These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Case for Off-grid Boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sigras
Conglomo
#21 - 2012-08-20 06:56:31 UTC
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Yadayadayada, you still havent provided a single argument why it is cheesy or bad or why it shouldn't exist, exactly like the post below you. who also happens to be an alt of someone who probably only does blobpvp or doesnt do any pvp.

1. Off grid boosters are skewed toward larger fleets - This is only because larger fleets can afford to have a dedicated prober getting a warp in on the booster trying to lock it down; smaller fleets would have to sacrifice an actual person for this reducing the size of their fleet.

2. Off grid boosters discourage offensive roams in 0.0 - Unless youre fighting idiots, the defender is always going to have gang boosts that are 100% safe in a POS somewhere. This means that bringing your own off grid booster is a necessity. This discourages roaming through someone else's space as it is just one more thing you need to have to do it effectively.


1. Guess what, small gangs dont care too hard about other people having ogb and we dont try to probe them down.
The necessary skills isk and effort to probe down an OGB are a different topic and has nothing to do with wether ogb are good or bad for small gang pvp.

2. And you base that on what experience? Your kb stats speak words here. I can honestly tell you that its very rare that someone has OGB in their own territory.
Basically none of the people who are against OGB have any actual experience in smallscale pvp or are too afraid to post with their mains (because their mains probably have no small scale pvp stats either)
And on the other side we have people who actually fly smallscale and use OGB and are agreeing that they are ok except for the fact that they shouldnt be able to link from inside a pos.

1. Thats exactly what im saying - small fleets dont scan down off grid boosters because that would mean giving up one of their active players, but large fleets do have dedicated probers and will scan down your off grid booster, thus giving the larger fleet the advantage.

2. its a fallacy to require personal experience when making an argument from logic. Anyone's lack of experience doesnt change the fact that there is no opportunity cost for having a booster and thus every thinking alliance should have one.

Meisje wrote:
This is my main (with a fair bit of SP in leadership) and I'm fairly ambivalent as to whether OBG gets eliminated or not. What I do have an issue with is that there is almost zero incentive to be on-grid as a booster, which also makes my favourite type of ship, fleet cs, entirely obsolete.


I guess this is really my issue with the off grid boosters. There is absolutely no reason to be on grid, you get nothing for putting your ship in harms way. At the very least, being on grid should give you a significant advantage.

What about having a 0.25 AU falloff to the command links? This is a bit of a compromise as it still allows you to be off grid but easier to scan down and you would give less effect the farther away from the fleet you are.

This would also make it easier to avoid POSs because most suns are > .25 AU from the nearest moon so you could always warp to the sun to fight there forcing them to expose their command ship to danger.
2ofSpades
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-08-20 07:28:53 UTC  |  Edited by: 2ofSpades
-----The idea of off grid boosting is fine, it takes lots of training to run the links and the cost of the ship to run the links with is high. Its not like a t3 cloaky cant be killed or scanned down. I can think of two ways offhand to kill a t3 cloaky booster but I wont say.
-----The so called 'addictive' ideal of the booster is because it enables you to fight bigger fleets, go faster, jam better ect. I will admit the current cloaky t3 is a little bit invulnerable when running its boosts. The other big problem is active boosters inside pos force fields. As far as the boosts go they are fine, people whine all the time about getting cyno dropped and jumped by bigger fleets, boosts are no different.
----- People spend up to 15mil SP training leadership skills. If ccp removes offgrid boosting then they may as well just remove links and refund sp for the spec skills. I think it would be a better idea to encourage the idea of an offgrid command ship controlling large fleets remotely in system or maybe even further and also providing boosts to them. A small support fleet sits with the command ship waiting for the scanners to come and probe down the command ship. This mutli system command role could not be given to the t3 boosters. I have posted another thread about this in the past.
-----------------Command Ships/Links
-----Fixing the t3 booster and boosting in general I think should include these things. Not allowing any active links inside any kind of forcefield. When links are active on cloaky t3's no ab or mw mods can run and you cant cloak until you shut the links off (kind of like a cyno). fitting any kind of mod that would make it harder to scan should not be allowed by stopping the links from onlining. This will allow smart covert players to then take on the issue of catching cloaky boosters by using various ships/setups.
----I really hope CCP would look into upgrading the command ships in such a way that the player feels like they are commanding from a mobile command post And the field command ship players feel equally important in providing infomation and they are the major link in providing the fleet commands warfare link boosts to the fleet and that brings up on last thing. I know some people think links should not be provided to small scale fleet but I have to disagree. I would like to see warfare links filter in such a way that when a wing commander is active even if the squad commanders die the squad still gets warfare link boosts. However, if the wing command ship dies the squad will no longer get link boosts unless a squad leader happens to be running a warfare ship otherwise they will just get the normal leadership boosts. This would make the wing commader position a much more important role and the squad commander much less.

