These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Questions/Concerns regarding to proposed changes to Command Ships and Off Grid Boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Haulie Berry
#21 - 2013-04-11 20:27:41 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:
Fair enough.

I can only hope that the same reduction to gang link bonuses apply to the Orca aswell, perhaps that may be of more interest to you.


I fully agree with this.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#22 - 2013-04-11 20:37:20 UTC
There's nothing wrong with the scout getting bonuses in a different part of the system. The problem is when the booster itself is the one off hiding. Unfortunately, the two things are the same in terms of game mechanics. Its hard to keep one and lose the other.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#23 - 2013-04-11 20:40:22 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:
The point is, as far as i know, passing fleet bonuses to fleet members system wide was never thought to be broken until off grid boosting T3s were introduced.


Nonsense. There was plenty of dislike for off-grid command ships before T3s existed, unprobable boosting T3s becoming popular just brought that dislike to a level that CCP couldn't keep ignoring the problem.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#24 - 2013-04-11 20:41:18 UTC
Batelle wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the scout getting bonuses in a different part of the system. The problem is when the booster itself is the one off hiding. Unfortunately, the two things are the same in terms of game mechanics. Its hard to keep one and lose the other.


It isn't difficult at all, simply give the Command Ship the better bonuses, they already have enough EHP to be present on grid and no further action is required.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#25 - 2013-04-11 20:43:16 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:
The point is, as far as i know, passing fleet bonuses to fleet members system wide was never thought to be broken until off grid boosting T3s were introduced.


Nonsense. There was plenty of dislike for off-grid command ships before T3s existed, unprobable boosting T3s becoming popular just brought that dislike to a level that CCP couldn't keep ignoring the problem.


Yes but that's still the same problem booster off grid "Hiding" i'm talking about booster on grid but some fleet members in another part of the system that won't receive bonuses.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#26 - 2013-04-11 21:15:51 UTC
One other thing that i didn't really pick up on when reading the Blog first time round is this:

"Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) - if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls".

I assume that to mean, the more links you fit the less weapons you can fit? Makes perfect sense for 7 of the command ships as their primary damage would come from turrets or missiles and with fitting links you would have less hi slots. But what about the Eos? Any change that doesn't involve it being able to put out 5 heavy drones would be pointless seeing as CCP have said that it would be a drone boat. How would using hi slots for gang links stop the Eos from using its drones?

I hope the "balancing" of Command Ships gets some more thought put into it.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#27 - 2013-04-11 21:21:12 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:
Yes but that's still the same problem booster off grid "Hiding" i'm talking about booster on grid but some fleet members in another part of the system that won't receive bonuses.


And the point is that you can't solve the hiding problem without removing off-grid boosting entirely. There's no way to check if a boosting ship is "in combat" or just hiding, so it's all or nothing: either you have off-grid boosting from safely out of combat, or you have the bonuses limited to the single grid with the boosting ship.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#28 - 2013-04-11 22:37:54 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:
Yes but that's still the same problem booster off grid "Hiding" i'm talking about booster on grid but some fleet members in another part of the system that won't receive bonuses.


And the point is that you can't solve the hiding problem without removing off-grid boosting entirely. There's no way to check if a boosting ship is "in combat" or just hiding, so it's all or nothing: either you have off-grid boosting from safely out of combat, or you have the bonuses limited to the single grid with the boosting ship.


While I understand your point, as far as I understand no ship can be unprobeable anymore. Agreed that a T3 with the sensor strength sub plus implants and ECCM would require a maxed out prober plus Virtues i would hazard a guess a Command ship would be a much easier prospect. Coupled with the fact that a CS can't fit cov ops cloak or nullifier allowing unrestricted movement like a T3 it would be far safer to keep it with the bulk of the fleet where it can be repped.

Lastly, assuming CS get the stronger bonuses why would you consider a T3 for boosting when
A. Lesser bonus
B. Cost more
C. Loss of skill points if caught

Only benefit would be for scouting and probing.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#29 - 2013-04-11 23:54:04 UTC
Copy-n-paste...

CCP has announced that boosting will change, and that Command Ships will have a bigger bonus (3% per level) than T3 which is getting nerfed (from 5% to 2% per level), but T3 will get additional bonuses for other links. Mindlinks are also likely to be removed with the bonuses added to ships / skills.

Dev Blog - Back to the Balancing Future - Command and Conquer (last section of blog)
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530

T3 Nerf:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2145939#post2145939
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2145578#post2145578

Mindlinks:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2153564#post2153564
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2153406#post2153406
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2145790#post2145790
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#30 - 2013-04-12 04:52:01 UTC
Thanks for linking that thread, some applicable info there
Wyte Ragnarok
#31 - 2013-04-12 11:12:10 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:
its not that long Big smile


Do you find yourself saying that often? ;)
On topic now, I'm also a little concerned about these changes. Though I have Command Ships 5, I confess to rarely flying them, the main issue for me is boosting. I'm rather underwhelmed by the lower % boosts, I too was hoping that Command Ships would inherit the T3 5% boost to a single type of link, whereas T3's would receive a lesser % to more types of link (given that T2 is meant to be "specialised" and T3 is meant to be "generalised").

