These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#221 - 2013-08-01 18:35:56 UTC
Griznatch wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Griznatch wrote:
Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos.


You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff!




I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well.

(I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat)


To be honest, I want to support this... but then I EFT how this enables 6 link tengus and stuff, and cringe on the inside.

Miv333
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#222 - 2013-08-01 18:37:22 UTC
-1

For so many nerds whining for nerf bats daily. This is not a fix or improvement.
Howling Jinn
Doomheim
#223 - 2013-08-01 18:40:48 UTC
Pure garbage.

Which clown came up with these ideas?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#224 - 2013-08-01 18:41:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
so what is going to happen to command processors?
I would suggest that CS and T3's have a hard limit of links they could use so 3 on CS and 3 on T3.
So they would be only used to allow T1 bc's to use multiple links.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Violet Winters
I HAVE THE POWER OF GOD AND ANIME ON MY SIDE
Blue Eyes and Exodia Toon Duelist Kingdom Duelers
#225 - 2013-08-01 18:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Winters
CCP seems to like introducing new pointless modules which aren't needed. Just make the faction mindlink the same as T2 and remove the navy variation, this is basically what you did with the hurricane/hurricane fleet and it's stupid.

/Vio

CEO - Anglic Eclipse.
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#226 - 2013-08-01 18:43:44 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Griznatch wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Griznatch wrote:
Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos.


You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff!




I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well.

(I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat)


To be honest, I want to support this... but then I EFT how this enables 6 link tengus and stuff, and cringe on the inside.




Ok so make it so they can only ever run 3 links, with no command processors, not 3+ however many CPs you put on it

Command processors should be removed from the game entirely, and any class of ship that can fit links should have a set maximum number of links they can run.


With these changes, the way t3 boosters are gonna be used doesn't change at all, except for the `not inside a pos` bit.

I used to have a clever sig but I lost it.
Sigras
Conglomo
#227 - 2013-08-01 18:51:07 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.

That will not have the effect you would like.

You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out.
If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you.
If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.

I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps.

while its true that you could just sit there aligned out at 250km it now at least gives the opposing fleet an option of sending someone out there to kill it or force it off the field.

heck ill send 2-3 ships out there to reduce the enemy fleet EHP my 25%

before I didnt have that option.
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#228 - 2013-08-01 18:54:48 UTC
Sorry but since you are really not fixing anything at least add OGB to killmails.
Sigras
Conglomo
#229 - 2013-08-01 18:56:26 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Mara Maken wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.

Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.



Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way.


When you consider it takes 60-80 days to just train for an 4 very specific implants, it's in no way comparable to other ships or abilities. It should have a lvl 4 requirement on the warfare spec of choice. LvL 5 is so highly preventative for most pilots, and all it does is reduce the intended desires of flying command ships.

Every FC in game knows how miserable it is to find a few pilots to run command ship links, and the 2 reasons stated above are exactly why.

Yeah, its not like this game has diminishing returns or anything Roll

look at it this way, if you train large autocannon specialization 5 it takes 27 days or so . . . that means you get 0.0007407% extra damage per day

80 days to train for a warfare link that gives a 25% bonus? 0.003125% bonus per day . . .

as someone with 14,000,000 in leadership, i can tell you that the training time is worth. every. minute.
Tiberu Stundrif
Nifty Idustries
Pandemic Horde
#230 - 2013-08-01 19:01:03 UTC
There goes boosting titans 99% of the time!

One more nerf to an already nearly useless ship class.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#231 - 2013-08-01 19:05:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are also making some changes to the specific bonuses from the Information Warfare Skill, Information Warfare Mindlink and the Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link:
The Info Warfare skill and mindlink will now give a bonus to scan resolution instead of lock range
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link will provide its bonus to both sensor strength and lock range.

This will be a problem for mining, as now strip range will exceed locking range, making the strip range link bonus pointless.

The Orca & Rorqual will need either another high-slot, or role bonus to compensate.
Sigras
Conglomo
#232 - 2013-08-01 19:10:26 UTC
MarekCZE wrote:
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
People can still orbit just outside the forcefield I know, but they will at least have to keep an eye on that character so it's an improvement.

YEAH lets **** up EVE online totalyBig smile its always nice to see something why people quit with eve. Just curious this was born in your blond head or? I just wanna know if u r nerdBig smile or somebody else. Pitchfork developers... no skill no brain... probably no education... without knowledge... all ur project was awesome thats why people playing thing like dust 514 Big smile also why a lot old players left EVE... how much account registred and how much is subscribed so far? Why u have records online only when u give away a lot gifts and before new datadisc...
Best is you developing ***** and you get payed for it... awesome job man... why you rather dont fix bugs/exploits... and dont give hand in fight against cloak. Or your boss order you to nerf ISK income again? Its funny how somebody who was first in wolrd economic crisis making same mistake in game.

is this lorem ipsum?