Edit:: Just thought of a few extra things..To make offgrid boosting risky and dangerous setting up a limiting factor not allowing warfare links to be active next to stargates, stations, and any other docking/forcefield points would help.
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-08-20 07:44:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Yadayadayada, you still havent provided a single argument why it is cheesy or bad or why it shouldn't exist, exactly like the post below you. who also happens to be an alt of someone who probably only does blobpvp or doesnt do any pvp.

1. Off grid boosters are skewed toward larger fleets - This is only because larger fleets can afford to have a dedicated prober getting a warp in on the booster trying to lock it down; smaller fleets would have to sacrifice an actual person for this reducing the size of their fleet.

2. Off grid boosters discourage offensive roams in 0.0 - Unless youre fighting idiots, the defender is always going to have gang boosts that are 100% safe in a POS somewhere. This means that bringing your own off grid booster is a necessity. This discourages roaming through someone else's space as it is just one more thing you need to have to do it effectively.


1. Guess what, small gangs dont care too hard about other people having ogb and we dont try to probe them down.
The necessary skills isk and effort to probe down an OGB are a different topic and has nothing to do with wether ogb are good or bad for small gang pvp.

2. And you base that on what experience? Your kb stats speak words here. I can honestly tell you that its very rare that someone has OGB in their own territory.
Basically none of the people who are against OGB have any actual experience in smallscale pvp or are too afraid to post with their mains (because their mains probably have no small scale pvp stats either)
And on the other side we have people who actually fly smallscale and use OGB and are agreeing that they are ok except for the fact that they shouldnt be able to link from inside a pos.

1. Thats exactly what im saying - small fleets dont scan down off grid boosters because that would mean giving up one of their active players, but large fleets do have dedicated probers and will scan down your off grid booster, thus giving the larger fleet the advantage.

2. its a fallacy to require personal experience when making an argument from logic. Anyone's lack of experience doesnt change the fact that there is no opportunity cost for having a booster and thus every thinking alliance should have one.

1. Yes, thats exactly what youre saying and my point is that this is not a disadvantage small fleets have. At least not one they care about too much.
2. I thought your point is that people are getting discouraged from roaming by the fact that every hostile 0.0 alliance has their ogb. This is a claim youre making. Theres no logic, its a point of experience. I on the other hand claim the exact opposite and i have the experience to back my claim up.

Basically we have one side here claiming that OGB hurt smallscale pvp and removing them would lead to more smallscale pvp and people would fight fleets which they would not have fought beforehand.
Then we have the other side who claims that OGB are good for smallscale and removing them would lead to taking less fights because you dont have OGB.
Incidentally the members of one side have no experience in smallscale while the members of the other side to lots of smallscale pvp. Guess which member belong to which side?
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-08-20 07:44:18 UTC
Meisje wrote:
This is my main (with a fair bit of SP in leadership) and I'm fairly ambivalent as to whether OBG gets eliminated or not. What I do have an issue with is that there is almost zero incentive to be on-grid as a booster, which also makes my favourite type of ship, fleet cs, entirely obsolete.

I don't like that my main spends a good portion of its time safed up in a papertanked, six-link t3 instead of being in the action in a claymore or something. I'm also not convinced that removing pos boosting is enough to fix this. It's a start, but more needs to be done. There needs to be an incentive to flying on grid. People have suggested ideas....flipping the CS / T3 bonuses, buffing fleet cs dps, remove OGB entirely, etc. I don't presume to know which one is the best.

