These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What about Off Grid Boosting?

First post
Author
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#481 - 2014-12-09 09:16:16 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Yes, a second account for a boosting alt helps you in a fight.
Nerf OGB.

A second account for a logi alt helps you in a fight.
Nerf logi.

A second account for a Falcon alt helps you in a fight.
Nerf Falcon.

A second account for a DPS alt helps you in a fight.
Nerf DPS.


OGB, logi, and ECM are all broken. EVE would be a much better game without these things.

OGB has the worst risk/reward balance of those though. It's also not something that someone would reasonably do on their main.

shiiiet that's all I do baby.
5yndr0m3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#482 - 2014-12-09 09:28:38 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:
5yndr0m3 wrote:
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
I've been on these forums a few years.
I've never heard any substantive argument for removing OGB.


can you please explain why breaking the risk vs reward meta mechanic which kind of constitutes eve is not a aubstantive argument against off grid boosts?


Hi I am a OGB alt. I spend most of my time in a spaceship cloaked. sometimes I uncloak when links are required. To answer your question about it breaking risk/reward, let me help you out.

My links Tengu costs ~700 mil after being fit. Include the ~300 mil Republic Fleet Mindlink and you are right at or under 1bil isk. My Tengu can get scanned out and anything with a civilian gun and a warp disruptor can kill it, if they can catch it, which it has been caught along with my Loki Links.

My risk is ~1bil every time I undock. This is not including other implants. Anyone in a noob ship can kill it. Its a risk and the reward is my links to whatever fleet I am boosting.

Now if you want to talk about risk/reward being broken, lets talk about mining boosts that sit inside a pos shield with no risk at all, while giving an entire fleet mining boosts.


The fleet you're boosting can warp to you and kill the noob ship...

Also, I would recommend boosting on a station (so you can dock at any sign of trouble), on a gate (so you can jump and warp if if attacked), or right next to a POS shield (preferably with POS guns).

Honestly, that's probably the safest 1 bil ISK ship you can fly "in a fight". It also probably provides more benefits to you than any other 1 bil ISK ship would.


Hi, I am in 0rigin, a corp in Black Legion. Please have CCP add more npc stations to Venal and tell The Mittani to grant us docking rights.

If my links are uncloaked, thats because we are fighting.




5yndr0m3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#483 - 2014-12-09 09:33:41 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
5yndr0m3 wrote:
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
I've been on these forums a few years.
I've never heard any substantive argument for removing OGB.


can you please explain why breaking the risk vs reward meta mechanic which kind of constitutes eve is not a aubstantive argument against off grid boosts?


Hi I am a OGB alt. I spend most of my time in a spaceship cloaked. sometimes I uncloak when links are required. To answer your question about it breaking risk/reward, let me help you out.

My links Tengu costs ~700 mil after being fit. Include the ~300 mil Republic Fleet Mindlink and you are right at or under 1bil isk. My Tengu can get scanned out and anything with a civilian gun and a warp disruptor can kill it, if they can catch it, which it has been caught along with my Loki Links.

My risk is ~1bil every time I undock. This is not including other implants. Anyone in a noob ship can kill it. Its a risk and the reward is my links to whatever fleet I am boosting.

Now if you want to talk about risk/reward being broken, lets talk about mining boosts that sit inside a pos shield with no risk at all, while giving an entire fleet mining boosts.


Seriously, how about we make it so that mining boosts have to be on grid and orca pilots have to sacrifice all of their tanking modules to fit boosts?


My link ships have no tank or propulsion mods.
Kiandoshia
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#484 - 2014-12-09 10:09:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiandoshia
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
I've been on these forums a few years.
I've never heard any substantive argument for removing OGB.


can you please explain why breaking the risk vs reward meta mechanic which kind of constitutes eve is not a aubstantive argument against off grid boosts?


You say that you have to fit a frigate with 500m worth of stuff to keep up with a boosted frigate. The other person paid god knows much much ISK to get the booster and continues to pay either real money or ISK for PLEX to keep that booster. You are actually spending a lot less than that other person is.

