These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fleet Boosting, A discussion:

Author
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#61 - 2012-08-12 02:40:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
I agree with all the points in the against off grid, so no comment on that.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Reasons to keep Off grid
Boosting characters are often highly trained alts, in feeble ships. This change would eliminate much of the time and training that went into making the alt.

- Offgrid boosters are widely used in group PvE, Home defense, and fleet warfare. Removing them will be a huge blow to leadership oriented characters, which are under-appreciated enough as is!


Summed these two point up due to forums quote limitations and them being quite similar.

- They should either train them into something useful or unsub them.

See point 1. Furthermore, I often felt the fact my higher SP pvp characters having nearly all V leadership skills (no information warfare links) was appreciated quite well nost of the time. Of course I can see the point if it's just some dirt-cheap 'twink' (I almost threw up typing that word).


Quote:
Offgrid boosters are often still engageable. You can scan them down and kill them. And if they are in a POS, you can destroy the POS.



If the pilot flying the alt is remotely competent, he will know what distance to set his D-scan to, hit that every now and then and as soon as he sees probes in a certain range, he warps to another safe. People losing their offgrid T3 boosters are either incompentent, multiboxing on one screen, lazy, dumb, drunk or asleep - most likely a combination of all.
Concerning destroying the POS - yeah - just quickly take it out in your T1 frig and cross fingers it's not stronted Roll.

Quote:
Offgrid boosters are often in capital ships... It's not pragmatic to risk a carrier, rorqual, or titan for the benefit of a home defense fleet.


Titan bonuses should probably work off-grid, but not from within POS shields. Carriers are actually a viable solution to field on-grid once off grid boosting is removed. Currently anything is better than them due to their unbonused boost - T3 offgrids or even CS on grid.

Rorquals should probably be used in cyno jammed systems, proper intel channels and a defense fleet in vicinity - not sure never did any large-scale nullsec mining ops.

Quote:
Muad dib Added that flying a low dps brick in combat just isn't fun!


How the heck is flying an offgrid alt any more fun? If you can dualbox on and off grid, get some practice and fly both on grid.


Quote:
Please post with any other points I missed..... and I'll post them here...


A few more points:

- T3s have a better bonus to links because they were supposed to fit just 1-2 of them - if people wouldn't gimp their fits by fitting tons of command links on them to abuse them, they'd be perfectly viable on grid in a proper gang.
- Off grid bonuses as a mechanic are just as stupid as having off grid RR. You think the latter is completely dumb idea? Congrats, but then you can't advocate for the former, because it's basically the same thing.
- After the initial investment, they only offer benefits for absolutely no drawback, making them a necessity sooner or later. We already have people flying T1 frigs with their own private T3 offgrid booster just to appear ~elite~. Great for real noobs trying to get their feet wet solo...
- People keep mentioning it helps small gang warfare, but basically, they're a force multiplier, which by definition benefits the larger number more than it does the smaller. Also, they (especially POS boosters) are easier to use for the defending party than the aggressors - hence, they discourage roams into hostile territory.

- To avoid Grid-Fu after they were made to be on grid only, they should only work withn an invisible 200 km radius bubble and shouln't be able to be activated from within POS shields.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Rico Minali
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-08-12 03:54:50 UTC
Off grid boosting should be removed.

Command ships should give higher bonuses to fleets (since that is after all their role)

T3s should be viable fleet boosters but not as good as command ships. (because at the moment T3 cruisers are the swiss army knife of Eve, able to do all things and generally better than their dedicated counterpart.)

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#63 - 2012-08-12 04:16:12 UTC
Aurelius Valentius wrote:
Roqual Pilot would love on-grid boosting only... Roll

No need to sit in a POS, just put that Roqual right out in that belt.. oh, hot-drop by a carrier? oh no real defenses while in that compression mode... there goes the null sec mining... but I am all for it, being a high sec miner, I will make a Bazillion ISKies... so by all means - On-Grid only!!!


Fix: don't do compression in the belt. Leave that for the Rorqual to do back at the POS. Use the in-belt Rorqual for buffing, tractoring, and as a convenient one-stop location for the hauling Orcas to warp to.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#64 - 2012-08-12 04:25:16 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Fix: don't do compression in the belt. Leave that for the Rorqual to do back at the POS. Use the in-belt Rorqual for buffing, tractoring, and as a convenient one-stop location for the hauling Orcas to warp to.


Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#65 - 2012-08-12 04:39:59 UTC
Andski wrote:
Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses?


