These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ciccina Porcella
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#601 - 2013-08-07 19:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciccina Porcella
CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.

    • HALLELUJAHHHH

    Can you make them go on killmails too now, when they aid? Let's kick the "soloers" in the balls!!
    Heribeck Weathers
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #602 - 2013-08-07 19:12:01 UTC
    Cpt Boomstick wrote:
    Heribeck Weathers wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    [quote=Grarr Dexx][quote]We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.


    snip

    Oh and anyway we could have some sort of icon, or ship effect to show they are reciving bosts? I hate when I see a lone frig and try to engadge only to find they are linked AFTER they point me at 30kms. THat way we can make more informed decisions if we want to fight the linked solo pown mobile. it also might discorage so many off grid bosting alts if their "lol solo" main isent getting any fights because people say F-your-links.


    This wouldnt matter. Most people with alts boosting a main dont turn on the link(s) until its party time anyway. So you wouldnt have visual notification until you were already engaged anyway. Also it seems that ganglinks were always meant to be an ace up your sleeve anyway. It's a tactical luxury, the tactical advantage/ element of surprise is gone if everyone has a giant neon sign pointing on everyone that's receiving a particular booster. And besides, if they kept on balancing the game around making it easier for the weakest players, then there would be no strategy left other then piling in as many numbers as possible, which would be a terrible game.


    You know what your right, they are a tactical luxury... kinda liek super caps, good thing those didnt get out of hand either.
    Yankunytjatjara
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #603 - 2013-08-07 19:17:28 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Grarr Dexx wrote:
    Quote:
    We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.


    I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side.

    Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot.

    EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones.


    The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.


    Are they also gaining the suspect flag? I hope so, if not, in empire space the change is sadly going to be pointless as you can't do anything about a neutral link ship anyways.

    The best would indeed be to consider them remote reppers, would you care to check if the brain in a box project could take care of these aggression mechanics?

    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors
    steave435
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #604 - 2013-08-07 19:29:50 UTC
    Sentient Blade wrote:
    A 60 seconds weapon timer seems like an awful solution to me.

    If you're in a fight you don't turn off your hardeners 60 seconds before you jump a gate.

    Agreed, if you're in trouble and need to disengage the last thing you need is being forced to also turn off the links keeping you alive, or sacrifice your command ships.
    StevieTopSiders
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #605 - 2013-08-07 19:32:09 UTC
    All the anal frustration in this thread.

    Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?

    As for the COMMAND PROCESSOR, set a hard limit of 3 links on each ship (Warfare Sub T3's included), and then suddenly you still have to pick and choose what links you want and you can fly them on grid with reasonably tanked fits (both armor and shield).

    Make on-grid boosters viable combat ships, and they will be flown on grid. The new Eos is going to rock, and once my CS alt gets drones trained up, I will be flying one for sure. I'll get instant link activation (instead of warping to safespot in my off-grid Loki), I'll have a strong tank with T2 resists, and I'll be able to ~command~ from the field as well as apply damage and utilize my utility mid-slots.
    Roime
    Mea Culpa.
    Shadow Cartel
    #606 - 2013-08-07 19:37:37 UTC
    Very good points about the weapons timer, it should probably be a capsuleer log off timer instead.

    .
    Il Feytid
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #607 - 2013-08-07 19:40:51 UTC
    Gang links should function as remote assisting someone too. So if someone decides to use neutral alts, they become a valid target as well for the enemies of those using them.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #608 - 2013-08-07 19:51:15 UTC
    StevieTopSiders wrote:
    All the anal frustration in this thread.

    Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?


    Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship?

    Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed.
    Cearain
    Plus 10 NV
    #609 - 2013-08-07 19:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ok update time!



    Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place.

    P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!!


    I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.



    This reply would make sense if the extra character was actually in the battle. However, since the extra character won't be in the battle you might as well admit paying Ccp real money is going to give you much better in game benifits than anything isk can buy.

    if you really wanted to balance anything links would be nerfed to the ground until they had to be on grid. To the extent these are intended to be the same bonuses you get when they are forced on grid, you are basically admitting links are out of balance even with these changes. Why not balance them in light of the reality that ccp claims it lacks the technical knowhow to force them on grid?

    Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
    Phoenix Jones
    Small-Arms Fire
    #610 - 2013-08-07 20:20:16 UTC
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    StevieTopSiders wrote:
    All the anal frustration in this thread.

    Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?


    Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship?

    Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed.



    Yes it can be neuted out, whether the neuter will be alive after having 5 heavy tracking enhanced drones launched at it is another.

    Yaay!!!!
    Alexander the Great
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #611 - 2013-08-07 20:33:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander the Great
    del
    Sergeant Acht Scultz
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #612 - 2013-08-07 20:43:36 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.



    Like for instance TiDi or lag, the dam thing turn off and by the time it gets active half of your fleet has been crushed...

    This is a bad solution against ogb, the only viable solution against ogb is to scrap it or flush it down the toilets.

    removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
    Aplier Shivra
    #613 - 2013-08-07 20:58:49 UTC
    Make sure to include in warfare links description that they are affected by normal stacking penalties (the resist ones, anyways)
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #614 - 2013-08-07 21:28:00 UTC
    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    StevieTopSiders wrote:
    All the anal frustration in this thread.

    Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?


    Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship?

    Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed.



    Yes it can be neuted out, whether the neuter will be alive after having 5 heavy tracking enhanced drones launched at it is another.



    You seem to be suggesting that you will be flying your command ship in a situation where your opponent doesn't have logi.

    Nothing wrong with that but thats generally not their main role.


    Also the whole grarr "This is a nerf to on grid links because the 60 second times will make me lose my ship"

    Yes, your ******* ship is part of the ******* fight. Its giving bonuses to every god damn ******* ship on the field. Suggesting that links giving you a timer is a nerf to small gangs is like saying logi's getting a timer is a nerf to small gangs.

    Its ******* stupid. If you engage in combat you might lose ships, thats generally how pvp is supposed to ******* work.

    CCP, you censor too much.

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Lephia DeGrande
    Luxembourg Space Union
    #615 - 2013-08-07 21:46:35 UTC
    Just use a proper vocabulary...

    Anyway, give Logis 60sec weapon timer too!!

    Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
    mine mi
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #616 - 2013-08-07 22:00:19 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:
    Unhappy with off grid boosting? I have a solution!


    Nerf all the links people use, then nerf the ships that are used to boost off grid, then nerf the only workable on grid command ship.

    Nerf the links, ok, nerf ogb's, go ahead. But the rational behind making one of the only 2 used on grid command ships less tanky is beyond me.


    The solution of command ships is NOT to lower them all to the lowest common denominator, which is frankly useless.

    A command ship should be commanding, a platform for tank, links, and survivability. Some quasi dps, mediocre tank, mediocre boosts role is a hell of a lot like a Swiss army knife. That is to say, flimsy and unusable, trying to do too many things at one.

    You know when the last time I saw an Astarte was? 3 years ago, a corpy used one to beltrat in fountain.

    I'll tell you when I see an absolution or an eos. At any time, in any place outside the AT.


    Got to say, I love most of your rebalanced. HAC's, t1 everything, indies, all look excellent and well thought out.
    This one left me checking to make sure it was not April in August.


    The man have a point, create a capital rig, with X bonus to strength to Warfare links. Then, in really big fleet, commanders can bring supercapitals as command ships.
    Aloe Cloveris
    The Greater Goon
    #617 - 2013-08-07 23:11:16 UTC
    Deacon Abox wrote:
    All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting.


    As much as I want actively running link ships to be probeable, sig bloom is a bit heavy handed. If a link T3 actually chooses to get into the thick of the fighting it doesn't deserve to have a battleship sized sig (or dreadnaught sized sig should he use his mwd). A more sensible approach might be a 20% reduction in sensor strength for each warfare link active, which would help to cancel out the benefits of Dissolution Sequencer subs and make them easier and easier to probe the more links they actively run. A link T3 isn't going to be a crucial dps platform and if it's fighting and gets jammed because of its reduced sensor strength (why even bother jamming it, really?), it's not as life-threatening as being as hard to track/torp into oblivion as a fixed structure.