Ultimately, I think the OP is on the right track and is right that OGB does not necessarily need to be removed outright. but more changes need to be done than just what is listed above. I feel that putting your ships in combat and at risk should have a significant advantage over those who are safed up and aligned, however, if they're not forced to be there already.

That's just my 2 cents.

The difference in boost between CS and t3 isnt too big, thats not why we choose ogb. In fact its very tiny.
Stats for a linked tengu:
Speed unlinked: 3062m/s heated
Speed claymorelinked: 3971m/s heated
Speed lokilinked: 4050m/s heated
Pointrange with RF point unlinked: 36 heated
Pointrange with Claymore: 52,3 heated
Pointrange with Loki: 53,8 heated
Tank unlinked: 63k ehp
Tank vulture linked: 93,8k ehp
Tank tengu linked: 97,3k ehp
Its similar for information and armor. Yes t3 is better and i wouldnt mind if they swapped.
However CS arent obsolete. If youre fleet is big enough you are probably still better off in a CS because it doesnt require you to safe up before you can start linking. That makes fighting when you are chasing an enemy or on a gate where you might have to jump through and fight on the other side, easier.
I also heard of spies providing cloaked warpins to OGB in blob fest fights, but i cant tell you how often that happens, as this is an area i have no experience in.

Again: The effort it takes to probe an OGB down and the risk involved for said OGB is a different topic from whether OGB in general are good or bad for smallscale or any scale.
I personally would not mind if they made it so that you dont require virtues to probe an OGB, because i have to admit that almost no one has those in 0.0. I also wouldn't mind if they eliminated the option to link from inside a forcefield.
I also wouldn't mind if they switched the bonus between t3 and cs.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-08-20 08:46:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Off grid boosting is wrong. It goes against a lot of principles of the game. CCP has stated to its players that off grid boosting WILL become a thing of the past. There is no point aguing or moaning or getting your little girly panties in a twist over it and pouring your tears on the forums. This won't change CCP's mind or the CSM's. They're unanimous on this issue. Trying to put up phailwail aguments and saying "CCP pwetty pwetty pwease don't take my off grid multi link almost unscannable alt flown T3 command ship away cause it's not fair waaaaaa waaaaaaa!" won't change anything.

I could start putting forward some well thought out arguments and reasons why off grid boosting is bad mmmkay but I would only be insulting the inteligence of those who already know this. It is too glaringly obvious that it's not right.

So if you want to be someone who is willing to adapt and change to what is going to be normal in the future consider what the problems are with the current batch of command style ships and think of ways that they could be rebalanced for this role. You know, like being helpful, mature, intelligen........ oh who am I kidding. I'm trying to argue with seven year olds

Build a ******* bridge and get over it
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#26 - 2012-08-20 08:54:11 UTC
I strongly disagree with OP in the point that Command Ships are awful. You can fit a lot of lovely stuff on it. Just use your imagination.
Dr Shameless
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-08-20 08:56:25 UTC
the best way to solve this is to not allow any module activation while being inside a pos bubble IdeaCool
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#28 - 2012-08-20 08:59:55 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I could start putting forward some well thought out arguments and reasons why off grid boosting is bad mmmkay but I would only be insulting the inteligence of those who already know this. It is too glaringly obvious that it's not right.

But clould you please start putting forward those arguments? Because I dont see any evel if capital ships keep their offgrid boosting roles.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#29 - 2012-08-20 09:02:48 UTC
Dr Shameless wrote:
the best way to solve this is to not allow any module activation while being inside a pos bubble IdeaCool

And I guess there is a consensus about this point. Also, it could be implemented super-easily - so we may even see it in the nearest patch. just if there were a way to let CCP know about this solution...
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-08-20 09:11:33 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Dr Shameless wrote:
the best way to solve this is to not allow any module activation while being inside a pos bubble IdeaCool

And I guess there is a consensus about this point. Also, it could be implemented super-easily - so we may even see it in the nearest patch. just if there were a way to let CCP know about this solution...



