These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sodomiss
The Hoody Mafia
#41 - 2013-04-12 16:26:42 UTC
Gang modules are different to other modules as they do not require the ships receiving the bonuses to be locked up by the ship giving bonuses nor do either party recieve any kind of flag. All of the modules you have compared them against do require one ship to lock up the other in order to create the effect and give the involed parties flags. For this reason i feel its unwise to make a comparrison between them. The truth is i can't think of another module that is directly comparable to gang mods.

Furthermore, when you are in a fleet you are afforded additional benefits that are not available to non fleet members. Along with bonuses, "warp to member" is one of these. Why is your ship's navigational computer able lock onto another fleet member's position on another grid and allow you to warp directly to their position when it is unable to warp you to a non fleet members position on the same grid?

I don't expect you or anyone bar a CCP employee to be able to provide a correct answer to that, i'd just put it down to the benefits of being in a fleet.

I personally never thought that there was a problem with system wide bonuses for all fleet members provided that the bonuses were vulnerable, you obviously do and thats fine, opinons are like **** holes, everyone has one!

And it doesn't matter what you or I think, all we can do is voice our opinions (i believe we have) and let CCP decide what is good and what is bad, because they never get it wrong o.O
Termy Rockling
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-04-13 03:31:02 UTC
Not on grid = not part of the fight, my simple opinion.
Eyana Starstruck
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-04-13 10:07:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Eyana Starstruck
I cant find any logic in command ships being able to boost fleet members that are not on grid with them. That is I can't find reasoning of command modules having system wide range. I would like some way of explanation on how is that possible?

One could say they are streaming information in and out, to and from their position, and by doing so they are able to improve their fleet members within system, but then that should be making them much easier to pinpoint using probes because of the amount of information being passed around. Similar to call tracing, its easier to pinpoint his position while the phone is on or is being used.

Either OGB should be removed or make them easy to pinpoint. Not being able to be used while in pos field goes without saying.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#44 - 2013-04-13 10:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelique Duchemin
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.

In my opinion Links should not be useable within a force field but should still pass on bonuses remotely to gang members in the same system. They could be given a timer similar to a weapon timer (without sentry agro) so you can’t jump a gate or dock up as soon as hostiles engage the booster. You then have the option of using a command ship on grid with sufficient defenses or lesser bonuses from a T3 in a safe spot that could be probed.


This was the part I was waiting for.


If you are not on the field and in harms way then you should not be able to effect the fight. Your two simultaneous fights scenario is not enough to warrant the current system. A booster that warps around safe spots is just the same as a POS.

I get the OP. You spent millions of SP on multiple chars and pay plexes for them so you can use them for offgrid boosting yourself and your mates and this change will unmake all your efforts.

I understand why you're upset but you cannot motivate why things should remain the way they are.

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


It is incredibly broken. Please don't try to turn a personal preference into a moral crusade.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#45 - 2013-04-13 12:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
I have always felt that a command ship was the cerebral part of a fleet and the Dps, Tackle, and Scouts were the grunt part. The CS provides a virtual platform to take in all the information and make relevant adjustments to the fleet to ensure optimal performance.

For example if we were to reduce this to WW-II combat scenario a CS would be the equivalent of the entire intelligence gathering division from radar sites to forward scouts to the weather reports, all this information allows a commander to equip and prepare for battle in a way that gives him an advantage over a commander that does not have these tools. In no way whatsoever are any of those factors an on-grid requirement, thereby putting the CS on grid to properly prepare a fleet for combat makes no sense either. Now of course this is EVE and that analogy is a personal perspective but the theory still holds true as a CS is a resource not easily gained, and potentially an Achilles heel to any group that uses it.

It’s not broke it is just a level of strategy beyond what a common grunts understanding encompasses. Dumbing down the game to a strictly two dimensional playing field enhances nothing, adds nothing, and will result in less immersive gameplay. Whereas the enhanced fleets abilities due to the foresight of employing a Booster is an aspect of Strategy "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Understanding that 99% of EVE players are concerned with Tactics and the remaining 1% are considered with strategy makes the common responses in threads like these easily understandable; You don’t like it cause you don’t understand it, but that is also not a good enough reason for the rest of us to give it up.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#46 - 2013-04-13 12:43:45 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I have always felt that a command ship was the cerebral part of a fleet and the Dps, Tackle, and Scouts were the grunt part. The CS provides a virtual platform to take in all the information and make relevant adjustments to the fleet to ensure optimal performance.

