These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Gorski Car for CSM 9

First post First post
Author
Adwokat Diabla
WeebFleet
Tsundere Triad
#61 - 2014-03-03 00:28:46 UTC
Gorski is hands down one of the best pilots I've ever met and will be able to accurately represent pvpers, regardless of skill level. You have all my votes :)
Gorski Car
#62 - 2014-03-03 01:22:58 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Quote:
Links currently gives your gang a larger engagement profile and helps you take fights that you would not have taken otherwise. It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even.


You're assuming larger gangs don't have OGB?


No I am not assuming larger gangs are linkless these days. I assume everyone to have links on and adjust my piloting based around that.

For the whole linked blob vs linked small gang I feel like a smaller gang will have more experience flying with links and against people with links and should usually have better tactics and fleet concepts. So they can maximize the benefits of their force multipliers. There will of course always be gangs that you can not attack without getting totally wrecked and that is fine. You should not expect to win every single few versus many fights, especially not against equally skilled people.

Collect this post

Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#63 - 2014-03-03 01:56:50 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Could you clarify your position on links and command ships on station?

Should activating warfare links give you aggression? Yes or no?


Yes very much yes. They provide far to big of a boost at no risk on stations.


So does this mean that pilots in high sec who use gang links in incursion fleets should go suspect as well?

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Ayallah
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2014-03-03 05:38:48 UTC
Will vote 4 Gorski for booshvouch and ECM nerf.

In all honestly though, Gorski is a legit pvper and low sec bad, he knows the struggles of the people and how the meta effects all of our gameplay. Solopvp needs a candidate!

Gorski for CSM

Goddess of the IGS

As strength goes.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#65 - 2014-03-03 06:13:15 UTC
While I do have plenty of respect for Gorski, I must disagree with regards to OGBs.

If any ship or module gives your fleet a distinct, measurable and mechanical benefit, you should have to risk it on the field. Having to play the "do they have links?" song and dance before you think about taking a fight is, imo, one of the nails in the coffin of small gang pvp in this game.

ECM wouldn't be ok off grid. Remote sebos wouldn't be ok off grid. Logi would not be ok off grid.

Why are (often absurdly good) buffs ok off grid?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Gorski Car
#66 - 2014-03-03 07:51:02 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Gorski Car wrote:
Paul Tsukaya wrote:
Could you clarify your position on links and command ships on station?

Should activating warfare links give you aggression? Yes or no?


Yes very much yes. They provide far to big of a boost at no risk on stations.


So does this mean that pilots in high sec who use gang links in incursion fleets should go suspect as well?


I have no problem with this. I have personally run incursions before and I know they are doable without links. I know incursion runners are smart people and I am sure they will find ways to move around this "problem".

Collect this post

Gorski Car
#67 - 2014-03-03 07:55:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
While I do have plenty of respect for Gorski, I must disagree with regards to OGBs.

If any ship or module gives your fleet a distinct, measurable and mechanical benefit, you should have to risk it on the field. Having to play the "do they have links?" song and dance before you think about taking a fight is, imo, one of the nails in the coffin of small gang pvp in this game.

ECM wouldn't be ok off grid. Remote sebos wouldn't be ok off grid. Logi would not be ok off grid.

Why are (often absurdly good) buffs ok off grid?


My opinion was to either keep then off grid or change them drastically if they are to be on grid.

Quote:
Then you make sure Battlecruisers and command ships will be able to fit links without gimping their pvp mode. Adding a new t2 destroyer that is able to provide link bonuses would also be cool if CCP decides that links need to be ongrid only.

Quote:

if we have to put links on grid I want more ships that should be able to put links on them and not having to compromise their entire fit. This could even make battlecruisers used again in fleets. I also do not like the mindlink implant at all.


In the end the links on grid or off grid is a issue many people have very different opinions about and I believe that CCP needs to decide and just go with one of them. I would just try to make sure they do a good job if they put them on grid.

Collect this post

BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#68 - 2014-03-03 08:18:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
While I do have plenty of respect for Gorski, I must disagree with regards to OGBs.

If any ship or module gives your fleet a distinct, measurable and mechanical benefit, you should have to risk it on the field. Having to play the "do they have links?" song and dance before you think about taking a fight is, imo, one of the nails in the coffin of small gang pvp in this game.

ECM wouldn't be ok off grid. Remote sebos wouldn't be ok off grid. Logi would not be ok off grid.

Why are (often absurdly good) buffs ok off grid?


Gorskis already answered this but I'd just like to say I agree with him.