Regardless, pay to win is bad, I suppose. Eve is pay to win though. I don't want to say deal with it but that's the way things are.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#485 - 2014-12-09 10:16:53 UTC
"Pay to win" implies being able to buy advantages for real money that aren't otherwise available to players. Pay to avoid grind, maybe, but not win. I mean, I love trolling other people and saying how EVE is P2W and how I spent $10k to paste their scrub asses etc etc, but objectively, it isn't. Not that it's a great or balanced system, though, because someone with experience and money can be extremely powerful.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Kiandoshia
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#486 - 2014-12-09 10:22:16 UTC
Starting out and trying to buy ones way to 'victory' almost always ends in tears. Once someone knows what they're doing, pay to win is real =p
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#487 - 2014-12-09 11:40:03 UTC
So my 30 mill sp OGB alt that is specialised in one thing and one thing only can be countered by another 10 mill sp probing alt. I don't get the whining tbh this seems balanced to me?
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#488 - 2014-12-09 12:07:36 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:

None of the people that whine about OGB know anything about how vulnerable boosting toons are, how easy it can be to find them, how quickly they can be annihilated, or that they improve your combat ability in about the same way that an equivalent cost of deadspace and faction gear would, nor do they care.


If you fly with deadspace, you're doing so with far greater risk to your investment. Same for implants. You actually get less of a boost from those things. Not to mention OGBs boost everyone in the fleet.

"how vulnerable boosting toons are" lol really?


Lol really. People lose boosters every single day. If you need an idea of what circumstances they get caught, check zkill and take note of how many 'unprobable' boosters get probed and ganked. Implants provide a similar overall increase to t3 boosts while being relatively low risk in low sec and since the expedition changes there is an array of relatively cheap deadspace and faction gear to use on your blingly pvp ships. The increase in performance from using high meta faction tackle is cheaper than using a booster toon, as are many of the c and b-type tanking modules, which often have the added benefit of being easier to fit. Remote repair modules are a bargain, costing only a few million for low end small reppers, and offer tremendous benefits.

Anything that makes your ship better in PVP benefits the gang you play with. If you have a faction web and scram, or can tank easier, or have a deadspace MWD and can burn for longer toward an opponent, your whole gang benefits. We know you don't like boosts because you don't think they're 'fair'. That's fine, but you don't have to lie to make your case.

Nikolina Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#489 - 2014-12-09 12:07:52 UTC
To answer the question of people using OGB in low sec to easily win fights.
This is EVE.
As long as people can use a strategy to win fights easily they will, if you want "fair" fights play WOW, or chess.

The removal of OGB will disproportionately hurt solo and small gang pilots to the benefit of pilots with a larger fleet.

The removal of OGB will mean that larger gangs, who can spare a pilot for a command ship as well as protect it adequately will gain the benefit of warfare links, pilots who are solo or in a small gang cannot then gain the advantages of links, due to their inability to protect their links and the need to then sacrifice a pilot to run them (unless you are an amazing multitasker) leading to an already disadvantaged group having one of the few things they have than can give them and edge removed.

I will however suggest that using warfare links should result in a weapons timer & perhaps a suspect timer.
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#490 - 2014-12-09 12:35:23 UTC
Ong wrote:
So my 30 mill sp OGB alt that is specialised in one thing and one thing only can be countered by another 10 mill sp probing alt. I don't get the whining tbh this seems balanced to me?


It's not balanced because factoring the number of accounts into game balance is simply absurd. Does this really need to be explained?

Folks who don't like ogb want fast paced tactical pvp with player skills being the decicive factor. When making the split second decision of wether or not to take a fight you can't even check for boosters and even if you would you could never be sure that that claymore at station is associated with that small gang outside novice. That is what makes it fundamentally different from logis and ecm. Obg dumbs down eves tactical aspect in small gang and especially in solo pvp to a point where the pilot with active links is most likely to win not only because his t1 frig gets risk free officer gear and high grade implants but because unlike cloaked logis or ecm links leave you not time to react When you get webbed at 18km it's too late.

