These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why We Should Support Off Grid Boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#81 - 2013-06-20 21:35:54 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
If Rorquals aren't realistic as On grid boosters, then CCP needs to make them realistic for on grid boosting. We shouldn't be making exceptions and invulnerable ships. Give them a reinforcement timer if they get attacked whilst deployed or something, but don't make an exception for them. Or give them fighters or something. I don't really care how you change it, but that's a better alternative to making an off grid exception.


I actually had a similar thought to the bolded part. Give the Rorq a stront bay and a seige/reinforced mode that can be activated by the pilot when deployed. The Rorq pops a bubble that renders it basically a brick in space. No motion, no links, no nothing, but invulnerable just the same, until it's turned off or the stront runs out. Gives you time to counter a drop or figure out some other solution. Wouldn't stop someone who is able and determined, just like POS defenses ultimately don't, but it would provide some defense against random gangs of clowns with no support.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#82 - 2013-06-20 21:36:56 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
This paradigm should become the "classic" usage of on grid boosting vessels.


They would still be lynch pin ships providing free pirate implants and officer mods to the entire fleet. The scaling mechanic you're suggesting here is pretty terrible in a game where people train months and spend billions for a 2% advantage over their opponent. On grid links don't fix anything, IMO.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#83 - 2013-06-20 21:37:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Ranger 1 wrote:
It was my understanding that the bonuses were going to be scaled down fairly significantly.


I haven't seen anything suggesting this to be true. The last dev post I saw on the subject seemed to be suggesting no change from today's link strengths.

-Liang

Ed: It's crunch time though, so I haven't been paying as much attention. I'm just blowing off some steam (eg, forum whoring) for a few minutes while I think about how to solve something. :)

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
maCH'EttE
Perkone
Caldari State
#84 - 2013-06-20 21:48:35 UTC
Getting rid of OGB is gonna get rid of small gang pvp.
Its simple as that.
Look at it how you want to, say what you want to, its simple as that..
We will see a decline of small gang pvp corps decline. All of eve will be controlled by large alliances and corps..
THANK YOU CCP FOR F'ING US UP AGAIN..
THANKS CCP RISE(a solo/small gang pvp'er atthe root, i guess your root has decayed), CCP FONZIE
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#85 - 2013-06-20 22:00:28 UTC

Great post by the Op.... A lot of excellent lines to quote in there!!!!:

Quote:
It is totally unreasonable to ask them to risk in game assets.


Quote:
Good gameplay isn't actually the priority.


Quote:
'Pay to win' mentality would usually be frowned upon, but it is a very appropriate game mechanic in a harsh sandbox like EVE.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#86 - 2013-06-20 22:14:31 UTC
maCH'EttE wrote:
Getting rid of OGB is gonna get rid of small gang pvp.


I'm sorry that you find it impossible to PvP in small gangs without an off grid booster.
maCH'EttE
Perkone
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-06-20 22:21:10 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
maCH'EttE wrote:
Getting rid of OGB is gonna get rid of small gang pvp.


I'm sorry that you find it impossible to PvP in small gangs without an off grid booster.

man you fly frigs and blob...who you kidding.
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
#88 - 2013-06-20 22:52:02 UTC
Getting rid of gank links = Getting rid of 12,000,000 skill points

Stick to your day job

"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment
Cpt Arareb
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2013-06-20 23:11:13 UTC
congratz to the op for a well writen sarcastic comment about a very known problem: offgrid boosting,it needs to disapear, this is a game about risk vs rewards anyways
Stetson Eagle
Paird Technology
#90 - 2013-06-20 23:12:36 UTC
How about boosting system wide for 1/3 efficiency and on grid for full efficiency?
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#91 - 2013-06-20 23:30:51 UTC
maCH'EttE wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
maCH'EttE wrote:
Getting rid of OGB is gonna get rid of small gang pvp.


I'm sorry that you find it impossible to PvP in small gangs without an off grid booster.

man you fly frigs and blob...who you kidding.


Ah, okay.

So it's a 'small gang' if it has a boosting alt. Otherwise it's just a blob. Gotcha.
Chaibat
Amarr Cosa Nostra
#92 - 2013-06-20 23:34:45 UTC
Benjen Gelade wrote:
Greetings

Firstly, thank you for clicking on my thread. It is very important that everyone reads this and understands the situation.