And the point of this being? I only ask that question because POS force fields are also getting the axe.

Oh No!!!! Shock Horror!!!
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#31 - 2012-08-20 10:16:08 UTC
no
offgrid bonuses suck because:
1) dont make sense having an offgrid ship with the sole purpose of boosting all other ships in fleet
2) they ask me for another alt char to bring, because everyone else oes that.

remove them from the game.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#32 - 2012-08-20 10:23:14 UTC
One of the weirdest concepts, really messing up everything in both small and large scale warfare, is the fact the gang-boosting simultaneously provides bonunes to a massive number of people. For instance, if you give up one ship in your fleet and get a logistic instead, you now can tank like 4k DPS - give or take, but still a finite digit, applicable to just one ship at a time.

But it doesn't work that way if you bring a gang-boosting Tengu or Legion, it increases EHP on all ships around, hence the benefit is multiplied by the size of your gang. Just imagine you want to increase something like tracking etc. - you'll need a dedicated remote-boosting ship for each of your gang members and you surely can't get away using just one!

Idea Hereby I suggest that gang bonuses should be dependant on the squad size - more people meaning less benefits. That's the only way of making gang-links actually balanced on their own.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-08-20 10:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Karah Serrigan
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Off grid boosting is wrong. It goes against a lot of principles of the game. CCP has stated to its players that off grid boosting WILL become a thing of the past. There is no point aguing or moaning or getting your little girly panties in a twist over it and pouring your tears on the forums. This won't change CCP's mind or the CSM's. They're unanimous on this issue. Trying to put up phailwail aguments and saying "CCP pwetty pwetty pwease don't take my off grid multi link almost unscannable alt flown T3 command ship away cause it's not fair waaaaaa waaaaaaa!" won't change anything.

I could start putting forward some well thought out arguments and reasons why off grid boosting is bad mmmkay but I would only be insulting the inteligence of those who already know this. It is too glaringly obvious that it's not right.

So if you want to be someone who is willing to adapt and change to what is going to be normal in the future consider what the problems are with the current batch of command style ships and think of ways that they could be rebalanced for this role. You know, like being helpful, mature, intelligen........ oh who am I kidding. I'm trying to argue with seven year olds

Build a ******* bridge and get over it

Almost took the bait, but then i looked at your kb stats :'(
Im sure you have many of those arguments as you call them, which were not mentioned and "proven" wrong/misguided yet. So at best you really could convine some ignorant 7 year olds here.
The CSM is unanimous on this, but that doesn't mean their opinion is good and should be taken for granted. There are points to discuss and thats what were doing here. And hopefully they will read this and maybe even change their opinion based on these arguments. You know, thats how things work in the world.
And maybe they will even forward some of those thoughts to CCP. But alas, youre right, CCP is always spot on on whats good for the game (lol did they really **** up FW worse than it could have ever been?)

Robert Caldera wrote:
no
offgrid bonuses suck because:
1) dont make sense having an offgrid ship with the sole purpose of boosting all other ships in fleet
2) they ask me for another alt char to bring, because everyone else oes that.

remove them from the game.

offgrid bonuses rock because:
1) its ok that you have an offgrid ship with the sole purpose of boosting all other ships in fleet < see what i did there? this is just your oppinion, its not an argument.
2) i need to have a cyno and a fleet ready on a titan because everyone else does that...in all seriousness though they allow me to take fights which i wouldnt take without them. and the people i fight arent against taking those fights, its not like they get suprise ganked. titanbridges on the other hand...well yeah,
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#34 - 2012-08-20 10:59:59 UTC
Once again the people whining for the OGB nerf fail to post even a single argument as to why off-grid links are bad.

.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-08-20 11:05:24 UTC
Gang links, especially the skirmish links, whether on-or off-grid, are fundamentally overpowered. It costs over 100 mill for a ship to upgrade from a 24 km point by 25% to a 30 km one, yet a link on a T1 BC can increase that range by 28% for pennies, not just for one ship but an entire gang. Snakes give a ~25% speed increase for one person for *lots*, a link does 18.75% for everyone for virtually nothing.

