These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No Command Ship Buff Coming

First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2013-05-19 22:46:30 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
That's the part I don't wholly agree with.
So basically, the argument is that if you waste all the fitting space on stuff that's not tank, it doesn't tank well…

Riiiight. That's not really a problem with the ship.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#22 - 2013-05-19 22:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
They can give all the boosting ships an extra million hitpoints and my argument will remain the same. I'm not arguing against the concept of the defense/payload tradeoff, but the fact that the change constitutes a simple cash grab by CCP since the only way to compensate for it will be to field more of the things.

And let me add again, this change would also do nothing to inhibit the people who use boosters in high-sec. In fact it already makes more sense to keep them on-grid in high-sec since you can ship-scan enemies and drop extra cap charges for yourself, etc.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Korvus Falek
Depraved Corruption
#23 - 2013-05-19 22:49:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Korvus Falek
I think the person disagrees with the ship being intended to use 3 links at once, hence limiting its ability to provide dps to the fight. Or something along those lines.

edit:
fielding more links wont help since links dont stack over top of other ones. Only the highest bonus per link type is provided. You should learn mechanics better
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#24 - 2013-05-19 22:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Korvus Falek wrote:
I think the person disagrees with the ship being intended to use 3 links at once, hence limiting its ability to provide dps to the fight. Or something along those lines.

edit:
fielding more links wont help since links dont stack over top of other ones. Only the highest bonus per link type is provided. You should learn mechanics better

Nah, dps is irrelevant.

What I'm trying to say is that my paper T3 booster in high-sec will never die even if it needs to be on grid. Meanwhile, players everywhere else would not be given the same advantage.

Requiring on-grid boosting would create a new balancing issue that would shift the risk/reward formula ever more in favor of high-sec.

What are they going to do, make boosting non-corp-members give you a suspect flag?

Oh, ****.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#25 - 2013-05-19 22:56:22 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Nah, dps is irrelevant.

What I'm trying to say is that my paper T3 booster in high-sec will never die even if it needs to be on grid. Meanwhile, players everywhere else would not be given the same advantage.

Requiring on-grid boosting would create a new balancing issue that would shift the risk/reward formula ever more in favor of high-sec.

What are they going to do, make boosting non-corp-members give you a suspect flag?

Oh, ****.


Or they can use a command ship to fill the role of command ship.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2013-05-19 23:07:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Or they can use a command ship to fill the role of command ship.
…which, by the way, rather neatly answers the original question: command ships will get their revamp together with T3 so make the CS better at being command ships than the T3s are.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#27 - 2013-05-19 23:11:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Or they can use a command ship to fill the role of command ship.
…which, by the way, rather neatly answers the original question: command ships will get their revamp together with T3 so make the CS better at being command ships than the T3s are.


Just one of many nerfs to T3Lol
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#28 - 2013-05-19 23:11:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Which is nice and has my support, but I'd still like to know why they're giving null players a crutch like this.

And T3 ships will still likely be viable boosters due to the 50% probe strength sub.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Lord Haur
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#29 - 2013-05-19 23:14:54 UTC
And that's fine, you're trading the probing bonus for EHP and (post-change) boost strength.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#30 - 2013-05-19 23:19:46 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Which is nice and has my support, but I'd still like to know why they're giving null players a crutch like this.

And T3 ships will still likely be viable boosters due to the 50% probe strength sub.


They have the same if not more EHP as the main line of battleships in any fleet so its not much of an issue unless they hit warp rather than align.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#31 - 2013-05-19 23:25:17 UTC
How quick does a single battleship die in a big fleet battle?

I guess CCP can always say "fleet boosting in big fleet battles was never meant to be profitable" or something.

It's not like this affects me anyway, since I don't take part in any "ops" where there's more people in the fleet than is allowed for one squad. I'm simply pointing out flawed design methodology and balance inconsistencies. No one's still addressed the risk/reward disparity between high-sec and other areas of space when it comes to on-grid boosting.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#32 - 2013-05-19 23:29:05 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Personally doubt we will see or hear anything with regards to CC revamp until they find a solution to the off-/on-grid link question as splitting those two development wise would mean more work overall .. all pressure is on the coders to solve the grid vs. system riddle and it will increase as stuff is crossed off the tiericide list.


Highly doubt this. There was something I recall CCP Fozzie talking about where they wanted to at least get the boosting changes done, considering they have no idea yet how to fix the off grid boosting part.

So I fully expect we will see the boosting changes happen sooner rather than later. We may or may not ever see the OGB go away, depending on technical difficulties.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2013-05-19 23:35:01 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
How quick does a single battleship die in a big fleet battle?



Depends on the quality of your logi.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2013-05-19 23:51:50 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
They can fix links by making them unable to work inside a POS shield, while at the same time giving them the siege mechanic that immobilizes the boosting ships during use. Then you either have to choose between deploying them to the fight itself, or risk getting probed out and killed without support.

Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.

Part of the proposed buff was to make command ships on grid BUT ALSO to make them much more resilient and combat ready, which is why this buff is wanted by so many of us.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#35 - 2013-05-20 00:02:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
How quick does a single battleship die in a big fleet battle?