That would make them unique amongst command ships and carriers. I haven't used a Rorqual myself, but the documentation states that siege mode is required for the compression facility to work. The leadership modifiers are hull bonuses.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2012-08-12 05:01:38 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Andski wrote:
Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses?


That would make them unique amongst command ships and carriers. I haven't used a Rorqual myself, but the documentation states that siege mode is required for the compression facility to work. The leadership modifiers are hull bonuses.


"10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode"

Yeah, the Rorqual is the only ship that needs to siege for its hull bonuses to apply to ganglinks. Unsieged, it's just like giving them from any other ship bonused for ganglinks.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#67 - 2012-08-12 05:49:58 UTC
Andski wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Andski wrote:
Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses?


That would make them unique amongst command ships and carriers. I haven't used a Rorqual myself, but the documentation states that siege mode is required for the compression facility to work. The leadership modifiers are hull bonuses.


"10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode"

Yeah, the Rorqual is the only ship that needs to siege for its hull bonuses to apply to ganglinks. Unsieged, it's just like giving them from any other ship bonused for ganglinks.

Yeah, you'd probably have an on-grid and aligned orca instead. Or you could just tackle yourself in the "belt" and hope no one comes in...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Astor Lentari
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-10-26 07:30:08 UTC
While I really appreciate the versatility and awesomeness of t3 strategic cruisers, it seems ridiculous to me that they are better boosters than command ships, regardless of ship fit abuse, I am talking only about the fact that t3 cruiser subsystems offer 5% per level bonus vs 3% per level on command ships.

Contrary to some calls, I would not suggest nerfing the t3 cruiser bonus. I would, however, strongly recommend increasing the command ship bonus per level to 5%. Why? Because with the introduction of t3 cruisers to the marketplace, surely developers like Ishukone would reverse engineer the t3 tech in order to increase the capabilities of their command ships and to stop ships like the vulture becoming obselete?

It makes corporate business sense, and Empire economic sense, for command ships to maintain their purpose and not be pushed aside by a 'jack-of-all-trades' cruiser that is better at boosting a fleet than a fleet command ship!
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-10-26 07:40:19 UTC
Should be on-grid only, the end.

How to go about that to be exact? Not sure, but off-grid boosting needs to go away.
pussnheels
Viziam
#70 - 2012-10-26 09:08:57 UTC
There is no problem with boosting ongrid and offgrid the op made a good point there , offgrid boosters can be scanned down and destroyed

Since training for a booster pilot is a pretty long training que and comandships/ T3 cruisers are pretty pricey, if people want to risk them why not, and if your enemy can use them your side can awell
I ve seen pretty smart pvp gangs with boosters, i usely was on the wrong losing side , but i can only admire their skil and cunning
It is working as intended in my opinion no discusion needed

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire

pussnheels
Viziam
#71 - 2012-10-26 09:13:52 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
Should be on-grid only, the end.

How to go about that to be exact? Not sure, but off-grid boosting needs to go away.

No , what about rorquals in nullsec or wh you will just make them obsolete and pretty much give high sec miners a buff , nobody is going to risk a 3b ship that is slow as hell in a belt, not something you though on is it

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire

svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-10-26 09:25:51 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
Should be on-grid only, the end.

How to go about that to be exact? Not sure, but off-grid boosting needs to go away.

No , what about rorquals in nullsec or wh you will just make them obsolete and pretty much give high sec miners a buff , nobody is going to risk a 3b ship that is slow as hell in a belt, not something you though on is it



I am serious, it needs to go away and having a rorqual in a belt is not as bad as you make it out to be as I actually have thought about it and I would still use mine in a belt even.
Grumpymunky
Monkey Steals The Peach
#73 - 2012-10-26 10:25:23 UTC
Where does this magical bonus come from anyway? I say completely overhaul the whole system. Being in massive fleets should cause sub-optimal performance, penalties which could then be negated through the use of command links.

Post with your monkey.

Thread locked due to lack of pants.

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#74 - 2012-10-26 11:00:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Aurelius Valentius wrote:
Roqual Pilot would love on-grid boosting only... Roll

No need to sit in a POS, just put that Roqual right out in that belt.. oh, hot-drop by a carrier? oh no real defenses while in that compression mode... there goes the null sec mining... but I am all for it, being a high sec miner, I will make a Bazillion ISKies... so by all means - On-Grid only!!!

Fix: Combat boosting must be on-grid, industrial boosting has system-wide range.