For example if we were to reduce this to WW-II combat scenario a CS would be the equivalent of the entire intelligence gathering division from radar sites to forward scouts to the weather reports, all this information allows a commander to equip and prepare for battle in a way that gives him an advantage over a commander that does not have these tools. In no way whatsoever are any of those factors an on-grid requirement, thereby putting the CS on grid to properly prepare a fleet for combat makes no sense either. Now of course this is EVE and that analogy is a personal perspective but the theory still holds true as a CS is a resource not easily gained, and potentially an Achilles heel to any group that uses it.

It’s not broke it is just a level of strategy beyond what a common grunts understanding encompasses. Dumbing down the game to a strictly two dimensional playing field enhances nothing, adds nothing, and will result in less immersive gameplay. Whereas the enhanced fleets abilities due to the foresight of employing a Booster is an aspect of Strategy "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Understanding that 99% of EVE players are concerned with Tactics and the remaining 1% are considered with strategy makes the common responses in threads like these easily understandable; You don’t like it cause you don’t understand it, but that is also not a good enough reason for the rest of us to give it up.


So your excuse is that Command Ships need to be off grid due to RP?


If you want to make a WW2 parallel then I'd personally compare the Command Ships more to say... Command Tanks. You know. The tank with the antennas and no cannon that accepted orders from Command and then relayed the orders across the battlefield.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#47 - 2013-04-13 12:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
I have always felt that a command ship was the cerebral part of a fleet and the Dps, Tackle, and Scouts were the grunt part. The CS provides a virtual platform to take in all the information and make relevant adjustments to the fleet to ensure optimal performance.

For example if we were to reduce this to WW-II combat scenario a CS would be the equivalent of the entire intelligence gathering division from radar sites to forward scouts to the weather reports, all this information allows a commander to equip and prepare for battle in a way that gives him an advantage over a commander that does not have these tools. In no way whatsoever are any of those factors an on-grid requirement, thereby putting the CS on grid to properly prepare a fleet for combat makes no sense either. Now of course this is EVE and that analogy is a personal perspective but the theory still holds true as a CS is a resource not easily gained, and potentially an Achilles heel to any group that uses it.

It’s not broke it is just a level of strategy beyond what a common grunts understanding encompasses. Dumbing down the game to a strictly two dimensional playing field enhances nothing, adds nothing, and will result in less immersive gameplay. Whereas the enhanced fleets abilities due to the foresight of employing a Booster is an aspect of Strategy "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Understanding that 99% of EVE players are concerned with Tactics and the remaining 1% are considered with strategy makes the common responses in threads like these easily understandable; You don’t like it cause you don’t understand it, but that is also not a good enough reason for the rest of us to give it up.


So your excuse is that Command Ships need to be off grid due to RP?


If you want to make a WW2 parallel then I'd personally compare the Command Ships more to say... Command Tanks. You know. The tank with the antennas and no cannon that accepted orders from Command and then relayed the orders across the battlefield.

Which would follow in that as long as it was in communication range it would have a positive effect on the battle. But my use of WW-II was get a frame of reference for the role they fill and how they would 'in theory' do it.

Edit: I don't think they need to be off grid, but an area of effect restricted to one fleets position is also unacceptable for the role it is supposed to provide.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Ion Nemesis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2013-04-21 16:20:17 UTC
I think the problem is not in off-grid boosting but in the effects of that boosting. For example, it is concievable that a remote processing capability can make remote armor repair more effective or reduce the signature radius by extrapolating the pattern of enemy fire, but it is very far-fetched to think that it would att 30% to the armor layers, resistance or capacitors. And i am not talking only about command ships but also about titans ( an erebus would add 37.5% to the armor of all the ships in the fleet ).

Consequently, maybe some boosting modules should be able to function off-grid and others on-grid only ?
Garresh
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#49 - 2013-04-21 19:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Garresh
**** it. I'll throw an idea into the ring. The ONLY way to make off grid boosting balanced is if
A. It caused a massive SIG bloom so they were easier to scan.
B. It disabled warp drive while active.
C. It generated a system wide beacon like a cyno.
D. It generated an anomaly which can be scanned down by any ships on-board computer(but doesn't create a beacon)

Some combination of those is required for OGB to be balanced. Personally I think OGB is ********, and that none if these nerfs are good because they effectively kill on grid boosters viability, so let me propose an alternative.

Have "falloff" for boosters which reduces effectiveness based on distance. Base "optimal" would be like 500km, with falloff of like 2000km. End result of allowing off grid boosting but only from "adjacent" grids. Interceptors could potentially hunt then down this way.


