These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Off Grid Boosting - NO MORE - CCP, one more look
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#41 - 2014-12-03 11:03:20 UTC
James Baboli wrote:

Definately read it. Definately still see it favoring blobbing unless you have a VERY long cycle time, as you insert X number of boosting ships, and then use appropriate links to make whatever is primaried effectively invulnerable.


I see where you got confused- no, piling 72 resist links on a single ship would not increase it's resists (much*) above what you currently get from a maxed-out T2 link.

* I'd scale the bonus to somewhere in the region of 3 heated links topping at slightly above what the current max is, but like cycle time, there are many stats involved in this suggestion, which are better left for CCP's balance team to tune.


Daneel Trevize brought up a real issue with this proposal, and that's binding key shortcuts to link broadcasts. Binding 12 keys for each link type is inpractical, and I'm not sure how well just one broadcast per link class would work in practice.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#42 - 2014-12-03 11:09:13 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:

I see where you got confused- no, piling 72 resist links on a single ship would not increase it's resists (much*) above what you currently get from a maxed-out T2 link.
.

In which case, given the single ship being covered by said links, it is almost never worth it to bring links to anything as opposed to literally anything else.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
per
Terpene Conglomerate
#43 - 2014-12-03 11:14:08 UTC
if OGB to be removed by ccp from game now i think my x-mass would be complete (together with recent power projection nerf + isbox ban)
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#44 - 2014-12-03 11:15:19 UTC
Removing off-grid boosting is a bad idea because it'll just remove links from "solo" PVPers, nothing else. Links should instead either be removed entirely (won't happen), made more easily available for everyone, or made vulnerable off-grid.

I think making them vulnerable is the easiest and best option. Give links a weapon timer so they can't sit safely on a station or gate and dock at the first sign of trouble, then give links a sensor strength penalty so they can't be effectively unprobeable.

Suddenly keeping them off or on grid would be real choice. Keep them off-grid and anyone can find and kill them before backup can arrive. Keep them on-grid and you'll have to sacrifice links for tank, but the link ship would be protected.

Links aren't annoying because they give people an unfair advantage, but because they're next to invulnerable and have few counters.

Disclaimer: I have a link alt
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2014-12-03 11:16:25 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:

I see where you got confused- no, piling 72 resist links on a single ship would not increase it's resists (much*) above what you currently get from a maxed-out T2 link.
.

In which case, given the single ship being covered by said links, it is almost never worth it to bring links to anything as opposed to literally anything else.


It most certainly would be. You'd want a link ship to boost your logis with rep links and the primary with resists & sig reduction, or a link ship to make your skirmish gang faster and point further. Or a link ship to support your EWAR squad.

It just wouldn't be so overpowered and tailored for afk alts.


James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#46 - 2014-12-03 11:19:38 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:

I think making them vulnerable is the easiest and best option. Give links a weapon timer so they can't sit safely on a station or gate and dock at the first sign of trouble, then give links a sensor strength penalty so they can't be effectively unprobeable.


I would much rather do it the other way around, i.e. by increasing signature radius, but I agree with this concept.

Why signature bloom, rather than sensor strength penalty? Because it makes sense that if you are processing enough information back and forth between you and other ships to boost their performance, you are gonna light up like a christmas tree. Are your sensor gonna be taking a hit? Unless the designer was an idiot, nope. Sensors would have been designed to acknowledge and compensate for this.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#47 - 2014-12-03 11:24:42 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:

I see where you got confused- no, piling 72 resist links on a single ship would not increase it's resists (much*) above what you currently get from a maxed-out T2 link.
.

In which case, given the single ship being covered by said links, it is almost never worth it to bring links to anything as opposed to literally anything else.


It most certainly would be. You'd want a link ship to boost your logis with rep links and the primary with resists & sig reduction, or a link ship to make your skirmish gang faster and point further. Or a link ship to support your EWAR squad.

It just wouldn't be so overpowered and tailored for afk alts.



I can maybe see the EWAR squad and logi being desirable, but heres the other thing. it now takes 2 link ships per squad boosted to put 1/3 the current link bonus from a single link on 9 ships, which means that now to link 9 logi with both RR bonuses takes 11 ships, and then sensor stength and maybe if we're feeling lucky the prop module link. So, now we have 13 ships, to get 1/3 the current link benefit on the 9 logi, and so on and so on.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#48 - 2014-12-03 11:39:32 UTC
I don't deny that it's a net nerf to links, especially for bigger fleets, I think that is also appropriate. Note that the scaling here favours small gangs, one link ship can easily boost 2-3 logis and still have links for other ships.