I fully support the existence of off grid boosting. The reasons for this are many, but I have tried to summarise the main arguments below.

The Mining Argument

In EVE it is not convenient for miners to use mining boosts on grid. The only way for them to mine properly is for them to have a Rorqual provide boosts, at zero risk, from inside POS shields. It is totally unreasonable to ask them to risk in game assets. Everybody in the know agrees on this.

As OGB must remain for mining purposes, it therefore must remain for combat purposes. The reason for this is because CCP cannot code a new 'role bonus' for the Rorqual, allowing it to be the only ship that can provide system wide links, and only for mining links.

The 'Really Difficult to Program' Argument

It is very common for a competitive game to contain a 'broken' or 'overpowered' element from time to time. Typically, upon detecting such an element, game developers disable the element completely until it can be corrected. However this is not appropriate for OGB. The reason for this is because it is actually really difficult for the CCP programmers to fix OGB and will take them a very, very long time. As it will take such a long time, rather than disable it the mechanism, it is far better to leave OGB in the game indefinitely in a broken state because the damage it causes to the gameplay should just be 'tolerated'.

The Revenue is King Argument

In order to use OGB you need to subscribe for an account on which to keep the boosting pilot. Therefore OGB provides CCP with revenue. It would not be appropriate for CCP to nerf OGB as this would lead to players that use OGB unsubscribing accounts. CCP's primary objective is to increase the wealth of its shareholders. Good gameplay isn't actually the priority.

The EVE is Harsh Argument

The magical thing about EVE is that it is a very harsh environment. That is why it is appropriate for players use OGB to gain an advantage, at no risk, for a monetary cost, as it is in keeping with EVE's harsh environment. 'Pay to win' mentality would usually be frowned upon, but it is a very appropriate game mechanic in a harsh sandbox like EVE.

The Fair Argument

In competitive gaming 'pay to win' is typically frowned upon. However CCP has made OGB available to all players in EVE via their 'pay to win' mechanism, which makes it ok. Anyone can subscribe an extra account with them, and train up a boosting alt to provide a risk free combat advantage (and actually quite a massive advantage at that). If players do not wish to wait to train the alts, they can purchase plex, and sell this for in game isk, and purchase a boosting alt on the character bazaar.

The 'Elite Solo PVP' Argument

Eve contains a small number of elite solo pvpers. These guys are very good indeed. They use OGB to help them fight against whole gangs of pilots solo. Without the availability of the OGB 'pay to win' mechanism they would not be able to do this as nearly well, therefore it is important that OGB remains in the game so that these elite solo pvpers can continue to own gangs single handed (and without having to risk their boosting alt).

It doesn't matter that a bi-product is that hundreds of 'entry level' tech 1 frigates and destroyers in faction war space are linked to the teeth (at no risk to the boosting alt), which effectively give these ships the same performance as if they were fit with top end modules, only at zero isk risk, and hence allow them to roflstomp any true solo, and higher skilled (but unlinked) pilot. Pay to win is acceptable in eve and should be embraced.

The 'It has always been like this' Argument

One of the strongest arguments you can make in support of a current game mechanic is that it has always been like it. OGB has been around a very long time, therefore, it logically follows that it should persist into the future for a long time. Whilst deciding on whether to keep OGB using logic is certainly reasonable, it is in fact more appropriate to make the decision simply on the basis of how long the mechanic has already persisted.

If I have missed any of the main arguments, please let me know and I will include them.


I totally agree. After all eve is a game of not having to risk shiny ships and forcing boosting to be on grid would be terribly dangersous. ;)
Black Dranzer
#93 - 2013-06-20 23:47:58 UTC
Benjen Gelade
Doomheim
#94 - 2013-06-21 00:39:07 UTC
Can I just say, thank you for all the support and feedback (and a special shout out to the devs that contributed to the debate).

I have read every post, and have updated the OP with a selection of your arguments.


Regards
Benjen "Manual Pilot" Gelade
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#95 - 2013-06-21 00:46:02 UTC
Alrighty, let's go ahead and address the OP here, since I am jumping in in the middle.

The Mining Argument:

No. At the point where you find yourself arguing in favor of ganglink mining, you've got a problem here. And then, there's the fact that most people still put their Orcas in a belt to use the cargo bay anyway, so if boosting is changed to on grid, it will still work. And pointing to the horribly unbalanced Rorqual is not a good argument, it needs a total revamp, has for a while now.

