These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eva Darke
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#501 - 2013-08-06 07:42:47 UTC
So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:

  1. Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
  2. Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
  3. Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
  4. Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)


Am I missing something? This shows all the signs of a terrible game mechanic that restricts gameplay rather than giving players options. In an engagement where one side has links and the other doesn't, tactics, decision making and player skill become irrelevant. The outcome is already determined. How is this beneficial to the overall gaming experience of EVE?

Aside from the additional revenue CCP receives from alt accounts, is there any reason NOT to just remove links from the game and reimburse SP?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#502 - 2013-08-06 07:47:31 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
Thank you for throwing my legion booster out the window. Because I have not trained the necessary skills for command ships, and T3 boosters will now be laughable, I expect to have my SP returned to me in odyssey 1.1 so I can train something useful. And please, don't tell me that I'm gaining something like "versatility"... If I wanted a half-[donkey]ed information booster, I'd put an alt in a linky myrmidon and call it a day.


No, the current T3 link fits are laughable and should have never existed. If you haven't trained CS V by now, you have only yourself to blame, these changes were announced like a year ago.

Why should CCP refund your own stupidity?

.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#503 - 2013-08-06 07:50:46 UTC
Eva Darke wrote:
So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:

  1. Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
  2. Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
  3. Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
  4. Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)


Everybody and their mother has a link alt because it can sit in a POS in perfect safety, or in a safespot. T3 OGBs get the nerfbat hardest, which is good for everyone.

Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.

.
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#504 - 2013-08-06 08:01:55 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
Thank you for throwing my legion booster out the window. Because I have not trained the necessary skills for command ships, and T3 boosters will now be laughable, I expect to have my SP returned to me in odyssey 1.1 so I can train something useful. And please, don't tell me that I'm gaining something like "versatility"... If I wanted a half-[donkey]ed information booster, I'd put an alt in a linky myrmidon and call it a day.

My personal issues aside, I'll point out that the interdiction maneuvers link is receiving a particularly nasty nerf. This seems to me to be a silly idea, seeing as you're simultaneously trying to promote the use of ranged weapons systems. Ranged weapons are just about useless in pvp if your arazu+rapier can no longer tackle to the range necessary to keep them planted. Then again, who was going to use the medium new rails anyway?

All that being said, I approve of the change to the info warfare skill and mindlink.

EDIT: at the bare minimum, are you at least increasing the base number of links on T3s? A "versatile" booster ship with fewer boost slots than a specialized one would be idiocy.


hahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are absolutely pathetic, please quit this game, and any game on the internet FOREVER.

You are the biggest and most pathetic whiner I've ever seen so far.

Whining because your no-skill T3 booster gets nerfed, which you knew it would be over HALF A YEAR ago when it was annnounced, you had OVER 180 DAYS to train for a CS and now you come whining

Get off the internet, for good. you won't be missed.

And yes, before you start your unintelligent stupidwhine again, I have a max skilled T3/CS (all links/t3's/CS) for multi purpose use in WH's.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#505 - 2013-08-06 08:28:09 UTC
Monsieur Leon wrote:
Michael JD wrote:
Thanks for breaking something that doesn't need to be changed. If you want links train a toon like everyone else who has them. Stop complaining. CCP please offer the toons that trained leadership skills a refund of the skill points that they have now wasted.



I have to agree with Michael. This isn't a ship that is being rebalanced. Your impuning a group of people that have worked and sacrificed and put training time (about 3-6 months) to make their fleets worthwhile. You should give us the option on giving back points, should they go that route.

We as players train skills in order to be proficient in what we do and give ourselves, our corps a competitive advantage. When we started playing we were coached by more seasoned players and from time to time the game would change... a little. We put our time and effort into these areas in good faith. We never expected to be blindsided and have all the time and effort devalued so much. The least you could do is give us the option of re-focus our earned points in a different area to keep us playing.


CCP announced the change over a year ago, actually stating the desire to completely remove off grid boosting... Frankly, if you were blindsided it was out of willful ignorance or shear obliviousness.

Additionally, claiming that they are "breaking something that doesn't need to be changed" is such complete utter bullshit. Links are game breakingly imbalanced, and while we can all train up a link alt to "rebalance" the field, many pilots don't have that luxury. Links need to be nerfed into the ground, and anyone that thinks otherwise is a spoiled player that simply refuses to look at facts:

Fact: 3x Defensive links give a 125+% increase in your remote and self rep abiliites: You can't achieve that with a full cyrstal implant, a strong booster, AND a head full of hardwirings. Frankly, in a game of 5% increases, this is so far out of line that the ONLY way to compensate is bringing your own booster.