However, the suggestion is nowhere near finalized as what comes to the actual and specific numbers, I don't believe that's what players should decide, or that it would be the kind of Features and Ideas CCP is looking for.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#49 - 2014-12-03 11:45:46 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
I don't deny that it's a net nerf to links, especially for bigger fleets, I think that is also appropriate. Note that the scaling here favours small gangs, one link ship can easily boost 2-3 logis and still have links for other ships.

However, the suggestion is nowhere near finalized as what comes to the actual and specific numbers, I don't believe that's what players should decide, or that it would be the kind of Features and Ideas CCP is looking for.


Its a net nerf at least as relatively large as the jump range and fatigue nerfs simultaneously.
It breaks the precedence of 8 slots to a rack, which isn't inherently bad, but does need justification.
Even with stacking penalties, such links can be made much more potent than current links.
It breaks every non-PVP use of links inherently.
There is no good way to balance t1 battlecruisers with 9 highs.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#50 - 2014-12-03 11:54:10 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
I don't deny that it's a net nerf to links, especially for bigger fleets, I think that is also appropriate. Note that the scaling here favours small gangs, one link ship can easily boost 2-3 logis and still have links for other ships.

However, the suggestion is nowhere near finalized as what comes to the actual and specific numbers, I don't believe that's what players should decide, or that it would be the kind of Features and Ideas CCP is looking for.


Its a net nerf at least as relatively large as the jump range and fatigue nerfs simultaneously.
It breaks the precedence of 8 slots to a rack, which isn't inherently bad, but does need justification.
Even with stacking penalties, such links can be made much more potent than current links.
It breaks every non-PVP use of links inherently.
There is no good way to balance t1 battlecruisers with 9 highs.


Having just 8 highs wouldn't be a disaster, just a slightly bigger nerf.

Ads what comes to more potent, they would be on grid and in range, and requiring a competent player managing his targets, cap and heat while engaged by hostiles.

No, it doesn't break non-PVP use of links, I'd be fine with mining links left outside of this like they were from the force field change. For PVE (NPC shooting) you could use these links just like in PVP.

T1 BCs would not need any changes.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#51 - 2014-12-03 18:27:07 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
I don't deny that it's a net nerf to links, especially for bigger fleets, I think that is also appropriate. Note that the scaling here favours small gangs, one link ship can easily boost 2-3 logis and still have links for other ships.

However, the suggestion is nowhere near finalized as what comes to the actual and specific numbers, I don't believe that's what players should decide, or that it would be the kind of Features and Ideas CCP is looking for.


Its a net nerf at least as relatively large as the jump range and fatigue nerfs simultaneously.
It breaks the precedence of 8 slots to a rack, which isn't inherently bad, but does need justification.
Even with stacking penalties, such links can be made much more potent than current links.
It breaks every non-PVP use of links inherently.
There is no good way to balance t1 battlecruisers with 9 highs.


Having just 8 highs wouldn't be a disaster, just a slightly bigger nerf.

Ads what comes to more potent, they would be on grid and in range, and requiring a competent player managing his targets, cap and heat while engaged by hostiles.

No, it doesn't break non-PVP use of links, I'd be fine with mining links left outside of this like they were from the force field change. For PVE (NPC shooting) you could use these links just like in PVP.

T1 BCs would not need any changes.



you would leave out 1/3 the current ship types that can run links. why?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#52 - 2014-12-03 18:59:27 UTC
remove warfare links from the game.

replace them with uber scanners that give out info like:

- resist profile
- cap amount
- Last ship movement command (aligning to: xxx, keeping range with: xxx, warping to: xxx)
etc etc

little gems of info like that

:3

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#53 - 2014-12-03 19:10:27 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:

you would leave out 1/3 the current ship types that can run links. why?


1/8 of the current ship types that can run links, and mainly because they aren't primarily used as link ships and rarely fit more than one link.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#54 - 2014-12-03 19:15:18 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:

you would leave out 1/3 the current ship types that can run links. why?


1/8 of the current ship types that can run links, and mainly because they aren't primarily used as link ships and rarely fit more than one link.

Okay. So lets see.

Carriers.
Battle cruisers
T3s.
Orcas.
Rorquals.
Titans.
Command ships.

What are the other 2?
why exclude the ship which is:

A: cheap enough to run en masse.
B: The only t1 subcap able to fit links.
C: officially balance in part by the ability to fit said links.
D: The only access newbies have to links to somewhat level the field against bittervets.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#55 - 2014-12-03 19:23:08 UTC
The one (1) you missed are supers, you listed seven.