Its pretty hard to fit multiple links to a ship that can keep up with say a kiting Ishtar and the like
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#69 - 2014-03-03 09:02:25 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:

My opinion was to either keep then off grid or change them drastically if they are to be on grid.



I do not disagree that they would need to be reworked if they were made on grid.

Where I do disagree is when people say things akin to claiming that not having cloaked, safed, functionally invincible Lokis proving fleet boosts is somehow too hard.

The mechanic is broken, no matter who uses it or how. A broken mechanic doesn't have an alliance ticker on it.

Yes, some doctrines would not be able to use links anymore.

That is a GOOD THING. Having to make tradeoffs and decisions instead of "Buy boost alt, get power". It's such a binary mechanic right now, that could be made into so much more.

Heck, with on grid only boosting, you might have a dimension of fleet combat besides "primary is falcon", or "primary is logi". It would force choices for the enemy, too, if they want to shoot your booster first or your other targets.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

rhiload Feron-drake
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#70 - 2014-03-03 13:49:47 UTC
Johnny knows what up. keep it up gorski
Rahelis
Doomheim
#71 - 2014-03-03 14:01:54 UTC
We have a ship type, the command ship, that is mostly not used on grid, because off grid boosting is possible.

The base eve idea was high risk, high reward - off grid boosting is WOW, low risk, high reward.

Small gang fights suffer the most from off grid boosting, because small ships have the biggest firepower and the smallest tanks compared to mass.

Off grid boosting is one of the main hindrances for pvp in low sec..


Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#72 - 2014-03-03 15:37:02 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
Off grid boosting alts (OGBs): I currently believe that links are in a fine place power and projection wise. I know many people don't share my view of this but let me help you understand. Links currently gives your gang a larger engagement profile and helps you take fights that you would not have taken otherwise. It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even. There are multiple ships that hard counter small gangs and I think it is only fine that a link alt helps counter larger gangs.

Gorski Car wrote:
It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even.

I've never seen anyone run for the CSM with an honest-to-god stand-up comedy routine before.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#73 - 2014-03-03 15:59:44 UTC
Quote:
Off grid boosting alts (OGBs): I currently believe that links are in a fine place power and projection wise. I know many people don't share my view of this but let me help you understand. Links currently gives your gang a larger engagement profile and helps you take fights that you would not have taken otherwise. It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even. There are multiple ships that hard counter small gangs and I think it is only fine that a link alt helps counter larger gangs.
There is of course nothing that stop bigger gangs from using them and that's fine because smaller gangs are mostly designed to better benefit from the links.


is csm a joke to you
Flyinghotpocket
Doomheim
#74 - 2014-03-03 16:11:49 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:


I understand the need for bigger plexes and a system like this would be better then what we have now. I guess there are some people that will argue that restricting shipsizes is restricting the sandbox but I don't really agree. I think that the fw plexes has done way more good for this game and the state of lowsec fw pvp.

Beginner plex: t1 frigs, faction frigs. 10k lp
Small plex: t2 frigs, t2 destroyers. 15k lp
Medium plex: t1 cruisers. 20k lp
Large plex: t2 cruisers, battlecruisers. 25k lp
Huge plex: All sub caps 30k lp
Ungated plexes. 30k lp

And make the rat hard inside them.

Am please with this +1. Would probably have to increase the respawn timer on these like an hour, so that we can still all dog pile into 1 plex at a time.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Gorski Car
#75 - 2014-03-03 20:05:11 UTC
I realize now that I should have made a larger post explaining my stance on links. I will write something up when I get back home from work.


Phonepost. No I do not feel that this is a joke.

Collect this post

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#76 - 2014-03-03 21:17:49 UTC
one of the problems i find with a low sec market is the people there dont give you the chance for someone to set up a market and would rather kill the guy rather than allowing him to bring in ammo and other goods that would benefit that low sec group.
Theres a big enough problem in high sec trying to be an industrialist with gankers, and cant be out in null because of CTAs.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Ketzero
Sanctuary of Shadows
Brave Collective
#77 - 2014-03-03 22:35:56 UTC
Agondray wrote:
one of the problems i find with a low sec market is the people there dont give you the chance for someone to set up a market and would rather kill the guy rather than allowing him to bring in ammo and other goods that would benefit that low sec group.
Theres a big enough problem in high sec trying to be an industrialist with gankers, and cant be out in null because of CTAs.




If there's a group that routinely camps a station or an area, become familiar with them, and ask for some sort of an arrangement? If I wanted to get business done in Kamela, for example, I'd talk with Death By Design about a blue status for a hauler/cyno/whatever to bring in goods.


