These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Endeis
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#421 - 2013-08-03 03:01:57 UTC
Command processors could really do with a reduction in CPU fitting requirements in order to make a t3 fitting lots of different types of links viable.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#422 - 2013-08-03 07:02:14 UTC
Good changes.

The Tears Must Flow

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#423 - 2013-08-03 07:05:41 UTC
Just remove OGB.

The Tears Must Flow

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#424 - 2013-08-03 07:10:10 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs


as if they ever did

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#425 - 2013-08-03 07:29:53 UTC
Endeis wrote:
Command processors could really do with a reduction in CPU fitting requirements in order to make a t3 fitting lots of different types of links viable.


Why bother doing that now? T3s are forced to same grid where fight is going on at some point anyway. You will want to use all available CPU/PG for tank so you (maybe) don't get alpha'd in seconds.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#426 - 2013-08-03 07:55:50 UTC
Off-Grid Boosting is Pay To Win in the most crass and blatant form. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get massive performance boosts to your ships and modules.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Colt Blackhawk
Doomheim
#427 - 2013-08-03 08:40:44 UTC
Good changes concerning this complete gamebreaking mechanic.
For example invisible superpowers for doubledamp condors get nerfed.
Hopefully CCP will make boosting on grid soon. OGB is completely gamebreaking sh.... but this first step is good.

[09:04:53] Ashira Twilight > Plant the f****** amarr flag and s*** on their smoking wrecks.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#428 - 2013-08-03 10:39:11 UTC
Part of the overpowered-links problem is Command Processors. There's a good argument for removing them entirely.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2013-08-03 10:48:08 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Off-Grid Boosting is Pay To Win in the most crass and blatant form. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get massive performance boosts to your ships and modules.



Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get a falcon alt that can make rage that will quake the universe. Just saying.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8

Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#430 - 2013-08-03 10:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
One one hand I will say thank you. On the other hand I will say, you killed my sukkuvesta storyline lottery! You bad bad man!!
Wizzard117
Wizzard117 Corporation
#431 - 2013-08-03 11:09:39 UTC
Just to clarify
So there's no option CS's can fit 4 or more links using command processors post 1.1?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#432 - 2013-08-03 11:28:44 UTC
Command processors should be for T1 bc's only...
so hard limit CS and T3 to 3 links only

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

Unkind Omen
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#433 - 2013-08-03 11:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Unkind Omen
Hi, Fozzi

I am very happy that someone finally addressed this command ships progression problem. However I think that you should consider one more tweak to progression curve. According to my humble spreadsheet calculations training mindlink after finishing [xxx] warfare specialist 5 gives players slightly more efficiency per skillpoint than training WFSp 5 itself. That is the only flaw in a perfect progression line you have there. Probably you should make Warfare specialist requirement level 4 at least for the tech 2 mind links. That will help both to make them more viable in comparsion to navy and to fix the progression disorder.

The other thing for me to mention is that command ships are giving yet too small advantage over T3. I think it would be a better idea not to give T3 link strength bonus but to give them ability to activate aditional link per level of defense subsystem. That will make them trully versatile and much less conflicting in role with command ships.

Thank you for your attention to this problem.
Cross Barret
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#434 - 2013-08-03 12:11:06 UTC
Dearest Fozzie,

May I be so bold and make a suggestion? First, even as someone with a fully trained t3 boost alt, I agree with these changes. However, might I suggest keeping off grid boosting for t3s going forward (not complaining about pos limitation, this can stay). Being in a VERY small corp it often allows us to get the little edge we need when fighting outnumbered when we dont have a dedicated boost pilot to spare. They are less effective than command ships, so i think this plays to the roles as well. Command ships fill the role of most effective booster in which the commander is on grid fighting with his fleet. This can be the goto when fighting large scale and max effectiveness is important. On the other hand, t3 fill the support role. Not as effective, but can move with a small gang more effectively. This can be the goto for small gangs that want that little bit of edge when engaging and cant dedicate a pilot to a command ship/a command ship doesnt fit in the fleet comp.

My two cents.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#435 - 2013-08-03 16:27:04 UTC
Akturous wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Off-Grid Boosting is Pay To Win in the most crass and blatant form. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get massive performance boosts to your ships and modules.


Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get a falcon alt that can make rage that will quake the universe. Just saying.

Dual-boxing a falcon actually requires you to actually pay some attention to the second client though, and dividing your focus between multiple characters can work against a player in a tight combat. Parking an alt in a deep safe requires no such compromise.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Echo Mande
#436 - 2013-08-03 16:51:17 UTC
A nice set of changes, though some might not agree with me.

Two questions though.
- Will there be any changes to the command processor? It's a big CPU hog currently.
- Will there ever be a T2 or faction command processor?
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
#437 - 2013-08-03 16:54:10 UTC
I'm having issues comprehending why you think CCP needs to adjust game-play to allow "solo" pvp to work better for players who don't dual box.

EVE is a Massive Multiplayer Online game. You aren't meant to play it solo.

So instead of complaining about players dual boxing with a command ship alt, join a corporation, and have a corp mate fly with you. Two separate pilots working together will always be more efficient than a guy dual boxing.

And like some people have already pointed out, an OGB doesn't add dps, ewar, tackle, or anything to the battle besides his boosts. And if you use your head, you and your friend will have no problems dealing with the dual-boxing guy.

OGB are an issue, but CCP is working on them, and eventually they'll have to be on grid. Until then, play the game as it was intended, and work together. Complaining that you can't solo a dual-boxer is worse than useless, it's also sad that you expect to pvp on your own. I don't expect to be able to solo roam through lowsec or nullsec because I know I'll run into groups of people working together, so if I want to do roam there, I wait until I can bring a group of my own.

Take the time and effort to work on force multipliers. You can have a friend bring logistics, maybe an ewar ship, or maybe a brawler with some free mid slots for extra ewar. The answer isn't complaining that your setup doesn't work, perhaps you should take the effort to change your setup instead to match the situation.
Ayana Mayuko
Mayuko Sisters' Trading Enterprises Ltd.
#438 - 2013-08-03 18:57:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are planning to extend the bonuses from the defensive gang links to local capital repair modules.


Not sure if this has already been asked but could we have some clarification; is this for 1.1 release or soon™?
Eva Darke
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2013-08-04 04:43:22 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.

This. Absolutely, 100%, this ^

As it stands, link alts are a necessity to remain competitive in PvP. Every group and "solo" player will have one, and if they don't, they'll most likely lose.

Even if you force link ships on grid, it'll only be alts flying them because flying links is boring and doesn't get you on killmails. EVE has long since been known as a game of alts, and this is a major reason why. The only purpose links serve now is to maintain that entry barrier into competitive PvP.
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#440 - 2013-08-04 06:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Balthazar Lestrane
Quote:
Let's start with some changes to the warfare link modules themselves:

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.


I really hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's utter bullshit that mining links aren't being changed. Why are Rorquals and Orcas allowed to sit inside POS shields boosting miners but not combat oriented links? I don't understand the difference nor why you are catering to carebearing Fozzie. Both affect the effectiveness of ships flying in space and should be subject to the same risk v. reward.

Edit: I'm all for the removal of off-grid boosting if that was unclear, I just don't see why mining links get the exception. Some consistency would be kind of nice, that's all.