Depends on the quality of your logi.

If incoming damage exceeds your hitpoints in a small time frame, logistics quality doesn't really matter much. I don't do 0.0 stuff anymore, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume that forty or more ships shooting you with 1400mm is going to be an instant death no matter what kind of tank you have on a booster, generally speaking.

If, like the guy above says, CCP is going to boost the health of booster ships, that's fine, but that in itself might make them a bit unbalanced in other situations. Either way, 0.0 people are going to be required to field spares in combat, and empire pvpers will be even more immune, since the only way to deal with boosters in empire is to gank them, and if they get a hitpoint increase, well...

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Mirima Thurander
#36 - 2013-05-20 00:11:02 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
They also said one day they'll fix POSes and overhaul drones.




and the the NEXT Lead Dev in charge said


POSes don't effect enough players......


and


Drones are fine....



AKA


THESE ARE NOT WHAT I LIKE IN EVE AND AS THE LEAD DEV WE WILL DO WHAT I SAY NOT WHAT YOU WANT.



so bugger off your getting mini-games and ice stuff.




All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Kalla Vera Quiroga
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#37 - 2013-05-20 00:25:30 UTC
Why..not use standard battlecruisers for boosting...? Or is command ship boosts that mandatory to completely disregard the latter?
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-05-20 00:27:23 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
They can give all the boosting ships an extra million hitpoints and my argument will remain the same. I'm not arguing against the concept of the defense/payload tradeoff, but the fact that the change constitutes a simple cash grab by CCP since the only way to compensate for it will be to field more of the things.


I sort of disagree with this. Off-Grid boosters are much too powerful. As part of a group of people that has small gang roams in Syndicate often, the off-grid boosts really hurt us in that we have no way of taking down their booster in order to come onto an equal playing field.

Also, I would appreciate on-grid boosts more in that we would have a viable command ship - it would not only provide boosts, but would be quite fun to fly for people like me, who don't have an alt or can not afford one.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#39 - 2013-05-20 01:24:30 UTC
Kalla Vera Quiroga wrote:
Why..not use standard battlecruisers for boosting...? Or is command ship boosts that mandatory to completely disregard the latter?

The lack of bonuses just doesn't make them worth it. Especially considering what's often at stake.

Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
They can give all the boosting ships an extra million hitpoints and my argument will remain the same. I'm not arguing against the concept of the defense/payload tradeoff, but the fact that the change constitutes a simple cash grab by CCP since the only way to compensate for it will be to field more of the things.


I sort of disagree with this. Off-Grid boosters are much too powerful. As part of a group of people that has small gang roams in Syndicate often, the off-grid boosts really hurt us in that we have no way of taking down their booster in order to come onto an equal playing field.

Also, I would appreciate on-grid boosts more in that we would have a viable command ship - it would not only provide boosts, but would be quite fun to fly for people like me, who don't have an alt or can not afford one.

This is a mind trick. Boosters aren't just available to groups who are outnumbered as a means of gaining an advantage; they're available to everyone. As such, if we have off-grid boosters, then both sides (your small gang and the larger enemy) both keep them safely off-grid, and both get the benefit of their bonuses. Your small gang might not get extra benefits, but at least gets an equalizing factor that prevents the larger enemy from having an extra advantage.

If boosters are to be kept on-grid, then you will actually be at a disadvantage because the larger enemy is more able to kill your booster with superior firepower, while keeping their own alive with more logistics. If anything, making boosters required to be on-grid will almost eliminate the utility that small gangs get from them.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-05-20 01:46:25 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Kalla Vera Quiroga wrote:
Why..not use standard battlecruisers for boosting...? Or is command ship boosts that mandatory to completely disregard the latter?

The lack of bonuses just doesn't make them worth it. Especially considering what's often at stake.

Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
They can give all the boosting ships an extra million hitpoints and my argument will remain the same. I'm not arguing against the concept of the defense/payload tradeoff, but the fact that the change constitutes a simple cash grab by CCP since the only way to compensate for it will be to field more of the things.


I sort of disagree with this. Off-Grid boosters are much too powerful. As part of a group of people that has small gang roams in Syndicate often, the off-grid boosts really hurt us in that we have no way of taking down their booster in order to come onto an equal playing field.

Also, I would appreciate on-grid boosts more in that we would have a viable command ship - it would not only provide boosts, but would be quite fun to fly for people like me, who don't have an alt or can not afford one.

This is a mind trick. Boosters aren't just available to groups who are outnumbered as a means of gaining an advantage; they're available to everyone. As such, if we have off-grid boosters, then both sides (your small gang and the larger enemy) both keep them safely off-grid, and both get the benefit of their bonuses. Your small gang might not get extra benefits, but at least gets an equalizing factor that prevents the larger enemy from having an extra advantage.

If boosters are to be kept on-grid, then you will actually be at a disadvantage because the larger enemy is more able to kill your booster with superior firepower, while keeping their own alive with more logistics. If anything, making boosters required to be on-grid will almost eliminate the utility that small gangs get from them.

This makes sense! I did not think of this before.