Fact: Interdiction Manuevers gives all t2 tackle mods more range/power than upgrading every web, point, and scram to the most elite faction modules. Without the cost, without the risk This is again, broken.

Fact: Rapid Deployment provides more speed to your ship that a full set of snake implants and a full set of speed hardwirings. It essentially provides three extra free speed rigs to every ship in fleet, and in a game where range control (i.e. speed) is incredibly important to a fight, this is obnoxiously overpowered.

Fact: Each link you add to your fleet, is generally akin to adding a free specific rig or three to every ship in fleet. You cannot add free "slots/modules" to ships and maintain balance against those without, and we all know this.

In short, you should feel bad for agreeing with Michael!
Ilan Bashar
Fat Kitty Inc.
#506 - 2013-08-06 08:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ilan Bashar
Hi,

for "large scale" engagements, the link nerf is problematic. Alpha stike basically means to shoot through the buffertank before repps can land on the target. The size of the buffer is determined by HP and resists. The nerf will lower the resists, so the buffer (EHP) gets smaller. In both cases, armor and shield tanking.
Also buffer tank + logi based armor tanking is nerfed, because of repp cycle time becoming longer, so the target is down before repps can land.

While the nerf is somewhat compensated for smallscale by boosting the local rep amount (I consider local repp a pure smallscale thing) it is not for large scale, where you rely on a buffer to allow the target to catch repps.

The only constructive proposal I can make it to add a HP bonus to the link in order to compensate the EHP loss through the resist nerf.


Tl;dr: In large scale you will now get alpha'ed by less people, even more so in your armor boat.
Clementina
University of Caille
#507 - 2013-08-06 11:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Clementina
Maybe this has been mentioned before. But would it be possible for gang links to cycle while in warp? They should by no means *work* but they should *cycle* (Be on and expend current, but not actually boost) so that when you land they can just start working and you don't have to turn them on.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#508 - 2013-08-06 11:28:41 UTC
Even better suggestion- you can't warp with active link modules.

.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#509 - 2013-08-06 12:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Eva Darke wrote:
So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:

  1. Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
  2. Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
  3. Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
  4. Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)


Am I missing something? This shows all the signs of a terrible game mechanic that restricts gameplay rather than giving players options. In an engagement where one side has links and the other doesn't, tactics, decision making and player skill become irrelevant. The outcome is already determined. How is this beneficial to the overall gaming experience of EVE?

Aside from the additional revenue CCP receives from alt accounts, is there any reason NOT to just remove links from the game and reimburse SP?


I think links do add something to the game, it's just that they're far too powerful, with effects about two or maybe even three times too strong.

One result of this is the desire to jam on as many overpowered links as humanly possibly on to your ship - they're so powerful that you can't afford not too, because your opponents will be doing this themselves. Yet such a fitted ship is too vulnerable to be on grid - hence the OGB problem. But only one thing allows such a ship to exist - the Command Processor, which simultaneously enables excessive numbers of links and prevents them from being viable combat ships.

So, let's remove Command Processors entirely. What happens? T3s and BCs can only fit a single link, which they can do on a combat fit without too much trouble, giving them respectable on-grid survivability. CS can still fit three, as befits their intended role as the premier warfare link problem, along with a tank too. This still leaves the problem of links being fundamentally far too strong, but at least it removes the six-link OGB abominations (which are, ridiculously, getting a partial boost here because of T3s' bonuses to multiple link classes and the fancy new dual mindlinks).
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#510 - 2013-08-06 13:03:44 UTC
Again the Problem isnt the Booster its the offgrid!

If i could decide i would first Bann offgrid Boosting forever, keep the High amount of Boosting Skills and would give the opposite Force the ability to see which Fleets/Wings/Squads are connected so they get higher value targets, kill 2/3 of Wing Coms and the Fleet gets massiv disadventages!

The Boost Bonus is fine just the mechanic behind the Fleet Hierarchy is to simple.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#511 - 2013-08-06 13:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Roime wrote:
...Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.

Would an icon mess of epic proportions, can you imagine having 9-10 link buddies and trying to follow primaries? Big smile

It is a good idea though, but I'd look into the ability to add people to a list similar to a watchlist and then they get boosts whenever they share a grid with the link ship.
Would address all my qualms (scaling, easy mode function, vulnerability) with regard to links.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#512 - 2013-08-06 13:18:10 UTC
So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?