A well-functioning lowsec market is good for all involved. In Kamela, DbD trades one hauler or cyno kill for kills on 15 people who come there looking for Heavy Neutrons because they're 500k ISK cheaper than in Sasiekko, for example.


Eve is a game with other people, and whether or not you choose to be a team player, there are some situations that end up being mutually beneficial to 2 parties, and often-times, that's enough.
Rahelis
Doomheim
#78 - 2014-03-04 16:31:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Rahelis
Thread takeover - but still part of the problem.

There is no low-sec market in eve because of broken game mechanics - jump freighter is the problem for markets - as the titan bridge is a problem in pvp. Those work on the principle of WOW - low risk, high reward.

Gatescamps that can get blockade runners/ cloaky haulers will mostly have OGB - back on thread.

Eve wanted to be high risk - high reward - a low sec market would be an wonderful niche for many traders, which could make at least 15% profit to jita prices, 30-50% are possible. That would be a special trade career, a mix of piloting and trading.

But the game is broken.

On grid boosters kill small gang action.
Titan bridges kill gang action.
Jump freighters kill markets.

I see that removing the three would destroy most null "ecomonies" - and CCP only cares for null sec, because they think that are most of their customers.

A fast look at game statistics will show that most eve players live in high sec . . . most null systems are totally deserted, because there is nothing in this systems that is worth living there.

DbD may honor an trade agreement - but kamlea for instance is visited by tons of pure gankers, like PL and all those other nullbears. Strange that all the nullbear come to FW space to have some combat.

Eve needs a game balancing - not only ship balancing.

To many "devs" tamperd with the game without thinking of consequences - I love this game, but it can be very boring a times.
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery
#79 - 2014-03-04 22:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: BBQ FTW
just dropping in to say that there are certain widely-accepted mechanics in eve that don't conform to the risk = reward thing, such as skillpoints

thus I would expect our intrepid link haters to next agitate for the removal of the clone mechanic + finite align time on capsules

no? but high reward (5% on everything adds up quickly) should have some risk right?
Gorski Car
#80 - 2014-03-05 00:10:35 UTC
Just straight up stating that the game is broken is a bit bittervet/grim don't you think. I really think eve is a wonderful game and there is a reason I have been playing since 2003. You can't really move onto other mmos after playing Eve and getting stuck.

On jfs removing risk from hauling:

I really agree with this. There is almost no risk in piloting a jf unless you **** up. I would love to have people having to organize defense fleets to bring a freighter out a bit into lowsec to deliver goods. I have seen Brave Newbies do this and it seems kind of a fun thing to do. Without jump freighters deep 0.0 logistics would be a real pain in the ass though and that's why it probably should be easier to build stuff out there.

My stance on links and off grid boosting:

I think that links are in a fine place power wise and projection wise. They have way to little risk with using them though and its next to impossible to kill a command ship on station. There are many things I think CCP can do to solve this. One way to solve this is to give link activation a aggression timer. This would stop station and gate linking. Another problem with linking is the fact that the t3 ships currently can do way to many things at the same time.

Being able to warp cloaked, ignore bubbles and provide links at the same time is to much and I will wait for the t3 rebalance and hope something gets changed here. In general I think t3 cruisers are probably way to strong. Another thing I kinda don't like is the fact that these can be made next to impossible to probe. Activating links should expand your sig radius massively or they could just remove the eccm effect on how hard it is to probe you.

I think that we are currently far away from having links on grid. I do not think CCP should change stuff as drastically as most people want. I do not want a rlml scenario where CCP rushes something into the game almost unannounced without any time to listen to criticism. In order to put links on grid I feel we need more ships able to provide links. I have suggested a new t2 destroyer class. Battlecruisers needs to be able to fit links without compromising their entire fit and maybe allow more then 3 ships to provide boosts for a fleet.

I am pretty certain that CCP has a end goal where links are on grid and I personally have no problem with this I will do what I did when CCP changed hmls, rlmls, tracking enhancers and warp speeds. Adapt and move on. I have never blamed a loss on the other guy having links and I would never do that same thing with ECM, getting blobbed etc. It is part of the game at this moment and you need to accept that. Oh and by the way I do not use link alts all the time as some people have suggested. Trying to get a legion/damnation to keep up with a cruiser/frig after the warp speed change is such a pain in the ass that I just don't bother and to be honest you don't really need it. People are overestimating the power of them pretty hard. Especially skirmish and info because those are both counter able by good piloting.

I understand that some of you guys who solo pvp do not share my views on linking alts and if that is the only question that matters to you then I might not be the most militant guy. I do not think removing something completely or just mindlessly putting them on grid is a good solution.

Collect this post