    Dedicated Command Ships could be exempted from the sensor strength reduction penalty as they're more likely to be on grid fighting and risking death and wouldn't specifically require a Virtue set to probe out were it to safe up** anyhow.

    * please also delete ECM from the game, tia.
    ** while this remains a thing
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #618 - 2013-08-07 23:16:54 UTC

    I like the idea that gang links inherit the agression of the fleet mates they are boosting. That would be the most balanced method, allowing fleets to disengage on gate with links running.

    Until then, let them have weapons timers though!
    chatgris
    Quantum Cats Syndicate
    Of Essence
    #619 - 2013-08-07 23:35:30 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
    Links should be modules that are activated on other players, like remote reps.

    Once links are on grid, the larger fleet with more logi is even more powerful than it is now against a skirmishing force. Currently, you can at least try to rapidly switch targets to make the logi in the larger group maybe slip up and you can grab a ship.

    Instead, with links on field the larger fleet can easier kill the smaller fleets links, and then be god mode.

    The entire notion of a character that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING once the fight is on is terrible. It just sits there, receives reps, and the links keep cycling. AND affects the ENTIRE fleets/wing/squad.

    To close - bigger fleets generally have more logistical challenges as they grow - except for links. And links are not an active role, they are an alt role - If they are on grid - fit buffer + resists, get pre-locked by logi, turn on links and ignore. If off grid similar, but scan for probes. It's NOT an exciting role for a PLAYER to fulfill.

    Making them something that gets activated on players actually means a PLAYER DOES SOMETHING while boosting. It also means that the player's skill at using the ship comes into play, and lack of that skill can be exploited by the other side.

    Finally, all the performance issues go away, and the same remote rep code flows can pretty much transfer aggression.
    Deacon Abox
    Black Eagle5
    #620 - 2013-08-07 23:35:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
    Aloe Cloveris wrote:
    Deacon Abox wrote:
    All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting.


    As much as I want actively running link ships to be probeable, sig bloom is a bit heavy handed. If a link T3 actually chooses to get into the thick of the fighting it doesn't deserve to have a battleship sized sig (or dreadnaught sized sig should he use his mwd). A more sensible approach might be a 20% reduction in sensor strength for each warfare link active, which would help to cancel out the benefits of Dissolution Sequencer subs and make them easier and easier to probe the more links they actively run. A link T3 isn't going to be a crucial dps platform and if it's fighting and gets jammed because of its reduced sensor strength (why even bother jamming it, really?), it's not as life-threatening as being as hard to track/torp into oblivion as a fixed structure.

    Dedicated Command Ships could be exempted from the sensor strength reduction penalty as they're more likely to be on grid fighting and risking death and wouldn't specifically require a Virtue set to probe out were it to safe up** anyhow.

    * please also delete ECM from the game, tia.
    ** while this remains a thing

    Yes, it was just a quick suggestion. Yours is more elegant. Although I think a sig bloom effect of some size would be preferable to sensor strength reduction (see edit below). Don't know if it would be more difficult to code though. However, I did say they would need to do something immediately about the tank gimp inherent in command subsystem tech IIIs. I agree if these ships are going to be forced on grid by nerfing the ss-ing nigh unprobable mechanic then these ships need something to allow them to survive in the fight.

    edit- and actually I like Chatgris's suggestion more now ~ With so many characters trained into command links now this type of a solution would help them retain their value. There would be a percentage of fleet need for command ships and tech IIIs to distribute the effects. Just as most fleets calculate how many logi pilots they need. Also, it is a stealth buff to ecm and damp boats, and makes the multitasking skill a must have for these pilots like it is for logi pilots. Problem would be having one high slot module activated on only one pilot.

    Maybe some bifurcation of the effects though scripting. Have the base link effects heavily nerfed if they are to operate the current way. And then give a larger effect if they are focused on individual pilots up to the current level of effectiveness. This would be sort of like HICs and their warp disruption (aoe/system wide for fleet v. focused).

    CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.