These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Are Links Too Much?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#121 - 2014-02-26 11:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
ALUCARD 1208 wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I've heard the same 'CCP will lose money!' argument right before the last nano nerf and ECM nerf. Yawn.


yawn ya cos those nerfs are somehow connected to a second account???


So were all the Falcon alts that were going to cancel after they killed the 200km + Falcons. Or the Vagabond pilots who had invested billions in implants and faction gear. CCP didn't suffer financial collapse then and the game is better for it.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#122 - 2014-02-26 13:29:28 UTC
To answer the thread title question: YES LINKS ARE WAY TOO MUCH.
I trained my alt for more than 6 months and hes still not perfect, seriously what the hell. And now I need to buy and train a set of T3s and faction mindlinks which are 1bil a pair.
Make them cheaper and get easier into, I painfully miss a second booster alt so Im more flexible about the location of my engagement and the ships/mindlinks should get cheaper too.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Princess Nexxala
Zero Syndicate
#123 - 2014-02-26 15:55:45 UTC
Actually that's slightly incorrect. It's me that watches your plex gates, and that's simply so I can warp to the gate and kill things before they welp into you and your HG snakes and perfect boosts. I am doing Eve noobs a service forcing them to engage me instead, thus giving them a shot at winning. You just make people rage quit. I am all about the fair fight. Really...I am.


chatgris wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
90% of EVE PVP is ganking, isn't it? Or do you instruct half of your fleet to go afk when you stumble upon an enemy fleet half your size?


Actually, I try to hide from my fleet unless it starts getting 3-4:1. My corpmates have taken to putting cloaked alts outside my plexes so they know when targets come my way so they can rush in to try and ***** on the kills.

nom nom
Teh Nurffe
Trillium Invariant
Honorable Third Party
#124 - 2014-02-26 17:45:46 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Honestly off grid links also bring many disadvantages that people seem to ignore. Admittedly they are practically invulnerable, but being off grid means also they cant switch between systems freely as other force multipliers which are on grid. This forces the guy using links to fight in a fixed system which more often than not completely diminishes the link benefits.
Of course this is less of an disadvantage in (faction warfare) lowsec where most fights dont happen on gates but in deadspace and over a strategic objective. Faction warfare lowsec seems also to be the source of most of the tears so the solution in my opinion would be a incursion like system which forces links on grid in faction warfare lowsec and leave them off grid anywhere else.


Honestly you should have links in all systems you fly, then you just switch between wings/squads. Easy.

Single link alt is so 90s
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#125 - 2014-02-26 20:39:29 UTC
Bad Messenger wrote:


If CCP some day forces links on grid they should bring frigate size boost ships too.


Make dessies have a link ability. So small and up plexs would be able to field them but novice is still free from boosts.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-02-27 00:39:04 UTC
Here's another idea: Link Vending Machines!

100% safe indestructible structures, you'll find 'em in each and every system, conveniently anchored on grid with the sun.

Just 1 mil isk for every +1% boost to any stat, up to +30% each.

Warp-in, pay up, enjoy your boosts kind sir. Links for all!

You would also need to subscribe to this nifty service: fee is just 1 plex / month for Link Vending Machine access in all New Eden.


Yeah I know, silly game mechanic. Kinda reminds me of training & plexing an alt just to park it in safespots...

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#127 - 2014-02-27 02:37:54 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:


Yeah I know, silly game mechanic. Kinda reminds me of training & plexing an alt just to park it in safespots...



IKR.

Or buying one to park in Jita.
a supercap
an indy pos
a bear park in null sec
a Falcon

Cause they give their owners no advantage in eve at all............. which is why people buy them............ oh wait.




BAD PEOPLE HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT THIS GAME FINANCIALLY MORE THAN SOMEONE ELSE DOES.
IT'S NOT FAIR.


https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Freako X
Doom Inc
#128 - 2014-02-27 03:59:14 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Bad Messenger wrote:


If CCP some day forces links on grid they should bring frigate size boost ships too.


Make dessies have a link ability. So small and up plexs would be able to field them but novice is still free from boosts.


