Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Hurray!

Hmmm, the actual context for the blob argument was that you're blobbing when you bring more people than there are people in the rest of the region combined. But on a slightly more serious note: the problem here was stated earlier in the thread. Large static fleets that dramatically outnumber their opponents are free to bring the large and heavy static command ships to the field and reap the massively overpowered bonuses while smaller fleets that are based around skirmishing are literally **** out of luck.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm aware that pretty much any argument can be turned into a but the blob argument. However, I would argue that blobs are inherently not as good at coordinated attacks as smaller and more tightly knit organizations. There's limitations in communication, skills, ships, lag, etc that all makes it much harder to execute skirmish style warfare. And hell, if you've got enough people then it's just more efficient and easy to just blap **** down with artillery. Thus, what I'm objecting to is that on grid only links pretty much hits a delete key on skirmish based warfare.

My objection really boils down to the fact that links that provide 50%+ bonuses are amazingly overpowered in a game where people train for 60 days for a 2% bonus. In a very real sense, a set of links provides you and everyone in your fleet with a snake set, a nomad set, a grail set, a slave set, a crystal set, an armor crystal set, and a full rack of deadspace/officer gear. For free.

I tend to approve of the directed module solution (making gang mods be more like Remote ECCM and Remote SeBo and Shield Transporters etc). However, my personal solution is a bit more heavy handed because I feel that the bonus provided is just outrageously over the top:
- Delete combat gang mods and mindlinks in entirety. Hard programming problem: solved.
- Leave or don't leave the mining gang mods. I really don't care. Let the miners hash that **** out.
- Keep the base leadership skills and their effect intact (Leadership, Armored Warfare, Siege Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, Info Warfare)
- Make the leadership Spec skills enhance the more basic leadership skills.
- Give Fleet Commands another role. I suggest BC sized logistics or something.

Now, before anyone gets offended and tells me to train up or buy my own warfare link alts: I am running three purrrrr-fect skilled warfare link alts from within a POS right now. I've got it covered.

-Liang

The beauty, if you will, of the blob is that you don't have to be coordinated or tightly knit. In fact, the pilots by and large don't even have to be that good. All the blob relies on is numbers. If N pilots are capable of locking the target and pressing F1, then the target will die from alpha. Smaller and more coordinated groups, while I of course agree are better from a gaming/fun standpoint, just aren't needed when you can amass 750 low skilled mouthbreathers to press a button.

Sounds dangerously close to risk-averse ~elite pvp~.

You could make it more friendly for smaller gang skirmishing by diluting the bonus based on the numbers in the fleets.


Let's say, for instance, that a Squad Leader can boost his squad for 100% of the bonus, but a Wing Leader only provides 70% of the bonus to his squads. This dilution would occur at ever level of the command chain so that a large fleet would benefit much less from boosting than a smaller fleet.

This could be made less harsh by allowing each level of command reinforce the higher levels in the chain, so that 70% from the wing commander could be boosted back to 80% by a squad leader running the same links for his squad only, or perhaps with a new command module that served the purpose, making the one slot t1 battlecruisers more viable as links in the command chain.

Command Ship changes were never announced for this expansion. We revealed a medium-term plan last year to get feedback, that's not the same as promising it will be in the next release.

I'm sure people--myself included--were thinking CS changes would make it into Odyssey based on what CCP Ytterbium stated in his Dev Blog "Back to the Balancing Future" on Nov. 6, 2012. He said:

Since BSs were of the last of the T1 hulls needing fixing (save for Capitals), its only logical that we'd see Command Ship changes coming in Odyssey unless the tiericide initiative is going to take some time off.

I have had a somewhat inexplicable fantasy for a long time of a T2 destroyer with decent speed/agility that can only run 1 link and cannot use Command Processors.

However, I dislike the idea of adding more warfare link ships before the ambiguity between the roles of the T3 and CS classes is resolved.
In the Back to the Balancing Future dev blog the idea was proposed of having the CS run stronger boosts than the T3, but the CS pilots have to choose between running links or having an actually combat effective fit.
While I agree that a CS fit as a dedicated booster should be 'better' than a T3 dedicated to that job, I'd like to see it so that both can also run links while having on-grid combat potential. Specifically I think the T3 ships should be adapted to fly alongside the 'attack' ships and the CS should go with the 'combat' ones.

as a side note: What's the latest word on when the Nighthawk will be getting some love? (edit: I mean, are we going to have to wait until the CS class as a whole gets an overhaul?)

so, we are getting a rewrite of how grids work ?

or the brain in a box thing ?

or both ?

The problem is that people think it's necessary to fit all the links to a single ship instead of choosing between them. If ships off-grid didn't affect the fight, then people would learn to choose which links they actually needed the most, make a choice and fit an effective ship to fly them on-grid. I know it's crazy. But for now, they can have their cake and eat it too, along with a handful of other cakes.

I know it's possible because when I flew in skirmishy (and other) gangs with Rote Kapelle we would bring our links with us. And keep them on-grid. And use them to great effect.


If everyone can do everything then you end up with a sort of homogeneous looking field. Having to decide makes your choices actually relevant.

I think this also goes a little to the potency argument. If you were only 50% better at one thing instead of 50% better at everything it wouldn't be so bad.