These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Off grid boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DrHekki
Confederacy of Independent Forces
#1 - 2013-03-25 17:27:53 UTC
Any one got a link on CCP's intention regarding OGB's?
Dash Bishop
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-03-25 17:29:03 UTC
Working as intended.

Caldari Militia ☜✫☞
Turelus
Utassi Security
#3 - 2013-03-25 17:32:37 UTC
They would like to fix it but right now it's a coding nightmare (or something like that)

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#4 - 2013-03-25 17:35:13 UTC
Linkage
relevant part wrote:

Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.


During the NEO tournament I think it was Soundwave who said the decision to get rid of it is already made. It's all just waiting for implementation.
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#5 - 2013-03-26 19:14:32 UTC
Would really love to hear what Fozzie and Co. have in mind for changes to the fleet boosting mechanics.

I realize their most likely coming on-grid but the last shred of info we got was more of a question from Fozzie about how people would feel if warfare links had an area of effect mechanic like warp disruption field generators.

I halted my leadership training and would love to have a fleet boosting character but I'd like to know exactly (roughly) how gang links will be passed on to the fleet.

Not today spaghetti.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-03-26 19:15:45 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Linkage
relevant part wrote:

Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.


During the NEO tournament I think it was Soundwave who said the decision to get rid of it is already made. It's all just waiting for implementation.


Hopefully this is the same decision making that was done a bit over a year ago, when they said pos changes were coming, then you know, discreetly scrapped/backburnered the idea.
Google Voices
Doomheim
#7 - 2013-03-26 22:17:16 UTC
DrHekki wrote:
Any one got a link on CCP's intention regarding OGB's?



Last thing I saw was a Dev quote stating "It will be a miracle if they figure it out..."

So.....Working as unintended? Shocked

"Fozzie could not comment on when this issue would be resolved and stated that “one day Veritas will come up to me and say ‘hey I fixed off-grid boosting’”, but he had no idea on a potential timeframe for this sort of miracle."
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-03-26 22:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Day after the OGB nerf:

Interceptor pilots complain that they don't get bonuses after warping after targets ahead of the fleet
Other pilots complain about losing bonuses when the grid breaks
T3 now become completely useless for boosting due to an inability to fit a tank while fitting multiple links
Smaller groups complain about the one advantage they might have had getting blasted out of the sky whenever trying to face larger groups because it's now being forced into the line of fire
Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid
Rorqual pilots complain about being completely useless now for anything except ore compression since nobody dares boosting on-grid with one
People agree that forcing boosting on-grid didn't actually solve anyone's problems and merely created more

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#9 - 2013-03-26 22:33:05 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid


At least you'll be able to see that your target has boosts. This also provides home-ground advantage.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Rorqual pilots complain about being completely useless now for anything except ore compression since nobody dares boosting on-grid with one


Simply moving the link bonus from the industrial core to the hull (you know, the same as for every other command ship in the game, removing the special case for the Rorqual) will address this issue.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
People agree that forcing boosting on-grid didn't actually solve anyone's problems and merely created more


The issues being created are tactical in nature, and sure beat having to blow up a POS just to get to that "solo" PvPer's OGB.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Dan-ielle
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-03-26 22:49:55 UTC
Quote:
blow up a POS

What about if they just made gang link modules non-activatable inside a pos shield? Would that be any less disagreeable a method of keeping boosting off-grid while still reducing it's infallable aspects?
In this case the booster would have to be boosting at safes (or on-grid if the booster so chooses), which can of course be made unsafe :P

I would like to see if this is going to be a 'from the roots up' type change, or more of a band-aid, as the suggestion above.

I think AoE boosting (as mentioned previously) sounds awful though...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-03-26 22:53:55 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Mara Rinn wrote:


At least you'll be able to see that your target has boosts.

Why does that matter if you can't do anything about it anyway?
Furthermore you don't know what links they have (especially since these ships will have bonuses for multiple kinds of links), whether they're T1 or T2, whether or not they have mindlink, and what skills they have.

Mara Rinn wrote:


Simply moving the link bonus from the industrial core to the hull (you know, the same as for every other command ship in the game, removing the special case for the Rorqual) will address this issue.

Not completely, because they're still giant capital ships and most people aren't going to consider warping such a ship to a belt or jumping it there just to provide boosts worth the risk of getting caught, even if boosting didn't require you to use the industrial core.

Mara Rinn wrote:
The issues being created are tactical in nature, and sure beat having to blow up a POS just to get to that "solo" PvPer's OGB.

You could easily prevent this by disallowing boosting inside of or within a certain range of POS shields, and other fixes to make it easier to scan down someone who is boosting (e.g. severely reducing the sensor strength of a boosting ship and slightly increasing its signature radius or something to that effect).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
DrHekki
Confederacy of Independent Forces
#12 - 2013-03-27 13:09:31 UTC  |  Edited by: DrHekki
Time to add my piece to this.

I keep saying this but It seems it falls on deaf ears. By "rebalancing" and in that sense making everything the same then what's the point in specialising?

I see this move as the first phase of introducing more skills into the market hence more isk sinks.

I really wouldn't mind these changes if that was the case and in-fact I don't mind the chances now because it opens up the thought or roaming small ships killing the bigger ships. Which when you look at the game is the most widely adopted type of game play. Large gang warfare isn't regular
Small -medium - medium is more regular than large
but the most widely used game play is solo artist and small-small gangs.

