BCs can run a ganglink or 2.


Yeah, with like no bonuses at all. Making them extremely weak.


A drake with a T2 interdiction link gives a 28.13% increase to web and point range which is fairly useful, and if you have the mindlink on that char (granted not many people will have it in when flying a drake) its a 42.19% increase which is decent even without the racial bonus, likewise the shield resist link gives a +18.75% increase to resists without the mindlink which while not earth shattering is a nice increase to have - roughly equivalent to having an extra hardener - across your whole fleet thats a fairly decent increase in effectiveness and capability.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#39 - 2012-08-15 15:33:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Rroff wrote:
The way to go about this isn't to just kill off-grid boosting overnight - anyone who actually knows anything about boosting wouldn't even think to suggest this. I'm not gonna waste time going into the complex details as most of the opponents to off-grid boosting aren't interested in that and just want something gone that they don't have the ingenuity to deal with and/or don't want to have to put the effort in to fight at the same level.


The CSM fully agreed with CCP Ytterbium that off grid boosting should not exist. I guess they are all clueless in your view?

Won't you enlighten us with the complex details on why nobody with a clue would ever suggest to kill off grid boosting?


2 aspects to this, one as mentioned above the CSM has a good majority of representation from people who have fleet sizes where having on-grid boosters is perfectly feasible and infact to their advantage to remove off-grid boosting and also acknowledging that it should not exist isn't the same as saying it should be removed - I think it was wrong it was implemented in this way in the first place but given how its developed its an entirely different matter to say it should be removed.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-08-15 15:41:21 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Rroff wrote:
The way to go about this isn't to just kill off-grid boosting overnight - anyone who actually knows anything about boosting wouldn't even think to suggest this. I'm not gonna waste time going into the complex details as most of the opponents to off-grid boosting aren't interested in that and just want something gone that they don't have the ingenuity to deal with and/or don't want to have to put the effort in to fight at the same level.


The CSM fully agreed with CCP Ytterbium that off grid boosting should not exist. I guess they are all clueless in your view?

Won't you enlighten us with the complex details on why nobody with a clue would ever suggest to kill off grid boosting?


2 aspects to this, one as mentioned above the CSM has a good majority of representation from people who have fleet sizes where having on-grid boosters is perfectly feasible and infact to their advantage and also acknowledging that it should not exist isn't the same as saying it should be removed - I think it was wrong it was implemented in this way in the first place but given how its developed its an entirely different matter to say it should be removed.


How is saying "it should not exist" not the same as "we need to remove it" ?

How can it not exist if it isn't removed?



If OGBs are removed, it will just make blobbing stronger than it already is.

Like I said in my thread, buff CS to have more tank.. let them keep their 3% bonus.

Keep the 5% bonus for T3s, limit their boosting to like 5 pilots.