Yes to this!
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2014-02-27 04:14:03 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
People pay for links to get an advantage.


Yup, I didn't say it's silly to use a silly mechanic if it gives you an edge.

But you know what's really unfair? That CCP forces us to go through all the hassle of subbing an alt, training skills and buying ships when they could really just implement these Link Vending Machines, with no significant difference vs current link gameplay. Or am I missing something?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#130 - 2014-02-27 04:57:18 UTC  |  Edited by: IbanezLaney
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:
People pay for links to get an advantage.


Yup, I didn't say it's silly to use a silly mechanic if it gives you an edge.

But you know what's really unfair? That CCP forces us to go through all the hassle of subbing an alt, training skills and buying ships when they could really just implement these Link Vending Machines, with no significant difference vs current link gameplay. Or am I missing something?



Agreed.

I should also be able to fly a Falcon and Moa on the same toon at the same time and not need a 2nd account for it.

DAMN YOU CCP - SO UNFAIR.



Dude - I get what you are trying to say. But my point is that the advantage of a 2nd account is there no matter what it is doing.

Do market people complain that the next guy has 2 market toons and can double their turnover?
Do the miners complain that another dude has mining boosts or 2 hulks and is getting a bigger profit for his time?




Sometimes it feels like I am in the mission runners forum section but - they complain less about things being unfair.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2014-02-27 10:57:52 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:
People pay for links to get an advantage.


Yup, I didn't say it's silly to use a silly mechanic if it gives you an edge.

But you know what's really unfair? That CCP forces us to go through all the hassle of subbing an alt, training skills and buying ships when they could really just implement these Link Vending Machines, with no significant difference vs current link gameplay. Or am I missing something?



Dedication and commitement. You want a lazy ass approach that is magical and screw up all the mechanics of the game.

This is NOT WOW!!

You want something? You have to spent time, money and dedication or human skilsl to achieve it!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2014-02-27 16:11:01 UTC
Ok guys, if you interpreted my post as 'QQ links are soooo unfair' I guess I gotta train my satire skills some more.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Seriously now, it never is about 'fairness'. It's about making things more interesting, dynamic, fun. To me, the main issue with OGBs atm is dull-ish gameplay, not OP-ness.


^^ This is what I replied to a QQ post just a page ago. Yeah, I don't like whiners either.


So to be clear: I'm strongly in favor of any change in links mechanics that would result in booster ships being more INTERACTED with. Such as bringing them on-grid (as CCP Fozzie suggested) or keeping them off-grid but making them easily scannable.

But hey, if some of you really prefer booster ships to continue being just an expensive and fairly safe deployable structure (hence my failed 'Vending Machine' satire attempt) instead of - you know - ships that people would actually fly, I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna change your mind.


Finally, if you're just trolling me, 10/10 I fell for it Big smile

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#133 - 2014-02-27 16:41:23 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I've heard the same 'CCP will lose money!' argument right before the last nano nerf and ECM nerf. Yawn.


I don't think a lot of these people understand the notion of improving your product leading to better sales.
Teh Nurffe
Trillium Invariant
Honorable Third Party
#134 - 2014-02-28 00:23:37 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Ok guys, if you interpreted my post as 'QQ links are soooo unfair' I guess I gotta train my satire skills some more.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Seriously now, it never is about 'fairness'. It's about making things more interesting, dynamic, fun. To me, the main issue with OGBs atm is dull-ish gameplay, not OP-ness.


^^ This is what I replied to a QQ post just a page ago. Yeah, I don't like whiners either.


So to be clear: I'm strongly in favor of any change in links mechanics that would result in booster ships being more INTERACTED with. Such as bringing them on-grid (as CCP Fozzie suggested) or keeping them off-grid but making them easily scannable.

But hey, if some of you really prefer booster ships to continue being just an expensive and fairly safe deployable structure (hence my failed 'Vending Machine' satire attempt) instead of - you know - ships that people would actually fly, I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna change your mind.