Also, regarding your concerns for OGB, I heard this would take a long time to implement, so likely won't be coming to a booster near you anytime soon.

Steel Roamer wrote:
I don't understand the angst behind off-grid-boosting in the slightest.

Ban boosters from POS, and make people rely on probing to catch/kill T3s.


As per other modules, gang links cannot be activated within a POS forcefield? Sounds like a simple and solid solution to me.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#32 - 2013-04-12 11:36:46 UTC
Wyte Ragnarok wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:
its not that long Big smile


Do you find yourself saying that often? ;)
On topic now, I'm also a little concerned about these changes. Though I have Command Ships 5, I confess to rarely flying them, the main issue for me is boosting. I'm rather underwhelmed by the lower % boosts, I too was hoping that Command Ships would inherit the T3 5% boost to a single type of link, whereas T3's would receive a lesser % to more types of link (given that T2 is meant to be "specialised" and T3 is meant to be "generalised").

Also, regarding your concerns for OGB, I heard this would take a long time to implement, so likely won't be coming to a booster near you anytime soon.

Steel Roamer wrote:
I don't understand the angst behind off-grid-boosting in the slightest.

Ban boosters from POS, and make people rely on probing to catch/kill T3s.


As per other modules, gang links cannot be activated within a POS forcefield? Sounds like a simple and solid solution to me.


Lol Easy Tiger!

Reading the thread in Ideas/ Discussions (linked above) Fozzie has categorically stated on a couple of occasions that Command Ships will not get the 5% per level bonus that T3s get currently. Fair enough I guess.

Got some info regarding mind links, basically they may be removed and the bonuses applied from the CS role bonus which i think is also ok.

Not seen anything to say if the current Field commands will lose anything in the way of offensive capabilities by gaining boosting abilities which was my main concern but the thread is over 50 pages long and i don't have time to read all.

Quite a few people have posted about allowing boosting from anywhere in space but not forcefields but no CCP reply to that idea, again 50 pages so perhaps i have missed it.
Lina Theist
Running out of Space
ExoGenesis Consortium
#33 - 2013-04-12 11:50:41 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:


My final concern relates to Off Grid Boosting. While I agree that 100% safe boosting from a POS definitely needs removing has anyone considered what happens if fighting occurs in two separate areas of the same system? Take a common situation like you are fighting at a POCO or a POS etc and have your bonuses on grid with you. Then your scout reports that enemy re-enforcements are arriving from a particular gate. If you want to send some of your fleet over to slow down the re-enforcements arrival you then have to decide which part of the fleets get the bonuses? To me this doesn’t sound like an improvement.


This is exactly why it's a good change. The command ship flies with the vanguard, and your fleet will have to adapt.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#34 - 2013-04-12 13:01:05 UTC
Lina Theist wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:


My final concern relates to Off Grid Boosting. While I agree that 100% safe boosting from a POS definitely needs removing has anyone considered what happens if fighting occurs in two separate areas of the same system? Take a common situation like you are fighting at a POCO or a POS etc and have your bonuses on grid with you. Then your scout reports that enemy re-enforcements are arriving from a particular gate. If you want to send some of your fleet over to slow down the re-enforcements arrival you then have to decide which part of the fleets get the bonuses? To me this doesn’t sound like an improvement.


This is exactly why it's a good change. The command ship flies with the vanguard, and your fleet will have to adapt.


I disagree, by adapting you mean either forgo bonuses to scouts/tacklers that are not with the main body of the fleet or have separate fleets and boosters depending on which area of the system you are at?

Either option sounds like a major PITA considering the mechanic of ALL fleet members picking up bonuses from an ON grid booster was never the issue here.
Haulie Berry
#35 - 2013-04-12 13:16:43 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:
Lina Theist wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:


My final concern relates to Off Grid Boosting. While I agree that 100% safe boosting from a POS definitely needs removing has anyone considered what happens if fighting occurs in two separate areas of the same system? Take a common situation like you are fighting at a POCO or a POS etc and have your bonuses on grid with you. Then your scout reports that enemy re-enforcements are arriving from a particular gate. If you want to send some of your fleet over to slow down the re-enforcements arrival you then have to decide which part of the fleets get the bonuses? To me this doesn’t sound like an improvement.


This is exactly why it's a good change. The command ship flies with the vanguard, and your fleet will have to adapt.


I disagree, by adapting you mean either forgo bonuses to scouts/tacklers that are not with the main body of the fleet or have separate fleets and boosters depending on which area of the system you are at?

Either option sounds like a major PITA considering the mechanic of ALL fleet members picking up bonuses from an ON grid booster was never the issue here.



Your use of the phrase "on grid" isn't really fitting, here.

A grid is a discrete area in space. If a booster ship is with the main body of the fleet, and a scout is elsewhere in the system, the booster is, by definition, NOT ON GRID from the perspective of the scout. It is on grid with the rest of the fleet - a completely different grid, that in no way relates to the grid being occupied by the scout.