This

brb

Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#75 - 2012-10-26 11:06:03 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2075497#post2075497

Also: I find it funny that people are so hard up on the miners about maxing ore retrieval at the expense of tank, yet for some reason noone is harping on these people with 5000 HP boosting T3s. It seems to me that now that the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't fit right. Right.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac

Dracan02
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#76 - 2012-10-26 11:07:47 UTC
i agree that something needs to be done about boosting, as a small gang ongrid booster i can say command ships can be very potent in small fights, unfortunately big fleets make them useless as you will get targeted early on.

so go for 2 bonuses, on grid give a bigger then off grid so that taking a risk give more performance.
Fix the e-war links as only one of them is useful.
make t3 lesser boosters then command ships by eather buff command bonuses, nurfing t3 bonuses or a combinations of both.
Typhado3
Peraka
#77 - 2012-10-26 12:51:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Typhado3
While moving fleet boosts to on grid would fix some problems there are still dozens of other problems that wouldn't be fixed by this with the leadership system which I say is call for a slightly larger rework. Current problems that wouldn't be fixed by simple move them on grid change:

1. Limit of one leadership type per fleet, a 2nd one of the same type only allows better fiddling with wings etc.
2. Limit of number of available slots for booster to fit into fleet
3. Fleet max size is fixed at 256 changes to this would affect leadership dramatically



I think we need a rework of the way the leadership mechanic works that fixes a few of these issues and I've thought up a possible solution:

1. Fiddle numbers to compensate for other changes (massive decrease for starters)
2. Allow multiple command ships of the same type to stack (using the same formula as module stacking)
3. Fleet bonuses from anywhere in system are pooled together (do not need to be on grid to give bonuses)
4. Command ships do not need to be in bonus giving roles to give out their bonus (as long as they are in fleet with modules active bonuses are added to system pool)
5. Base bonuses of anywhere in system are weak but are applied as long as your are in fleet regardless of any command structure or skills of command structure or location of command structure.
6. Having a squad commander on grid uncloaked will apply a 'fleet bonus multiplier' to all his squad members on grid. The 'fleet bonus multiplier' increases per level of basic leadership (eg. 10% per level as apposed to old +2 squad members per level).
7. Command ships (t2 or t3) on grid in a squad commander position apply a 'fleet bonus multiplier' based on command ship skill (eg. 20% per level). This is calculated in a separate stack from the base leadership skill but multiplied by each other in the end.
8. Leadership skills or command ships skills of those in wing command or higher positions apply a 'fleet bonus multiplier' to all squad below but it is halved for each level higher in the command structure they are, bonuses from multiple command levels are also added together and are capped at the bonus you could receive from having a max skilled command ship as squad commander.



The idea here is to let off grid boosting still work or boosting when you fleet is in multiple areas in a system still work or even things like a claymore leading a frig gang doesn't have to stay right with the frigs. However having a command ship on grid doubles the bonus meaning a ship that can do both without exploding has it's place. Also as you always need more command ships to fill the squad/wing commander roles as well as letting multiple command bonuses of the same type stack it lets you bring as many command ships as you want they just start curving off in usefulness quickly after a certain point rather than being outright useless to have more than 1.

This solution would also allow you to increase fleet size by another level to 1281 and it would make a nice role for a command frigate that fits none of the command modules but has the command 'fleet bonus multiplier'.
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-10-26 23:36:13 UTC
Kalla Vera Quiroga wrote:
Isn't it ironic that miners are demanded to fit tanks for ganks but if you demand a fleet booster Tech3 to fit tank then they would collapse to tears because their cookie cutter boosting fit crumbles and would no be longer viable? Like, you could fit two different T3s with different links and get their full bonus, why is considered having one ship exclusively for boosting every link balanced?


^This exactly
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#79 - 2012-10-26 23:55:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Fix: Combat boosting must be on-grid, industrial boosting has system-wide range.


Or allow Rorquals to boost with bonuses without having to enter siege, just like every other ship with command bonuses.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-10-27 00:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
So we have those greedy carebear afk miners on the one side.
They do not tank their hulks, because they fit them for maximum yield. They mine mostly afk.
ArrowAn outrage. They need to be hunted down and killed.

On the other hand we have those afk offf grid boosters.
They do not tank their ships, because they fit for a maximum amount of links. They boost off grid and afk.
ArrowThat's ok, they need to be offgrid because they have no other way to defend themselves.

I hope that I am not the only one who finds this absolutely moronic....

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.