These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

On-grid boosting and preserving small gang PvP
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#21 - 2013-07-04 07:52:52 UTC
Boosting on grid or not at all.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#22 - 2013-07-04 08:42:20 UTC
Logical Chaos wrote:
But people here want the following: Someone with 2 Accounts has no advantage over someone with 1 Account (since all people want is to completely remove OGB therefore making it disappear since no one will bother with CSes on site in their current state).


Your argument is a statement of the absurd extreme. There is nobody here claiming that CS should be removed from the game (at least I haven't seen Liang Nuren posting yet), they just want fleet boosts nerfed so that boosters have to be on grid. This would presumably be accompanied by a slight buff to command ships so that they aren't as paper thin as the Damnation.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#23 - 2013-07-04 08:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Right now, ships using warfare links are the bane of small gang PvP,


Fixed that for you.

Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Andrea Griffin wrote:
a true solo pilot isn't running around with links while much of the competition is.

Do you even play the game, or just forum warrior? 'Cause that's just flat out false.


I also challenge that statement. I do not use OffGBs, and although I have not destroyed as many ships as you, my kill to death ratio / ISK efficiency is a lot lot better than yours. Small gangs operate best in small fast groups, not dragging a booster a long behind. Also, small gangs get their best PvP attacking other groups' headquarters systems, where most competent PvP groups have permanent OffGBs. And that still doesn't stop me killing them. Off Grid Boosts help large groups who sit in system and gate camp, not small gangs roaming.

If those boosters had to be on-grid, they would be another target for small gangs.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#24 - 2013-07-04 08:59:36 UTC
How can small gangs have an advantage with an off grid booster when the blobs also use off grid boosters?
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#25 - 2013-07-04 09:07:58 UTC
I've never had strong views either way on this subject as there is some merit to both sides of the argument.


But after looking through this thread I'd have to side with the on grid boosting group.
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-07-04 09:14:11 UTC
Six Six Six wrote:
I've never had strong views either way on this subject as there is some merit to both sides of the argument.


But after looking through this thread I'd have to side with the on grid boosting group.


I personally dont care either way. The only good thing about being on grid is it would be nice to see more Rorquals and Orcas in belts/anoms.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#27 - 2013-07-04 09:21:02 UTC
Roime wrote:
There's a really simple fix to boosting, that favours small gangs over large fleets, and turns the alt-role into an interesting player role:

Make links targeted modules, with the usual cycle times, overheat mechanics, and stacking penalties. Increase the number of highslot links a CS can run, and give the links EWAR-like range.

Suddenly you have a new combat role that is challenging and fun to play, and where advantage is created by player skill, tactics and gang coordination instead of "safe up, alt-tab and forget".



I don't understand why this isn't the default suggestion. Perhaps people are just too used to click and forget boosting.

This solution fits much better with how the rest of the game works and might even require some skill to apply optimally.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Andrea Griffin
#28 - 2013-07-04 13:59:41 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Andrea Griffin wrote:
a true solo pilot isn't running around with links while much of the competition is.
Do you even play the game, or just forum warrior? 'Cause that's just flat out false.
I do play the game. Most of my PvP has been either small gang or true solo.

You know, TRULY solo. Nobody scouting gates, no second character providing links, no gang sitting next door to save my ass when I screw it up. A lot of people run around with a OGB and still call themselves "solo" pilots. They're not.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-07-04 14:20:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
How can small gangs have an advantage with an off grid booster when the blobs also use off grid boosters?


I always wondered about that one. What exactly is preventing the blob you need an advantage against in the form of OGB from using an OGB too? They have an even easyer access to it since they have more pilots they could "sacrifice" for that benefit.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2013-07-04 15:19:06 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Roime wrote:
There's a really simple fix to boosting, that favours small gangs over large fleets, and turns the alt-role into an interesting player role:

Make links targeted modules, with the usual cycle times, overheat mechanics, and stacking penalties. Increase the number of highslot links a CS can run, and give the links EWAR-like range.