It's pretty obvious, now, that people have been spoiled by system-wide boosting, to the point that they feel entitled to it.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#36 - 2013-04-12 13:35:06 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:
Lina Theist wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:


My final concern relates to Off Grid Boosting. While I agree that 100% safe boosting from a POS definitely needs removing has anyone considered what happens if fighting occurs in two separate areas of the same system? Take a common situation like you are fighting at a POCO or a POS etc and have your bonuses on grid with you. Then your scout reports that enemy re-enforcements are arriving from a particular gate. If you want to send some of your fleet over to slow down the re-enforcements arrival you then have to decide which part of the fleets get the bonuses? To me this doesn’t sound like an improvement.


This is exactly why it's a good change. The command ship flies with the vanguard, and your fleet will have to adapt.


I disagree, by adapting you mean either forgo bonuses to scouts/tacklers that are not with the main body of the fleet or have separate fleets and boosters depending on which area of the system you are at?

Either option sounds like a major PITA considering the mechanic of ALL fleet members picking up bonuses from an ON grid booster was never the issue here.



Your use of the phrase "on grid" isn't really fitting, here.

A grid is a discrete area in space. If a booster ship is with the main body of the fleet, and a scout is elsewhere in the system, the booster is, by definition, NOT ON GRID from the perspective of the scout. It is on grid with the rest of the fleet - a completely different grid, that in no way relates to the grid being occupied by the scout.

It's pretty obvious, now, that people have been spoiled by system-wide boosting, to the point that they feel entitled to it.


Ok if you want to nit pick thats upto you.

There would be no discussion if boosters were parked on grids that were easily reachable, i.e. leave a booster on planet 1 while a fight is occurring at planet 2. there would be no problem as you could simply warp to planet 1 and kill the booster. The reason that there is such a problem is boosters were at POS or unprobeable meaning they were totally safe.

Perhaps I do feel we are entitled to system wide boosts, it has been that way for what 5-6 years? And never have i read or heard that it was OP or broken, only once unprobable or POS'd up booster ships appeared has there been an issue.
Haulie Berry
#37 - 2013-04-12 14:47:49 UTC
Sodomiss wrote:


Perhaps I do feel we are entitled to system wide boosts, it has been that way for what 5-6 years? And never have i read or heard that it was OP or broken, only once unprobable or POS'd up booster ships appeared has there been an issue.



If the argument, "It has always been this way, so it should always be this way," were a valid one, nothing would ever be improved.
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#38 - 2013-04-12 15:12:17 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:


Perhaps I do feel we are entitled to system wide boosts, it has been that way for what 5-6 years? And never have i read or heard that it was OP or broken, only once unprobable or POS'd up booster ships appeared has there been an issue.



If the argument, "It has always been this way, so it should always be this way," were a valid one, nothing would ever be improved.


What about "if it aint broke don't fix it"?

Perhaps you could explain what enhancements/improvements would be gained from the removal of system wide fleet bonuses given from a command ship that is neither at a pos nor unprobable?
Haulie Berry
#39 - 2013-04-12 15:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Sodomiss wrote:
Haulie Berry wrote:
Sodomiss wrote:


Perhaps I do feel we are entitled to system wide boosts, it has been that way for what 5-6 years? And never have i read or heard that it was OP or broken, only once unprobable or POS'd up booster ships appeared has there been an issue.



If the argument, "It has always been this way, so it should always be this way," were a valid one, nothing would ever be improved.


What about "if it aint broke don't fix it"?


It is broken, so that's not applicable.

Quote:

Perhaps you could explain what enhancements/improvements would be gained from the removal of system wide fleet bonuses given from a command ship that is neither at a pos nor unprobable?


How would you feel about remote repping off grid? Or shooting off grid?

Why should a ship that is not actively engaged in a fight have any impact on it? I can't impact a battle using my gun modules if I'm not on grid. I can't impact a fight using my remote reps if I'm not on grid. Same goes for ewar, all drones except fighters, tackle, bombs, missiles, etc.

So why should boost modules just magically work from the other side of a system? Why do ganglinks deserve to be special in this regard? "Because they have been up until now?" Roll

With every other module, you are either engaged in the fight, or not affecting the fight.

Ganglinks, for no particularly good reason, get to have an immense impact on an engagement without even showing up.

Finally, spare me the disingenuous bull **** about POS-parking and probe-ability. That is not the problem. It's an insignificant tangent to the problem.

The ACTUAL PROBLEM is that boosters affect a fight they are not participating in. Period. Full stop. Nothing else gets to do this, it's plainly obviously broken, it's laughably idiotic to pretend otherwise, and it's been made very apparent that it will be corrected as soon as they sort out the technical hurdles.


Parking them in a POS or ECCMing them to the gills is nothing more than the obvious refinement of that practice. It is NOT the problem itself, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that it is.
Kali Omega
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#40 - 2013-04-12 15:30:05 UTC
Make it so you can't boost from a POS, but you can OGB from a safe.