I like this a lot,

Winning, loosing a vaga to a taranis
DrHekki
Confederacy of Independent Forces
#13 - 2013-03-27 13:15:28 UTC  |  Edited by: DrHekki
I think CCP miss a trick here or two and if I had to summarise this its in part down to the expectations of the different generations.

Did you know that in the workplace there are 4 generations 66+, 45-65, 30-45 and -30 all these generations have different expectations.

Now for me who is a Gen Y era I want things to happen now, I do not want to wait for **** to happen all the time. so perhaps CCP Fozzie could enlighten us as to what demographics are playing this game so that they can make a more intelligent decision when nerfing **** just because in their eyes its Broken.

As a gen Y, I am also going to question the specialist and I want to know more about the topic so that I can discuss and learn. So my question is other than the reason of "because it broken" why are you nerfing this item? I still don't understand why you need to nerf things is there not an alternative such a buffing items? Or is it the nerf hammer is a quick fix to most things?

I'm still hurt after the nano- - nerf from a game play perspective that enjoys doing play "quick games" the nano nerf hurt dude. hey ho that's eve but man I really wish you put a different hat on. Nerfing isn't always the answer we want.
DrHekki
Confederacy of Independent Forces
#14 - 2013-03-27 13:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: DrHekki
OGB-ing should be a "direct" thing.

OGB should be that you have to choose who they boost and in all honesty I couldn't care if it was in a pos or not. By the same argument that time in the game should be rewarded more if someone has taken then time to train a character to deliver specific boosts then this too should also be rewarded.

I think the solution is to limit how many and who can receive boosts.

OGB has fleet options that says "boost this guys warp disrupt range", "Boost this guys resistance", imagine having an active OGB that is a specialist role and not one to sit in space "somewhere" delivering boosts. (picture the booster toggling who is to receive boost in essence changing the boostered in relations to the environment) I would like to add that I think if someone is getting boosts it should be known to all in the vicinity and since the boosts are being directed at someone and not just anyone, the boost amount should be increased.

Nobody complains then
S'Way
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-03-27 13:36:33 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Other pilots complain about losing bonuses when the grid breaks

And there will be others who's sole purpose is to make sure it does break regularly in fleets.
Expect the Grid-Fu games to be used a lot when they force on-grid boosting.
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-03-27 13:41:43 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Day after the OGB nerf:

Interceptor pilots complain that they don't get bonuses after warping after targets ahead of the fleet
Other pilots complain about losing bonuses when the grid breaks
T3 now become completely useless for boosting due to an inability to fit a tank while fitting multiple links
Smaller groups complain about the one advantage they might have had getting blasted out of the sky whenever trying to face larger groups because it's now being forced into the line of fire
Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid


1) Inty pilots ahead of the fleet can't get remote reps from their main fleet either. Of course they'll complain about a nerf, same as anyone else.
2) That'd be a technical issue to fix along with the OGB fix.
3) Why is larger more well equipped gangs beating smaller less well equipped gangs a problem?
4) Taking FW as an example, most plexes simply do not allow access to typical fleet-booster ships. And if they want to leave their boosting ship on grid near a gate, its suddenly a lot more vulnerable to a surprise warp-in.

In addition to the safety issue, there's a passiveness issue that someone else mentioned. If you bring a logi or ECM alt to a fight, you still have to do some work targeting and cycling the modules.
StuRyan
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#17 - 2013-03-27 13:48:55 UTC
DrHekki wrote:
OGB-ing should be a "direct" thing.

OGB should be that you have to choose who they boost and in all honesty I couldn't care if it was in a pos or not. By the same argument that time in the game should be rewarded more if someone has taken then time to train a character to deliver specific boosts then this too should also be rewarded.

I think the solution is to limit how many and who can receive boosts.

OGB has fleet options that says "boost this guys warp disrupt range", "Boost this guys resistance", imagine having an active OGB that is a specialist role and not one to sit in space "somewhere" delivering boosts. (picture the booster toggling who is to receive boost in essence changing the boostered in relations to the environment) I would like to add that I think if someone is getting boosts it should be known to all in the vicinity and since the boosts are being directed at someone and not just anyone, the boost amount should be increased.

Nobody complains then


this.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#18 - 2013-03-27 14:09:28 UTC
A relay module would be better imo.

Can relay the boost from 1 grid to another, that way boosts are not system wide - but to a finite number of grids. faux-solo has a large penalty to have boosts, small gangs far less so, multiple strategies for protecting the relay module because there could be 3 dispersed amongst 30 drakes, and countering them can involve someone hunting them with a ship scanner.
brinelan
#19 - 2013-03-27 17:39:43 UTC
instead of on grid why not a radius. Say, 50km to start and 100km for each level of a new skill. to fix the issue of mining bonuses in a rorqual, have the mining mindlink have a new bonus that lets mining links only be systemwide.
Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2013-03-27 17:49:51 UTC
brinelan wrote:
instead of on grid why not a radius. Say, 50km to start and 100km for each level of a new skill. to fix the issue of mining bonuses in a rorqual, have the mining mindlink have a new bonus that lets mining links only be systemwide.

When I heard of the changes coming this is what I thought they would do.

I guess there are coding issues and implementation concerns that CCP is having to deal with. Hopefully they will come up with an elegant solution.

I don't think mining links should be treated any differently but that's just me. ;)
123Next page