These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mindlinks/Ganglinks/Ongrid Boosting

First post
Author
Strata Maslav
Heretic Army
Divine Damnation
#141 - 2013-05-29 21:12:19 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


No, it really doesn't have anything to do with risk vs reward. Most roaming gangs have boosts, and their booster is risked at the safe spot and at the gates. The problem here isn't that command ships don't have an active role in fleet. The problem is that boosts are completely and utterly overpowered whether they're on grid or not. Boosts, as a whole, are the problem. Nerf them into the ground.

-Liang


As I said
Strata Maslav wrote:

You may be correct that current bonuses are out of hand even if they ship were vulnerable on grid.


I believe its hard to really say whether the bonuses are too powerful or not in its current state.

If both fleets have them then they should cancel each other out. Though if on-grid the ship could be target by a fleet and push off field or neuted out so it cannot provide the bonuses. Then the fleet with their bonuses intact has an advantage because of their tactics to remove the opposing boosts.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#142 - 2013-05-29 21:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
That might work ok if all fights were prearranged and fights between fleets were of remotely similar sizes. Such as, say, arena combat. However what you're proposing would effectively mean that bringing N+1 people would be equivalent to bringing 2*(N+1) people. I strongly disagree with that kind of scaling mechanic.

-Liang

Ed: And to be clear: Nerf links into the ground. Nerf me into the ground.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#143 - 2013-06-01 09:56:24 UTC
I'm not so sure...
The primary link mechanics are very much the 2% game, and the final result of a single link is effectively a one module gain (an EANM for example) and although they are ubiquitous in certain playstyles (and even deemed necessary by many of the exponents of those playstyles) the dynamic isn't too far off as long as there is an active player behind them.
The nearly unprobable, nullified, cloaky command ship which sits AFK at a safespot, or worse in a POS Bubble, is problematic but if they can be made more vulnerable, vulnerable enough that they need a real player at the keyboard behind them then I would expect to see people fitting and flying them differently.
Real Players don't tend to enjoy sitting at safes, watching D-Scan while their mates are having a fight - if they're at the keyboard anyway then they might as well fit a tank and weapons and join in - it's probably safer to hang around the logis anyway and it reduces the risk of the command ship having to warp right at the moment that their boosts are key to victory.

Warfare links, when you have to choose one, or even two or three, could be likened to intelligence - if you know that your opponents are going to be fielding entirely Amarr turret ships and lasers then you shove on more EM resists to gain an advantage; links turn that effect into a game system, if you're prepared to field them then the advantage should be tangible - the trouble comes when there's no need to choose which links you want to use because you've loaded all of them onto the ship.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#144 - 2013-06-01 12:53:07 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:

The nearly unprobable, nullified, cloaky command ship which sits AFK at a safespot, or worse in a POS Bubble, is problematic but if they can be made more vulnerable, vulnerable enough that they need a real player at the keyboard behind them then I would expect to see people fitting and flying them differently.
Real Players don't tend to enjoy sitting at safes, watching D-Scan while their mates are having a fight - if they're at the keyboard anyway then they might as well fit a tank and weapons and join in - it's probably safer to hang around the logis anyway and it reduces the risk of the command ship having to warp right at the moment that their boosts are key to victory.


Making nearly unprobable boosting impossible and making boosting ships a bit more capable and interesting to use on grid would go a long way to fixing that dynamic. Not really bothered about POS boosting as its pretty much stuck there in its POS and can't follow the fleet around easily or bring its POS with it.

Jacob Holland wrote:

Warfare links, when you have to choose one, or even two or three, could be likened to intelligence - if you know that your opponents are going to be fielding entirely Amarr turret ships and lasers then you shove on more EM resists to gain an advantage; links turn that effect into a game system, if you're prepared to field them then the advantage should be tangible - the trouble comes when there's no need to choose which links you want to use because you've loaded all of them onto the ship.


One of the biggest problems with current links is that individually most of them aren't very powerful (1-2 exceptions aside) and for most of them you need to use them in conjunction with another link or 2 to get the best effect, but then you often end up with something thats extremely powerful - no middle ground. i.e. the tank links the ones that affect cycle time and cap useage on their own aren't all that useful and really need both links but then add in the link that effects resists and the net effect is doubling the tank.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#145 - 2013-06-01 13:03:44 UTC
Strata Maslav wrote:
I believe its hard to really say whether the bonuses are too powerful or not in its current state....

