These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Beginning of the End for OGB

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#81 - 2013-08-21 18:38:48 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
l0rd carlos wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Then what's the problem?


I already told you:
l0rd carlos wrote:
The big deal is, you want to punish people for bringing links on grid with a combat ship.
So it will weaken on grid links and thus give station hugging alts an advantage.


Your solution makes it harder to have a useful link ship on grid.
I rather put one link down on my offgrid booster and but yet another ECCM on it to counter your proposed changed that have crippled ship in grid.

You can already scan down offgrid booster with ~3 cycles. Less if you know he is very close to a celestial.

The issue though is you shouldn't have to scan anyway. If some ship is going to have such a huge impact on the outcome of a fight it should be right there on grid and subject to getting shot and removed from the fight.

You are 100% right and i agree with you there.
That is why CCP is working on a good solution.
Increasing sig or weakening sensor strenght is a bad workaround. It's not a fix!

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#82 - 2013-08-21 18:59:14 UTC
l0rd carlos wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
l0rd carlos wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Then what's the problem?


I already told you:
l0rd carlos wrote:
The big deal is, you want to punish people for bringing links on grid with a combat ship.
So it will weaken on grid links and thus give station hugging alts an advantage.


Your solution makes it harder to have a useful link ship on grid.
I rather put one link down on my offgrid booster and but yet another ECCM on it to counter your proposed changed that have crippled ship in grid.

You can already scan down offgrid booster with ~3 cycles. Less if you know he is very close to a celestial.

The issue though is you shouldn't have to scan anyway. If some ship is going to have such a huge impact on the outcome of a fight it should be right there on grid and subject to getting shot and removed from the fight.

You are 100% right and i agree with you there.
That is why CCP is working on a good solution.
Increasing sig or weakening sensor strenght is a bad workaround. It's not a fix!

Don't let "perfect" get in the way of "good".
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#83 - 2013-08-21 19:23:28 UTC
I wont, I like it how it is.

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
cearaen
Plus 10 NV
#84 - 2013-08-23 03:37:37 UTC
l0rd carlos wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
l0rd carlos wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Then what's the problem?


I already told you:
l0rd carlos wrote:
The big deal is, you want to punish people for bringing links on grid with a combat ship.
So it will weaken on grid links and thus give station hugging alts an advantage.


Your solution makes it harder to have a useful link ship on grid.
I rather put one link down on my offgrid booster and but yet another ECCM on it to counter your proposed changed that have crippled ship in grid.

You can already scan down offgrid booster with ~3 cycles. Less if you know he is very close to a celestial.

The issue though is you shouldn't have to scan anyway. If some ship is going to have such a huge impact on the outcome of a fight it should be right there on grid and subject to getting shot and removed from the fight.

You are 100% right and i agree with you there.
That is why CCP is working on a good solution.
Increasing sig or weakening sensor strenght is a bad workaround. It's not a fix!



Its a better situation until ccp gets the technical know how to make them on grid.

As long as that is some pie in the sky ideal they need to do something to temper god mode alt boosters. Or this game is ****.
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#85 - 2013-08-23 07:08:15 UTC
If you weaken the sensor strength of ships that uses Links, you effectivly removing a mid or lowslot, because that ship is gonna need a ECCM or backup array. How can you objectivly think that is a better situation than now?

You can allready scan the offgrid booster down.

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
El Geo
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#86 - 2013-08-24 18:38:32 UTC  |  Edited by: El Geo
Not all OGB's are used as alt, sometimes I fly only my booster character as I prefer to keep my eyes on the ball in low/null & w-space, also I personally feel that on grid only boosts will have an adverse effect on small gang vs larger gang ( this one is so gleamingly obvious an idiot who's never even played eve should see it ), furthermore on grid boosts will not affect highsec pvp as a neutral alt will just sit on grid, many do this already. I would however, be happy with suspect flags and timers neutral logistics currently receive though applied to out of corp/alli gang linkers.

CDIA Based overlay resource for After Effects 6

Eve pathfinders Youtube
Irya Boone
The Scope
#87 - 2013-08-25 10:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Irya Boone
Accordind to what you say ...

Maybe we should apply the remote mechanics to boost to

I you boost a fleet-mate that aggress , the booster get flagged too etc etc

But it's really time for ccp to kill the OGB !!

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Yankunytjatjara
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2013-08-27 20:40:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Can't wait until they go on grid too.

Not going to happen. Rise told me that in person.

B.


please elaborate. Cox lying about trying to remove them?



He told me that they do not intend to force them on grid.


I think he probably told you that we're not pushing them on grid in Odyssey 1.1.

When we're done with links you won't recognize them.


But will they inherit aggro so that people can get rid of them in highsec?

My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors
NaK'Lin
Seamen Force
#89 - 2013-08-28 03:09:44 UTC
Posting in a thread that should be in F&I...

I have more than one Booster alt and to be honest, the fact I can't boost from within a POS anymore when in my home-system, while annoying, is still bearable. You can't boost on station either, because you WILL die, since those warfare modules will apparently refresh a weapons time of sorts (like agression) which won't allow you to insta-dock or jump. But I can work around that...somehow.

I don't see the problem with command ships, especially once 1.1 hits. They're tanky and the buff they are getting is huge enough to be worth abused as much as chicks on bread. The problem I see with is with T3 boosts, since "yay we lowered fitting reqs. for warfare modules", but not for the damn processor. And THAT is the main bottleneck. the T3s are supposed to bonus THREE different types, so why would you ever expect a T3 to run around with a single link??? Give the warfare subsytem the same bonus that command ships have, aka fitting 3 links natively. That should fix a LOT of things. Especially the "tank" aspect, since I can't see T3 boosts EVER on grid, since well, you can't have a decent boosting T3 AND have a tank to sustain more than destroyer dmg.
If you wish to nerf T3 boosts that much, might as well remove them, because current state, they don't belong on-grid, due to the fittings.

The reduction in boost strength is acceptable. i put us roughly where we were before the introduction of T2 links. And let's face it, back then, it was already so much better than not having boosts.

tl;dr:
T3 Warfare subsystem to natively be able to fit 3 links, as Command Ship counterparts. Then you get about same EHP/Boost advantage trade-off than CS.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#90 - 2013-10-10 12:11:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Cross posting from a F&I thread on drug boosters but very relevant to this.

Fozzie was on Declarations of War podcast episode 58. Here is my paraphrasing from about 8.45 in:

Fozzie: (Regarding Odyssey 1.1) 'This is not the last change we'll be making to gang links. What you're seeing is very similar to what we did with tech, a change in preparation for a bigger change.'

AK: 'Are you at liberty to say what that is? Will it be something that affects links tangentially?'

Fozzie (and this is a direct transcription): "You're gonna need to have them on grid. So that's a very non-tangential change."

Thank you Mr Fozzie.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
cearaen
Plus 10 NV
#91 - 2013-10-10 14:12:54 UTC
That is good to hear. I may actually resub after that happens.