Edit: actually now that I'm sitting down not reading this thread at work I realized how stupid my idea is due to how grids and combat calculations work. But that alone is justification of how bad off grid boosting is.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#50 - 2013-04-21 21:34:31 UTC
OGB is fine. Leave it as is.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2013-04-22 01:33:45 UTC
When's the last time someone saw a Rorqual get deployed on grid for a mining op?
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#52 - 2013-04-22 04:24:08 UTC
Klymer wrote:
When's the last time someone saw a Rorqual get deployed on grid for a mining op?



The Orca fills that role now. Besides the Rorqual was designed for some imaginary remote mining ops that never happened because mining is not *that* profitable.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-04-22 07:41:36 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I have always felt that a command ship was the cerebral part of a fleet and the Dps, Tackle, and Scouts were the grunt part. The CS provides a virtual platform to take in all the information and make relevant adjustments to the fleet to ensure optimal performance.

For example if we were to reduce this to WW-II combat scenario a CS would be the equivalent of the entire intelligence gathering division from radar sites to forward scouts to the weather reports, all this information allows a commander to equip and prepare for battle in a way that gives him an advantage over a commander that does not have these tools. In no way whatsoever are any of those factors an on-grid requirement, thereby putting the CS on grid to properly prepare a fleet for combat makes no sense either. Now of course this is EVE and that analogy is a personal perspective but the theory still holds true as a CS is a resource not easily gained, and potentially an Achilles heel to any group that uses it.

It’s not broke it is just a level of strategy beyond what a common grunts understanding encompasses. Dumbing down the game to a strictly two dimensional playing field enhances nothing, adds nothing, and will result in less immersive gameplay. Whereas the enhanced fleets abilities due to the foresight of employing a Booster is an aspect of Strategy "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Understanding that 99% of EVE players are concerned with Tactics and the remaining 1% are considered with strategy makes the common responses in threads like these easily understandable; You don’t like it cause you don’t understand it, but that is also not a good enough reason for the rest of us to give it up.

The problem is that CS currently is not "cerebral part" of the chain, it's quite to the contrary a dumb alt that does nothing and gives no reason to actually be played by a player.

When CS or command T3 is the best ship for FC to fly, then your reasoning will be spot on. For now, however, CS are much less of an attribute of a "strategical or tactical play" than literally anything that is actually flown by a player, especially one that understands higher levels of fleet op (guess what ship said person will be flying? anything but off-grid boosing dummy).

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Secret Squirrell
Allied Press Intergalactic
#54 - 2013-04-22 20:46:11 UTC
Just an FYI, you can fit at least the current Claymore and Vulture (Vulture requires a Skirmish Link be running but it does not need a skirmish mindlinked link) to be fully probe resistant if your willing to totally forgo a tank, though in the absence of the covops cloak and interdiction nulifier, I think that would be of very limited utility.
Zentock
#55 - 2013-04-24 17:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Zentock
Well since mining is such a low profit venture I would expect OffGB in the pos shields for mining boost only to remain, but at a reduced rate then OnGB, As CCP has separated the mind links for combat from mining I suspect this will happen.

However for the combat boosting, I have a new idea, it goes like this.

On the grid combat with a boosting ship on the same grid = full boosting bonuses,
the next grid out around the site of combat = a 1% boost reduction,
the next ring of grids out = 3% reduction,
and the rest of the system grids would get a 5% reduction.
This would let the fleet members do there jobs, and still get some level of boosting.

OR

Perhaps a whole new skill (and a new anchorable module can be added ( Booster Relay(ing)), one that lets a FC anchor relays in his current system ( or any pilot who trains the skill can anchor relays if on a fleet, ( anchor for corp or fleet )), this would relay the boosts to other fleet members not on grid with the CS .

1 grid ring out / 2 grid rings out / the rest of the system

1 relay anchored +1% / - / -
2 relays anchored +2% / +1% / -
3 relays anchored +3% / +2% / +1%
4 relays anchored +4% / +3% / +2%
5 relays anchored +5% / +4% / +3%

- = NO boost relayed

Skill level = the # of relays that can be anchored per system.

An anchored relay unit must be anchored more then 5000 m from any ship, approaching a relay ( friend or foe ), within 5000 m will have a negative effect on ANY ship that gets to close due to intense subspace particle bursts, that will scramble any electronic system within its AOE ( This effect is only active when a fleet booster is activly boosting, entering warp or a pos shield, or docking cancels the AOE effect.
Perhaps skill level can reduce this somewhat, but not fully.

All relays can be scanned down AND/OR destroyed.
KnightMaire kings
The Exchange Collective
#56 - 2013-04-25 01:36:27 UTC
Garresh wrote:
**** it. I'll throw an idea into the ring. The ONLY way to make off grid boosting balanced is if
A. It caused a massive SIG bloom so they were easier to scan.
B. It disabled warp drive while active.
C. It generated a system wide beacon like a cyno.
D. It generated an anomaly which can be scanned down by any ships on-board computer(but doesn't create a beacon)

Some combination of those is required for OGB to be balanced. Personally I think OGB is ********, and that none if these nerfs are good because they effectively kill on grid boosters viability, so let me propose an alternative.