(The correct answer is yes)

Link nerf V2 plx.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#513 - 2013-08-06 13:24:02 UTC
Roime wrote:
Eva Darke wrote:
So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:

  1. Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
  2. Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
  3. Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
  4. Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)


Everybody and their mother has a link alt because it can sit in a POS in perfect safety, or in a safespot. T3 OGBs get the nerfbat hardest, which is good for everyone.

Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.



Targetted modules = horrible idea.


T3 nerf is good for everyone? I disagree. The only thing the T3 nerf benefits is the bigger blob who doesn't need a safespot to defend its CS.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#514 - 2013-08-06 13:26:51 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Roime wrote:
...Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.

Would an icon mess of epic proportions, can you imagine having 9-10 link buddies and trying to follow primaries? Big smile

It is a good idea though, but I'd look into the ability to add people to a list similar to a watchlist and then they get boosts whenever they share a grid with the link ship.
Would address all my qualms (scaling, easy mode function, vulnerability) with regard to links.


Haven't thought about the icons, but true :D

The watch list functionality is actually quite brilliant and might even help CCP with the coding issue.

I'd personally just want to see the boosts as something a bit more involving than fleet-wide automagic. Alt-ism is a major bane in the game, and all tasks and mechanics should be designed to benefit from real human player interaction instead of alt-tabbed dedicated alts.

.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#515 - 2013-08-06 13:28:08 UTC

Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?

Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:

Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?

Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:

5 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 10.82% increase in speed
10 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 11.57% increase in speed
15 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 12.33% increase in speed
20 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 13.08% increase in speed
30 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 14.59% increase in speed
50 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 17.61% increase in speed
75 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 21.38% increase in speed
100 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 25.16% increase in speed
150 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 32.7% increase in speed
200 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 40.25% increase in speed
250 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 47.8% increase in speed
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#516 - 2013-08-06 13:28:25 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?

(The correct answer is yes)

Link nerf V2 plx.



No! Dont Blame the Booster! Its the simple Fleet mechanic and OGB which cause the Problems!

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#517 - 2013-08-06 13:30:42 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?

Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:

Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?

Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:

5 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 10.82% increase in speed
10 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 11.57% increase in speed
15 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 12.33% increase in speed
20 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 13.08% increase in speed
30 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 14.59% increase in speed
50 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 17.61% increase in speed
75 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 21.38% increase in speed
100 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 25.16% increase in speed
150 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 32.7% increase in speed
200 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 40.25% increase in speed
250 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 47.8% increase in speed


Isn't that exactly bassackwards? Link efficiency should reduce with fleet member count. Frankly the last thing we need is another mechanic favouring numbers.

.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#518 - 2013-08-06 13:31:32 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?

Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:

Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?

Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:

5 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 10.82% increase in speed
10 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 11.57% increase in speed
15 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 12.33% increase in speed
20 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 13.08% increase in speed
30 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 14.59% increase in speed
50 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 17.61% increase in speed
75 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 21.38% increase in speed
100 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 25.16% increase in speed
150 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 32.7% increase in speed
200 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 40.25% increase in speed
250 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 47.8% increase in speed


Sry for Double Posting, why not reverse your Numbers? The bigger the Fleet the less effective are the Bonus, so small gangs get stronger and Big fleets needs more tactics!

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#519 - 2013-08-06 13:43:09 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?

Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:

Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?

Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:

5 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 10.82% increase in speed
10 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 11.57% increase in speed
15 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 12.33% increase in speed
20 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 13.08% increase in speed
30 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 14.59% increase in speed
50 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 17.61% increase in speed
75 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 21.38% increase in speed
100 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 25.16% increase in speed
150 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 32.7% increase in speed
200 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 40.25% increase in speed
250 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 47.8% increase in speed


Sry for Double Posting, why not reverse your Numbers? The bigger the Fleet the less effective are the Bonus, so small gangs get stronger and Big fleets needs more tactics!



Making it based on numbers in fleet is not the answer at all. They are a terrible mechanic whether you are solo or in a blob.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#520 - 2013-08-06 13:43:10 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?

(The correct answer is yes)

Link nerf V2 plx.



No! Dont Blame the Booster! Its the simple Fleet mechanic and OGB which cause the Problems!


OGB has always been a smokescreen. The magnitude of the bonuses of links - sometimes three times the power of a T2 module! - makes them overpowered wherever they are.