The Really Difficult to Program Argument:

Nope, not that tricky at all, actually. There are already several point blank aoe effects in game to base this off of. Just make it work like a smartbomb, give it, oh, say 150km range, and have it give a timed buff of 2 sec duration and a 1 sec cycle time.

Bam, done.

The Revenue is King Argument:

This boils down to, "If you nerf X, I am going to unsub!". They've pretty much never listened to that aside from Incarna, so why would you think they will now? I mean, how many people threatened to quit if ice mining got nerfed, on these very forums? Nothing came of that.

And assuming that people will not repurpose their booster alts to do something else is really just you speaking for a whole bunch of people you don't actually represent.

The EVE is Harsh Argument:

No. Pay to win is not ok. Regardless of how much grimdark you want to conjure up to justify it.

The Fair Argument:

In this, you make an enormous leap in logic that is not even remotely supported by the facts. The fact is, that any significant size fleet will have a boosting alt. So the competition will have them too. If they are both removed, then in effect no change has been made, both sides lost the exact same advantage, so it still comes down to numbers like it always has. But now, the edge will go to the player who chooses to accept a greater degree of risk in putting his booster out there for the world to see (and shoot at). This is totally in keeping with the spirit of the game.

The Elite Solo PVP Argument:

This is again just boiling down to pay to win. If you boost in solo PVP, I don't care what your killboard looks like, you aren't elite. You are this: http://www.memecenter.com/fun/102941/PvP-Demotivational

That's ok if actual planning and player decisions come into play, yes (like gatecamping, or station games ganking, or suicide ganking, etc, etc). But not if you are cloaked up in a safe, assuming zero risk to yourself. That's the real problem here, the zero risk aspect.

The It's Always Been Like This Argument:

Nope. Just because it's been broken for a while, is no excuse to leave it broken for eternity. If this was a valid argument, so many of the game's positive changes would never have happened. If that were a valid argument, Cruise Missiles would still suck. "Well, they've sucked forever, so the players are used to it". Yeah, not buying it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#96 - 2013-06-21 00:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lipbite
Drop few hundreds bucks onto plexes, sell em, purchase off-grid booster alt in character bazaar - get perfect siege boosts in a day. Purchase another alt - get perfect skirmish boost. Purchase alt with carrier, assign fighters to your main - get +1000DPS.

Pure, refined, unlimited "pay to win" scheme which make CCP and players happy - rarely seen in other games \o/

P.S. "Pay to win" is marketing gimmick to persuade weak-minded players they can actually win (what?) by losing money.
Digital Messiah
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-06-21 00:55:11 UTC
make boosting less boring. It should be a role that can be done interactively. instead of just sitting in one place being the fleet *****. The orca and the rorqual should be able to mine with the same efficiency as a hulk while also being able to provide boosts. No one likes dreads because they need to deploy. Change the rorqual already! every combat boosting ship can already fleet dps as well. Take away OGB and make boosting more interactive and fun.

Something clever
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#98 - 2013-06-21 01:58:07 UTC
maCH'EttE wrote:
Getting rid of OGB is gonna get rid of small gang pvp.
Its simple as that.
Look at it how you want to, say what you want to, its simple as that..
We will see a decline of small gang pvp corps decline. All of eve will be controlled by large alliances and corps..
THANK YOU CCP FOR F'ING US UP AGAIN..
THANKS CCP RISE(a solo/small gang pvp'er atthe root, i guess your root has decayed), CCP FONZIE


Take it from a successful solo and small gang PvPer. The above is complete and utter BS.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Zircon Dasher
#99 - 2013-06-21 02:00:37 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Hello, operator?

I think I've been trolled


That is impossible.

This is GD.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#100 - 2013-06-21 03:23:45 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
This paradigm should become the "classic" usage of on grid boosting vessels.


They would still be lynch pin ships providing free pirate implants and officer mods to the entire fleet. The scaling mechanic you're suggesting here is pretty terrible in a game where people train months and spend billions for a 2% advantage over their opponent. On grid links don't fix anything, IMO.

-Liang


well perhaps those billion isk mods will be relegated to mission/incusrion runners and for regular pvp you would use something sane.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.