Sounds like a cop-out to me, numbers don't lie and neither does the feeling of having been shafted by named module T1 ship performing like a faction fit pirate hull Big smile
These are the numbers as they look when links a fielded by commandship with spec 4 (ie. not max skilled + T1 links) and implant:
Note: I will intentionally leave information links out because they are situational and kind of naff.
Armour/Shield: -20.7% cap consumption for all repair, local and remote.
Armour/Shield: +20.7% resists across the board.
Armour/Shield: -20.7% cycle time for all repair, local and remote.
Roughly (a bit shaky on the math) a 50% increase in active tank, ever wonder why logistics is sometimes considered OP? This is a big part of it.
Skirmish - Evasive: -20.7% signature of all ships.
Skirmish - Interdiction: +31% to all non-bubble tackle.
Skirmish - Deployment: +20.7% to speed increase from propulsion mods.
Probably the primary reason for this whole debate as the complete fight control offered by these trump any other links except in massive blob fights .. signature decrease alone is worth as much (or more) tank wise as two of the shield/armour bonuses combined. Cost/benefit of using these is tallied in billions with only a handful of pilots under its wing .. all T1 pew critical mods function as if of the faction variety.

You ready for it, the reason why it is incredibly easy to say that they ARE too powerful in their current state?
--*> All the above numbers/bonuses are applied fleet wide, that is up to ~250 people all getting the on paper 'reasonable' bonuses at no cost to themselves and with no need to anything other than promise to shoot the primary (ignore the fact that some people can't even manage that for now).
Jacob Holland wrote:
...The primary link mechanics are very much the 2% game, and the final result of a single link is effectively a one module gain (an EANM for example)...

The correct analogy would be an extra ship bonus as they do not stack with fitted modules. But otherwise, yes it is 'merely' part of the min/maxing part of the game .. we are all guilty of bringing the bling to gain an advantage, but that bling costs us ISK, fittings and a target on our back when it becomes known (not necessarily a bad thing Smile) whereas link bonuses are universally applied requiring nothing from us at all.

Links need a complete rethink. On-grid demand/requirement is a band-aid at best, a big solid one granted, but a band-aid nonetheless.
Jonathan Xavier
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
#146 - 2013-06-27 03:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonathan Xavier
Here's another idea that could balance ganglinks without re-writing eve from the ground up:


  • Create a capital module that can run on carriers, titans, supercarriers, and the rorqual/orca. It's effectiveness to be equivalent to the bonus currently given by a command ship ("old style" links). This takes advantage of the capital hull bonus to fit command modules.

  • Cut the effectiveness of the current ganglink performance in half (or more). Continue to allow them to be fit to command ships, BCs, and T3s.


Boom. Way more balanced than present.

If you want the massive gains that current links provide, you need a capital in system. Gives system defenders a slight edge. If you want them in an offensive action, you need to commit a capital. If you want mobile links with the gang, you've got to deal with way less performance than you get at present or have a carrier follow you around. Too bad. They're overpowered at present and most people agree with that.

It would give an inherent boost to null/low-sec because it would restrict the best kind of links to low/null. I'm OK with that.

Thoughts?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#147 - 2013-07-08 06:01:34 UTC
One alternative to nerfing the links themselves is to nerf the "specialist" skills. At present these offer a 400% bonus to link performance, so reduce the "100% re level after 2" craziness to "10% per level." Or boost links, make them targeted active modules, then have the Specialist skills add one to the maximum number of links you can fit. Thus a command ship with 8 high slots can fit four of each type of link that the hull gets a bonus for. But then it has no weaponry.

My opinion today is that the "smart bomb" style of buffing is a decent way to allow moderate bonuses from links while still allowing the command ship to fit offensive weaponry. Or perhaps the command ship could be a battle-cruiser sized logistics boat.
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#148 - 2013-07-08 11:45:31 UTC
Is the performance still an issue?
Anariasis
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#149 - 2013-07-08 11:57:39 UTC
I don't care about how strong the links are. They can be as powerful as they are right now, no problem.