Finally, if you're just trolling me, 10/10 I fell for it Big smile


They are easily scannable. CCP already changed that. If you don't have correct equipment to scan down those t3 cruisers it's once again different QQ
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#135 - 2014-03-02 22:10:39 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I've heard the same 'CCP will lose money!' argument right before the last nano nerf and ECM nerf. Yawn.


I don't think a lot of these people understand the notion of improving your product leading to better sales.



Eve is a niche with such a small audience that to gain enough new permanent players to make up for people unsubbing alts would be difficult.

How many 'players' do you think there really are when you consider most people have 2 accounts and I know many with 5+ and even a few who claim 9+.

So when it says 50k people online - how many people do you think are sitting at keyboards and sending CCP money each month?

Deduct 2-3k from the online figures for dust.
Safe to assume 40% of the people online have 2 accounts logged in. (Likely more but being generous here)
Applying common sense and rough math tells you that if there are around 22K individual players online at best. The rest are their alts.

I left my dusty logged in most of the weekend - So I alone was counted as 3 people on TQ.
On that average there are 16K people when 50K are logged in.

Doesn't leave many single account holders even if you are generous with the figures.

The hard truth is:
Eve is not popular with the general gaming community. It is just too hard for them and that's why they don't play. 99% don't even know what boost alts are and have never heard of them.

Are new players magically staying away from eve due to something they have never heard about? Obviously not.
So it's not boosts stopping the game growing.

If CCP make the Eve more 'popular' - it will need to be so dumbed down so much for the general gaming population that its current player base will leave.


Not many individual people play this game.
Keeping people with alts happy is where the $$$ is.
The single account holder who complains about alts is not someone who keeps the $$$ rolling in for CCP.














https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#136 - 2014-03-03 01:05:50 UTC
Do you have any numbers that aren't made up or anecdotal?

Quote:
Eve is a niche with such a small audience that to gain enough new permanent players to make up for people unsubbing alts would be difficult.


When people quit in disgust or frustration, sales are typically worse than when they don't. Furthermore, Eve is a game predicated on player interaction. Pandering to multi-account players in light of that is phenomenally short-sighted.
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#137 - 2014-03-03 01:44:33 UTC  |  Edited by: IbanezLaney
Milton Middleson wrote:
Do you have any numbers that aren't made up or anecdotal?



No I have common sense and the ability to ask people how many accounts they have.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#138 - 2014-03-03 01:45:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Milton Middleson wrote:
Do you have any numbers that aren't made up or anecdotal?

Quote:
Eve is a niche with such a small audience that to gain enough new permanent players to make up for people unsubbing alts would be difficult.


When people quit in disgust or frustration, sales are typically worse than when they don't. Furthermore, Eve is a game predicated on player interaction. Pandering to multi-account players in light of that is phenomenally short-sighted.


I think the short way of putting what laney said, is;

The number of people who would be interested in a space submarine MMO or economy sim who have not already tried it and liked/disliked, it is very small.

Also, if were talking about made up numbers, your perceived new pool of players who would join because a mechanic they have never heard of in a game they dont have any interest in has been removed, is a prime example.

The minority of players in eve who seek solo pvp should not be catered to beyond their own ability to assess any situation they are getting into. Eve is hard yo. If you chose hard mode tru-solo then whining on the forum that other people dont is really quite sad.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#139 - 2014-03-03 06:34:04 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
Milton Middleson wrote:
Do you have any numbers that aren't made up or anecdotal?



No


Alright then. No further questions.

Quote:

Also, if were talking about made up numbers, your perceived new pool of players who would join because a mechanic they have never heard of in a game they dont have any interest in has been removed, is a prime example.

The minority of players in eve who seek solo pvp should not be catered to beyond their own ability to assess any situation they are getting into. Eve is hard yo. If you chose hard mode tru-solo then whining on the forum that other people dont is really quite sad.


Are you responding to someone else?
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#140 - 2014-03-03 08:13:21 UTC
Complaining about links in lowsec is really top-notch. When are implants scheduled for dispute, like slaves?

It's one thing to fly with an OGB that can easily be probed down and killed, or to fly with a pirate-imp'ed pod that no one can ever touch.