i mean seriously . . . it's not that the English is bad; it's that it's so bad

what exactly is your complaint?
GreenSeed
#233 - 2013-08-01 19:12:16 UTC  |  Edited by: GreenSeed
the biggest change i think is mind link isk cost, im certainly glad the foreman cartel is over.

but i was hoping they would just remove the requirements from gang links entirely... they should fit on any high slot on any ship. with bonuses only on command ships, t3, and the like.

if they want links on grid eventually, forcing gangs to field BCs at least is not a good way of doing it.


also the idea of having ore links with shield and cycle time in one is really bad. given that every miner that's NOT a complete moron alraedy fits cycletime/range/shield links on any orca, the ORE link would just reinforce that notion and grant a free utility high.

and what about new miners that wont be tempted to train shield links due to them being nerfed now? the ore link simply would not fit due to prereqs.

if any ore link is added it should be cycle time/activation cost. that's already necessary on rorqs, due to cycle time time and activation cost being so high already, that miners often cant complete a full warp if they need to GTFO belt. not to mention the free high is necessary on rorqs, and orca haulers don't even use links. plus, its been years since the last time i saw one of those out in null.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2013-08-01 19:16:01 UTC
navy links?!

you mean i wont have to use 4 clones for boosting anymore?!

YAY!!!!!

marry me fozzie!!!
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#235 - 2013-08-01 19:28:02 UTC
Fozzie, can you list up the skill regs for the navy links. I am assuming that the Gallante for example will be Armor Specialist V and Skirmish Specialist V?

I would have preferred that mining links not be POS safe either. I see no reason for some exclusion to industry.

Charisma remap is a PITA.

Oh a Bonus question. (meh) I note that Skirmish Warfare Mindlinks changed price at the 21st well in advance of this blog. Is someone "inside" trading?
ZoraTestra
Doomheim
#236 - 2013-08-01 19:32:13 UTC
Horrible idea, forcing Orcas and Rorqs to boost on grid no matter how you "rebalance" them. Their boosts often are an aid to miners in many different belts and it isn't practical to have one in each belt being mined.


CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lexar Mundi wrote:
Mining links should not be given special treatment...

Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame.


We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.
Beidorion eldwardan
Tactically Armed Vanguard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#237 - 2013-08-01 19:34:21 UTC
So as a Commandship pilot i have this to say.

these NERF's because that is what they are will make sure that the large scale battles such Asakai and 6VDT-H will not happen.
already in the huge fleet fights FC's ( boosters ) are getting volley right off the field without ANY AMOUNT OF LOGI COULD HAVE SAVED THEM !!! so if you want to force booster onto the field mayby you schoul consider thier Tank

and when it comes to mining boost if its move out of the poses - you effectively ( again ) make it more profitable to mine in high sec ( sefe sec ) than anywhere else but then again i have guessed that you really dont want people to live in nulsec for long periods of time. but gues what

i have spend all of three weeks in high sec since i started and none of my 12 paying accounts will ever live in high sec. might be time to look at other hobbies and places to spnd my money.

oh and since your completely rewamping the use of a feature ( boosting ) could we mayby get the option to redistribute our 15.872.000 SP or are we yet again being screwed over by a charlie phraise " I ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY SO SHUT THE F... UP "

please DEAR CCP - stop fixing stuff that is really broken until you have cleanup ALL that which is. and believe me you have plenty of work ahead of you.
Makalu Zarya
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#238 - 2013-08-01 19:45:09 UTC
Quote:
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield


seriously? all or nothing. Why do miners get special treatment again and the rest of us get ****** over?
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2013-08-01 19:47:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobias Hareka
Beidorion eldwardan wrote:
already in the huge fleet fights FC's ( boosters ) are getting volley right off the field without ANY AMOUNT OF LOGI COULD HAVE SAVED THEM !!! so if you want to force booster onto the field mayby you schoul consider thier Tank


Yes, boostings ships should be on grid, not in safespot.

Have a look at Damnation's tank. There's a reason why it's the last ship that gets blown up if enemy can't alpha it.

Makalu Zarya wrote:
seriously? all or nothing. Why do miners get special treatment again and the rest of us get ****** over?


Rorqual.

You need to activate Industrial Core to give max boost. You can't move, you can't be repped while module is active. Industrial Core's cycle time is rather lengthy: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Industrial_Core_I
Beidorion eldwardan
Tactically Armed Vanguard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#240 - 2013-08-01 19:50:06 UTC
Damnation:
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
4% bonus to all Armor Resistances
10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity
Command Ships skill bonuses:
10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints
10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus)
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links
Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers
Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU <--- here is the herf
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1)
Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6)
Signature radius: 265
Cargo capacity: 645


so this means that with your so called fitting buff with the 100 powergrid reduction per module really means that a damnation only get another 10 powergrid total. nice ninja nerf there butt heads.
could you not stop the sugar coating nerfs please have the balls to stand by the crap your body ( the company ) makes and stop with the politically correct terms call a donkey by its proper name an A + double SS

ps this forum NEEED a dislike post botton SO bad