The magnitudes of the bonuses that they give are far too great, and the bonuses apply to too many pilots. Gang links are becoming too important in combat; they are in danger of becoming a necessity for combat that is simply inaccessible for new players. Nerf time.

This opinion won't go down well. ShockedLol
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-08-20 11:05:52 UTC
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Off grid boosting is wrong. It goes against a lot of principles of the game. CCP has stated to its players that off grid boosting WILL become a thing of the past. There is no point aguing or moaning or getting your little girly panties in a twist over it and pouring your tears on the forums. This won't change CCP's mind or the CSM's. They're unanimous on this issue. Trying to put up phailwail aguments and saying "CCP pwetty pwetty pwease don't take my off grid multi link almost unscannable alt flown T3 command ship away cause it's not fair waaaaaa waaaaaaa!" won't change anything.

I could start putting forward some well thought out arguments and reasons why off grid boosting is bad mmmkay but I would only be insulting the inteligence of those who already know this. It is too glaringly obvious that it's not right.

So if you want to be someone who is willing to adapt and change to what is going to be normal in the future consider what the problems are with the current batch of command style ships and think of ways that they could be rebalanced for this role. You know, like being helpful, mature, intelligen........ oh who am I kidding. I'm trying to argue with seven year olds

Build a ******* bridge and get over it

Almost took the bait, but then i looked at your kb stats :'(


curious what this has to do with anything gameplay based.

Do I need to have EvE celebrity status Kill board abilities to be able to say what I think is right and wrong in the game? Please eleborate.

Trust me. You are in the minority if you think off grid boosting is perfectly acceptable. The number of people who post on this forum is not an indication of actual player base opinion. The number of people who even read the patch notes is a tiny percentage of players and even fewer people bother to read the forums. If you want to prove me wrong, get a 150,000 Eve players to sign a petition. Good luck with that
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#37 - 2012-08-20 11:11:50 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Dr Shameless wrote:
the best way to solve this is to not allow any module activation while being inside a pos bubble IdeaCool

And I guess there is a consensus about this point. Also, it could be implemented super-easily - so we may even see it in the nearest patch. just if there were a way to let CCP know about this solution...



And the point of this being? I only ask that question because POS force fields are also getting the axe.

Oh No!!!! Shock Horror!!!


POS field is doomed, but
1) it will happen in about a year, or maybe much more - and we want that fixed NAW!
2) the mooring is on the horizon...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#38 - 2012-08-20 11:15:05 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Gang links, especially the skirmish links, whether on-or off-grid, are fundamentally overpowered. It costs over 100 mill for a ship to upgrade from a 24 km point by 25% to a 30 km one, yet a link on a T1 BC can increase that range by 28% for pennies, not just for one ship but an entire gang. Snakes give a ~25% speed increase for one person for *lots*, a link does 18.75% for everyone for virtually nothing.

The magnitudes of the bonuses that they give are far too great, and the bonuses apply to too many pilots. Gang links are becoming too important in combat; they are in danger of becoming a necessity for combat that is simply inaccessible for new players. Nerf time.

This opinion won't go down well. ShockedLol


Yes it will, because it actually makes sense. Decrease the bonuses across the board (to a level where they are a nice bonus, but not a necessity), swap the T3/CS bonus percentages around and fix field command ships to promote active gameplay on grid, and make active link modules increase signature radius of the boosting ship so that you don't need a max-skilled prober with full Virtues to probe them out (increase risk involved in OGB and give good probers more rewarding opportunities).

I don't see reasons to kill off-grid boosting, but certainly there is an opportunity to promote engaging gameplay.

.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-08-20 11:30:07 UTC
Roime wrote:
Once again the people whining for the OGB nerf fail to post even a single argument as to why off-grid links are bad.



... and here we can observe an OGB user in his natural habitat. They are known to bury their heads in the sand when threatened.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#40 - 2012-08-20 11:33:34 UTC
Roime wrote:
Once again the people whining for the OGB nerf fail to post even a single argument as to why off-grid links are bad.



tell me your arguments FOR OGB and I will invert them into arguments against it.