Suddenly you have a new combat role that is challenging and fun to play, and where advantage is created by player skill, tactics and gang coordination instead of "safe up, alt-tab and forget".



I don't understand why this isn't the default suggestion. Perhaps people are just too used to click and forget boosting.

This solution fits much better with how the rest of the game works and might even require some skill to apply optimally.


For whatever reason CCP seem to be huge fans of AFK gameplay.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-07-04 15:29:19 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
For whatever reason CCP seem to be huge fans of AFK gameplay.


IsBox friendly.

Just like in EQII you can literally goto sleep and 8hrs later come back to the game and your ship can still be in space where you left it (have done just that).

So bump a gate camper to see if he's even awake. Blink

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-07-04 15:34:36 UTC
Logical Chaos wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Varesk wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Just nerf offgrid boosting and CS's are fine. They tank like a brick wall already. Make em a little more nimble to keep up with cruisers maybe but otherwise leave them. The problem isn't that Boost ships are bad, its that cloaky/stabbed offgrid T3's do the same job with a thousand times less risk.



T3s do a better job than Command ships due to the sub system bonus. They also have no tank and can be probed out. Saying they are at less risk than a Command Ship is not true.


They also tend to be parked behind POS shields.

So on any small gang roam you will need a prober ship to probe down the OGB, and a cyno to bring in your POS bashing fleet, or a spy in the target corp to change the POS password.


The POS argument is only true for some alliance battles RFing **** etc.

If you engage typical stationcampers in their home system it is your own fault...

Everybody else does not have a POS in every system. If someone would make a habit of using this the way it is meant T3s would have a hard time providing boosts:

[Buzzard, byebye T3]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Co-Processor II

Scan Pinpointing Array II
Scan Rangefinding Array II
Scan Acquisition Array II
Scan Pinpointing Array II
1MN Microwarpdrive II

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
[empty high slot]

Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I
Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I

But people here want the following: Someone with 2 Accounts has no advantage over someone with 1 Account (since all people want is to completely remove OGB therefore making it disappear since no one will bother with CSes on site in their current state).

Newsflash for you: People will go Falcon since Tengu is trained on that char anyway. Will be loads of fun for you.

Its EVE! Adapt aka Give CCP that juicy income from a second account and probe that damned T3.



And the second ships start dropping ongrid (ships that could be actually helping engage the fleet) the T3 will instawarp (having WCS's fitted because we're not retards) untackled and setup in another of the half dozen safespots we'd have at that point. Or, maybe just setup at a celestial. Mix it up.



Any offgrid T3 pilot that manages to get caught (not counting getting gangbanged on a gate somehow) needs to find a game more suited to their mental handicap.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#33 - 2013-07-04 15:36:41 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
For whatever reason CCP seem to be huge fans of AFK gameplay.


IsBox friendly.

Just like in EQII you can literally goto sleep and 8hrs later come back to the game and your ship can still be in space where you left it (have done just that).

So bump a gate camper to see if he's even awake. Blink



Last time I flew through a low-sec gate camp (a few years back) they were definitely asleep, only one even bothered to target me and he was slow off the mark.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-07-04 15:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
Zappity wrote:
Roime wrote:
There's a really simple fix to boosting, that favours small gangs over large fleets, and turns the alt-role into an interesting player role:

Make links targeted modules, with the usual cycle times, overheat mechanics, and stacking penalties. Increase the number of highslot links a CS can run, and give the links EWAR-like range.

Suddenly you have a new combat role that is challenging and fun to play, and where advantage is created by player skill, tactics and gang coordination instead of "safe up, alt-tab and forget".



I don't understand why this isn't the default suggestion. Perhaps people are just too used to click and forget boosting.

This solution fits much better with how the rest of the game works and might even require some skill to apply optimally.