But the next time I encounter some "lonely frig" doing 1on1 fights in FW space WITH TITAN LINKS!!! I'll have to vomit.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#150 - 2013-07-08 11:59:11 UTC  |  Edited by: raawe
titan links are not that strong anyway :D

i see a lot of tears concerning boosting so ccp will probably nerf it to the ground, say ongrid aoe effect with 20% strength of current links or something like that. Next will be T3 "rebalance" (read nerf) when you wont be able to kill a rat but you will be able to scan/hack/salvage/remote repair all with the same ship/fit. Kinda sad....
Anariasis
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#151 - 2013-07-08 12:08:55 UTC
I just think that boosting should involve some sort of risk. Having off-grid boosts gives you a massive advantage, with no additional risks for you. That is the problem.
Just leave them as they are, just make them on-grid only.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#152 - 2013-07-08 12:20:02 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:

The primary link mechanics are very much the 2% game


... Sure. A linked T2 point also is hard competition for Gotan's Modified Warp Disruptor. And a linked X5-web is hard competition for the matching web.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#153 - 2013-07-08 13:11:09 UTC
I smell really borked and dysfunctional shield nano fleets while armor blobs flourish with brick damnations boosting them.
CCP should remove in POS boosts nerf OGB to 75% not remove OGBs completely, unless if there's a way to fit ganglinks to nano omens stabbers slicers and so on without making it derp.

In the current system I simply don't see how this could work without being terribly broken for all non blob warfare and not making nodes keel over when you boost 500 man blobs.


EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#154 - 2013-07-08 21:40:24 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Strata Maslav wrote:
I believe its hard to really say whether the bonuses are too powerful or not in its current state....

Sounds like a cop-out to me, numbers don't lie and neither does the feeling of having been shafted by named module T1 ship performing like a faction fit pirate hull Big smile
These are the numbers as they look when links a fielded by commandship with spec 4 (ie. not max skilled + T1 links) and implant:
Note: I will intentionally leave information links out because they are situational and kind of naff.
Armour/Shield: -20.7% cap consumption for all repair, local and remote.
Armour/Shield: +20.7% resists across the board.
Armour/Shield: -20.7% cycle time for all repair, local and remote.
Roughly (a bit shaky on the math) a 50% increase in active tank, ever wonder why logistics is sometimes considered OP? This is a big part of it.
Skirmish - Evasive: -20.7% signature of all ships.
Skirmish - Interdiction: +31% to all non-bubble tackle.
Skirmish - Deployment: +20.7% to speed increase from propulsion mods.
Probably the primary reason for this whole debate as the complete fight control offered by these trump any other links except in massive blob fights .. signature decrease alone is worth as much (or more) tank wise as two of the shield/armour bonuses combined. Cost/benefit of using these is tallied in billions with only a handful of pilots under its wing .. all T1 pew critical mods function as if of the faction variety.

You ready for it, the reason why it is incredibly easy to say that they ARE too powerful in their current state?
--*> All the above numbers/bonuses are applied fleet wide, that is up to ~250 people all getting the on paper 'reasonable' bonuses at no cost to themselves and with no need to anything other than promise to shoot the primary (ignore the fact that some people can't even manage that for now).
Jacob Holland wrote:
...The primary link mechanics are very much the 2% game, and the final result of a single link is effectively a one module gain (an EANM for example)...

The correct analogy would be an extra ship bonus as they do not stack with fitted modules. But otherwise, yes it is 'merely' part of the min/maxing part of the game .. we are all guilty of bringing the bling to gain an advantage, but that bling costs us ISK, fittings and a target on our back when it becomes known (not necessarily a bad thing Smile) whereas link bonuses are universally applied requiring nothing from us at all.

Links need a complete rethink. On-grid demand/requirement is a band-aid at best, a big solid one granted, but a band-aid nonetheless.


Your Numbers are off...
For example: Armor/Shield links in a non-mindlinked, non-warfare linked bonus Battlecruiser with t2 Links will provide 18.75% boosts. Mindlink it, and it's 28.12% boosts. Put it in the relevant Command Ship and it's 32.34%, and put it in the relevant t3, and its 35.16%.

Further comparison: Tengu Siege boosts (with mindlink), to Drugs, to Crystal Implants

Here is the TL; DR of the numbers:

The Blue pill is not terribly expensive (400k for Synth to 30m for Strong), is single use (you consume it for a 1hr boost), is hard to transport (contraband in highsec), and effects ONE pilot. It also has a decent likelihood (20-40%) of reducing your Capacitor, your Shields, your Optimal range, and your missile explosion velocity by 20-30%, depending on which strenght you use. Regardless, the max shield boost is 40%.