Have "falloff" for boosters which reduces effectiveness based on distance. Base "optimal" would be like 500km, with falloff of like 2000km. End result of allowing off grid boosting but only from "adjacent" grids. Interceptors could potentially hunt then down this way.


Edit: actually now that I'm sitting down not reading this thread at work I realized how stupid my idea is due to how grids and combat calculations work. But that alone is justification of how bad off grid boosting is.



well if you do c or d all you have done is move the grid because almost any fc will warp his fleet to ware the enemy link ship is and attempt to kill it so not good there I think that thay need to be like siege modules or triage modules with no movement but allow remote reps

and links that are given off by a pos module for home field advantage out side of the shield but then the pos hast to be part of the fleet (bad idea but it may go some ware)

and falloff is cool and all but supper fights can be like 800 km in diameter and trying to have links in the exact middle of that is a nightmare or just warping to the primary is a idea (no idea what other tricks people will have but dumb will happen)

and just for ***** and giggles why to translate links to dust (the same argument can be made for remote reps but a tank with a archon reping it will be op but the archon will be in orbit and venerable to hot dropping and a dust started supper fight there bye could happen)

The only major drawback is the crazed notion that the inventory would look so much better if merely rearranged ONE MORE TIME.
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
#57 - 2013-04-28 06:19:14 UTC
Something the upcoming changes had me curious about is "Will the fleet booster bonus from leadership skills also be on-grid only?"
xPredat0rz
Project.Nova
The Initiative.
#58 - 2013-04-28 06:52:01 UTC
I actually like OGB. Gives the defenders a home field advantage and the attackers need to setup a safe tower to even the playing field.

Dont want the attackers to have their links? Siege the tower **** cage it. Wont stop everything but now the attackers have to defend the safety they need to run their links.


Same goes for Rorquals.. Only an idiot would siege theirs in the belt with the miners...esp with the new changes coming to mining.


The links work fine as is. The only people that cry are those that never use them. Either get a dedicated prober with implants and 9 bombers designed to hunt and kill OGB that arent POSed up.

You can scan down T3s and CS. They arent 100% unprobable anymore. Yes it requires a fair amount of isk/implants but shouldnt taking out your enemies command and control be worth it?

That to me makes having a black ops wing even more important for fleet engagements beyond the bombing runs, Having a carrier in a pos so you can refit from OGB hunting to bombing ops. Good Blops Units would be able to hinder and disrupt the enemy. Bad ones end up as dust and smear their killboards in red.

Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#59 - 2013-04-28 10:02:06 UTC
The new scanning modules mean that most people will be able to probe down OGBs, so having them in a safe spot will be less safe.



.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-04-28 17:15:40 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I have always felt that a command ship was the cerebral part of a fleet and the Dps, Tackle, and Scouts were the grunt part. The CS provides a virtual platform to take in all the information and make relevant adjustments to the fleet to ensure optimal performance.

For example if we were to reduce this to WW-II combat scenario a CS would be the equivalent of the entire intelligence gathering division from radar sites to forward scouts to the weather reports, all this information allows a commander to equip and prepare for battle in a way that gives him an advantage over a commander that does not have these tools. In no way whatsoever are any of those factors an on-grid requirement, thereby putting the CS on grid to properly prepare a fleet for combat makes no sense either. Now of course this is EVE and that analogy is a personal perspective but the theory still holds true as a CS is a resource not easily gained, and potentially an Achilles heel to any group that uses it.

It’s not broke it is just a level of strategy beyond what a common grunts understanding encompasses. Dumbing down the game to a strictly two dimensional playing field enhances nothing, adds nothing, and will result in less immersive gameplay. Whereas the enhanced fleets abilities due to the foresight of employing a Booster is an aspect of Strategy "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Understanding that 99% of EVE players are concerned with Tactics and the remaining 1% are considered with strategy makes the common responses in threads like these easily understandable; You don’t like it cause you don’t understand it, but that is also not a good enough reason for the rest of us to give it up.


You forgot about the little fact that all the intelligence gathered required quite some time to filter down to the units "on grid" doing the hard work. That intellignce reaching the battlefield is the same as that damn booster ship reaching the batlefield to put the grunts at a better state of readyness.

Off grid boosting should lead to fiasco like pearl harbor where the intel of imminent japanese attack arrive hours after the attack so you get your bonus once the fighting is done.