I'm not excluding BCs, leaving their slot count at current would keep them as viable for boosting as they are now.

Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#56 - 2014-12-19 00:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Quesa wrote:
No, absolutely not. There is an entirely unique meta that has developed for the probing out and destroying of links.


That's sort of a bad rationale for keeping a mechanic. There was a unique meta for capitals before phoebe, but many are glad that's out the window along with the mechanics that allowed it.

Especially with all the new players around. Everyone's happy to assure them they can be competitive against veterans in frigates or assault frigates inside a few months, but this is patently false due to off grid links, and exacerbated by the excessively kitey meta.

How is it bad that I like the new probing meta created by the latest change to link-boats? This is not about a single ship destroying hundreds of pilots (AoE DD) or being able to move hundreds of people from one side of the universe to the other (Phoebe cap changes).

This is about a smaller group of players having an effect on a battlefield they cannot openly engage on, this is about cloak and dagger games with probers using high skills and implants to track down these links and either permanently or temporarily removing that bonus from the system. This is about, what I and some others feel, is a net positive result of the previous changes and with the way links and boosting currently works is an excellent middle ground.

Just because YOU don't like what it's done, doesn't mean it's a bad rationale, it just means you disagree.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2014-12-19 10:17:05 UTC
How about giving links a 5 minute cycle, that breaks your warp drive till the cycle is over. So either go on grid and count on your fleet defending you or be prepared to solo a small gang or fleet for a few minutes..... granted some CSes can do this.

I think this would make link boats compelling to actually fly.
Solj RichPopolous
F I G H T C L U B
H A R D L I N E R S
#58 - 2014-12-19 13:17:37 UTC
Soon as boosts have to come on grid you give all the power they presented to the blob. People will leave the game in droves as now the only viable way to combat the blob is to be in the blob which is boring asf.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#59 - 2014-12-19 13:32:42 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
How does completely killing this kind of solo PVP, where the OGB gives your ship at least a tiny edge over the blob, cause "a new wave or[sic!] solo pvp [to] emerge if off-grid links are taken away"?

"solo" PVP.
Yeah, sure. And it's solo when people bring their 5 falcon alts too.

This is one of the most ******** arguments I've ever read on this site, has always been, and will continue to be for as long as this issue remains in game. Just to play the "stupid argument" game, here's one for you. If you, one person has access to link alts, then how do 10 people not have access to any? In fact if we use you as an example, and you have link alts, then it can be assumed that you represent the population and everybody has access to link alts. Therefore if you fly against 10 enemies, then they likely have access to 10 or more link alts.

Now that's also a ******* ******** argument, but let's be honest here. How many decent sized groups of competent pilots don't have access to link alts? Links do absolutely nothing to give you an edge over the blob because the blob has links too assuming a baseline of competence from the group. Hell, I have 2 perfect link alts. I'd gladly see them forced on grid for when I actually want to commit and make a 1v1 a proper 2v1. Or even better, bring my Damnation to a fleet fight. I'd love them to try and primary that ******.

Also, to people complaining about CS tank levels, I don't know about you guys, but a Damnation can easily get >90% resists across the board with over 20k armour HP. It's not hard to get over 300k EHP. Sure, the other CSs don't get the same levels of tank, but the resists are generally close. At that point, they're tanking under fire better than your battleships. So I don't see the tank issues here, unless you're comparing to T3s with their tiny sigs and huge HP pools and roughly equivalent resists.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2014-12-19 15:04:15 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Removing off-grid boosting is a bad idea because it'll just remove links from "solo" PVPers, nothing else. Links should instead either be removed entirely (won't happen), made more easily available for everyone, or made vulnerable off-grid.

I think making them vulnerable is the easiest and best option. Give links a weapon timer so they can't sit safely on a station or gate and dock at the first sign of trouble, then give links a sensor strength penalty so they can't be effectively unprobeable.

Suddenly keeping them off or on grid would be real choice. Keep them off-grid and anyone can find and kill them before backup can arrive. Keep them on-grid and you'll have to sacrifice links for tank, but the link ship would be protected.

Links aren't annoying because they give people an unfair advantage, but because they're next to invulnerable and have few counters.

Disclaimer: I have a link alt
+1, but don't hold your breath.

While on-grid only links have significant server implications (iirc), these same suggestions have been around for ages, are super-easy to implement, yet have never been implemented...

So it's safe to say they never will...

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!