Now, the Crystal Set runs about 2.1+ billion isk, is in danger of being destroyed (if you lose your pod), and only effects ONE Pilot: Max Boost: 50%.

A Fleet Boosting 3-link mindlinked Tengu: Which may be sitting in 100% safety inside POS shields, gives EVERY pilot in fleet a 125% boost to shield repping ability.

That mindlinked tengu booster is more effective than giving every pilot in fleet a set of crystal implants and strong boosters combined... .and then some, and without drawbacks!!!

An implant set AND drugs combine to a 90% boost in shield repping.... to ONE character.
A boosting tengu gives a 125% boost in shield repping, to EVERY character in fleet.

And the boosting tengu can have additional links too.... or even more ridiculous, they can use a boosting tengu, a boosting, loki, and a boosting proteus at the same time!

In short, boosters (especially off grid boosters), severely unbalance ships. This is something you need to watch out for when looking at PvP, as it dramatically alters the capabilities of any ship receiving their boosts.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2013-07-08 21:46:12 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
In short, boosters (especially off grid boosters), severely unbalance ships. This is something you need to watch out for when looking at PvP, as it dramatically alters the capabilities of any ship receiving their boosts.

And if everyone has them, noone has them. Then we're right back to who brought the most bling.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#156 - 2013-07-08 22:04:44 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
In short, boosters (especially off grid boosters), severely unbalance ships. This is something you need to watch out for when looking at PvP, as it dramatically alters the capabilities of any ship receiving their boosts.

And if everyone has them, noone has them. Then we're right back to who brought the most bling.


Look at FW.... how does a new player, looking to get a taste of PvP, compete in the warzone that is overwhelmed with OGBs?

I don't care that much about big nullsec alliance blocks shooting each other in organized fleet battles (be it 20 vs 20, or 1000 vs 1000), nor established corps shooting one another (like LNA vs Fweddit), but when a young character attempts to "taste" PvP in what CCP pretty much proclaims as "newbie friendly" FW arena, they are helplessly outmatched.

And frankly, the strength of OGB's is out of line with standard bonuses in this game.

M4 Small Armor repper: 12 HP/s
T2 Small Armor Repper: 13.3 HP/s (a 10.8% increase)
A-type SAR: 19.5 HP/s (a 62.5% increase)

Skill boost, -5% cycle time per level
L1: 5.2% increase
L2: 11.1%
L3: 17.6%
L4: 25.0%
L5: 33.3%

While OGB's give a 125% increase to HP/s (to everyone in fleet). This is so far out of balance I don't even know where to begin. Cut it in half, and then, IMHO, it's at the limit of "reasonable", although still extremely potent. And this isn't addressing the fact it boosts every ship in a fleet by that amount, often from a mostly safe location inside a POS shield, which is pretty insane!!!
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#157 - 2013-07-08 22:27:24 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
In short, boosters (especially off grid boosters), severely unbalance ships. This is something you need to watch out for when looking at PvP, as it dramatically alters the capabilities of any ship receiving their boosts.

And if everyone has them, noone has them. Then we're right back to who brought the most bling.



Sort of except eve as a whole is less fun. Instead of getting in a ship and roaming around you will need to log in all your extra accounts get them to their safe spots etc. Eve pvp becomes more a of an expensive hassle than a fun game.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2013-07-08 23:39:58 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Look at FW.... how does a new player, looking to get a taste of PvP, compete in the warzone that is overwhelmed with OGBs?

If the warzone is "overwhelmed" with them then he shouldn't have a problem getting into a fleet that has one.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?

Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2013-07-08 23:41:31 UTC
Cearain wrote:
EvE pvp is an expensive hassle.

Fixed that for you.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#160 - 2013-07-09 00:12:58 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Look at FW.... how does a new player, looking to get a taste of PvP, compete in the warzone that is overwhelmed with OGBs?

If the warzone is "overwhelmed" with them then he shouldn't have a problem getting into a fleet that has one.


What are you trying to say?

That, despite the overpoweredness of OGBing, they are acceptable because everyone has access to them?

Not only is that argument bullshit, but the notion everyone has access to them is patently false too. The people with access to them are established players and/or established groups of players. And the benefits those "select groups" already have simply don't need to be compounded by the amazing strength OGB'ing provides.

So, if you have a legit reason why they should remain in their current broken state, then spit it out...