Propably because it's a totally different role to what it currently plays in the game and is therefore the equivelent of removing the current boosting entirely from the game and making many of the current leadership skills obsolete. You could propably add such a buffing role to the game with little complaints, but it in no way compensates for the removal of an existing mechanic.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#35 - 2013-07-04 15:57:45 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Roime wrote:
There's a really simple fix to boosting, that favours small gangs over large fleets, and turns the alt-role into an interesting player role:

Make links targeted modules, with the usual cycle times, overheat mechanics, and stacking penalties. Increase the number of highslot links a CS can run, and give the links EWAR-like range.

Suddenly you have a new combat role that is challenging and fun to play, and where advantage is created by player skill, tactics and gang coordination instead of "safe up, alt-tab and forget".



I don't understand why this isn't the default suggestion. Perhaps people are just too used to click and forget boosting.

This solution fits much better with how the rest of the game works and might even require some skill to apply optimally.

Propably because it's a totally different role to what it currently plays in the game and is therefore the equivelent of removing the current boosting entirely from the game and making many of the current leadership skills obsolete. You could propably add such a buffing role to the game with little complaints, but it in no way compensate for the removal of an existing mechanic.


I think you'll find that many people would love to see the current mechanics removed entirely. No need to compensate for the loss of a bad mechanic.



.
Troezar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-07-04 17:52:53 UTC
The hard part to this is making on grid boosting worthwhile. Command ships need to be resilient enough to discourage people just melting it straight off but not being overpowered. Maybe small sig, high resist and agile enough to keep up with cruiser sized gangs. You could also reduce the build cost to make them less of an isk target and encourage people to risk them.

I can't see a way you can do all that without reducing or removing their damage capability. Maybe no turrets or launchers but give them good all round ewar support abilities, remot boost tracking or locking times (not jamming) and the ability to use nos or neuts well.

I'm not suggesting all these would be used just alternatives to direct damage, more a support/utility role.
SpoonRECKLESS
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#37 - 2013-07-04 18:19:11 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Command ships pulling over 500K EHP and still managing to apply nice amounts of dps or simply having a nasty tank on top of huge dps is already enough to make them interesting.

If those are underused it's only because of the silliness that is T3's command subs on top of providing Boosts totally safe at the pos or almost impossible to probe

OGB really needs to be removed for a better pvp environment, commit to the fight like every other ship does and players will find new ways to succeed again vs larger groups.
At equal characters skills it's the player behind it that SHOULD make the difference, not a stupid invulnerable alt running links and requiring no attention.



You know how people will counter bigger groups? They will bring more Ecm then everyone will be like nerf them! It will never stop
people will cry unfair due to someone else being skilled and good at this game. No one really adapts only the skill players who used OGB will adapt to this. While the others will cry again and again about it being unfair.

Eve where the good and skilled get punish for the weak and unskilled players.either way I will have fun.

Blue
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#38 - 2013-07-05 00:28:15 UTC
I'm not sure how you guys switched to bashing offgrid boosters, but at least it's entertaining.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#39 - 2013-07-05 00:52:37 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
ships using warfare links are huge boons to [...] solo [...]



That is mutualy exclusive

Quote:

Why not give command ships a warp core strength bonus? It preserves the current mechanic of needing skill and preparation to catch a boosting ship and provides room for a lot more dynamic play with command ships as part of small gangs. I know I, for one, have always wanted more reason and incentive to fly my Claymore, and this would definitely provide that.

Discuss. Big smile



Not a bad idea - I'd prefer mandatory on grid and out of pos boosting, but 'command destroyers' instead.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
ArchDevils
Melnie Vanagi
#40 - 2013-07-05 06:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ArchDevils
Not sure why it didnot post the message, but here it goes again :/

o/
CCP should only make sure that if a player, at any time during combat, receives any fleet boosts - these fleet booster(s) are on killmails. implementation should not allow boosters manipulation by creating/closing/joining/leaving fleet during combat.


Fly not too safe o/
Previous page123Next page