You can defend that mechanic all you want but at teh end of the day it's making solo and small gang pvp a huge pita for individual players who can't afford links or who simply don't like to carry a link ship around to provide them with invisible super powers at any given time (It doesn't only feel super lame ot win because of links it also destroys the feel of bing ones own spaceship)

In other words: links punish players who want tactical pvp with lots of action, roam freely and arn't so much about winning but about fighting. It may sound weird to some but that's exactly the kind of thing new players may like . To a certain degree lowsec supports this playstyle which is why it's the healthiest part of eve atm. Think about that when you defend this terrible meachanic which enables you to stomp other players and look great because your seconf account isn't on the km. In the long run "winning" may get a bitter aftertaste when you don't find anyone to fight.


Aivo Dresden
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
WE FORM BL0B
#491 - 2014-12-09 12:47:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
It's not balanced because factoring the number of accounts into game balance is simply absurd. Does this really need to be explained?
Are you even listening to your self? You're complaining 2 characters have an advantage over 1 character. This has to be the single dumbest thing in this discussion.

We're discussing the impact of an alt account here so yea inherently we're discussing the balance of multiple accounts against another number of accounts, be it 1 or more. That's why this is a useless discussion anyway, because ultimately, 2 accounts will always have an advantage over 1 account, regardless of how that 2nd account is used. Be it OffGB at the moment, be it Jams or neuts when OffGB gets removed. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day 2 accounts will still be better than 1 account.

Unless you want to restrict people from using alts, your comments have no place here. Since when do fights have to be fair anyway?
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#492 - 2014-12-09 13:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ong
Shaleb Heworo wrote:


Ranting words



I do all those fights that you speak of, but links allow me to fight outnumberd most of the time. These mythical 1v1 fights you seem to have in your head just don't really exist these days in eve. 9/10 that solo frig is not alone, or other people show up.

Being able to take on multiple opponents and actually have a chance to win, rather than just insta die is way way more fun and exhilarating than some condor vs condor fight, as tbh that just comes down to who has the most sp anyway 90% of the time.

Idk maybe its because back in the days when I started this game (2007) watching vids of people like garmon, wildcat & BP being outnumberd and winning inspired me to actually get out there and pew pew, with the power creep and general OPness of a fair few ships in eve these days its pretty much impossible to do that play style without links, and its that type of play that keeps a lot of the vets like me actually sub'd to this game.
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#493 - 2014-12-09 13:15:02 UTC
Ong wrote:
Shaleb Heworo wrote:


Ranting words



I do all those fights that you speak of, but links allow me to fight outnumberd most of the time. These mythical 1v1 fights you seem to have in your head just don't really exist these days in eve. 9/10 that solo frig is not alone, or other people show up.

Being able to take on multiple opponents and actually have a chance to win, rather than just insta die is way way more fun and exhilarating than some condor vs condor fight, as tbh that just comes down to who has the most sp anyway 90% of the time.

Idk maybe its because back in the days when I started this game (2007) watching vids of people like garmon, wildcat & BP being outnumberd and winning inspired me to actually get out there and pew pew, with the power creep and general OPness of a fair few ships in eve these days its pretty much impossible to do that play style without links, and its that type of play that keeps a lot of the vets like me actually sub'd to this game.


you don't need links to take on multiple targets. Even I take on small gangs all the time. Where do you get the idea from that you need links to do that? Eve provides you with all the tools you need. In your case links just help you to create the illusion that you're solo
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#494 - 2014-12-09 13:18:17 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
It's not balanced because factoring the number of accounts into game balance is simply absurd. Does this really need to be explained?
Are you even listening to your self? You're complaining 2 characters have an advantage over 1 character. This has to be the single dumbest thing in this discussion.

We're discussing the impact of an alt account here so yea inherently we're discussing the balance of multiple accounts against another number of accounts, be it 1 or more. That's why this is a useless discussion anyway, because ultimately, 2 accounts will always have an advantage over 1 account, regardless of how that 2nd account is used. Be it OffGB at the moment, be it Jams or neuts when OffGB gets removed. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day 2 accounts will still be better than 1 account.

Unless you want to restrict people from using alts, your comments have no place here. Since when do fights have to be fair anyway?



The use of alts is perfectly fine but within the framework of principles that define the sandbox. See below. Leave the solo/small gang guys some space to find tatctical means against overwhelming force. No?


Nikolina Oncomata wrote:
To answer the question of people using OGB in low sec to easily win fights.
This is EVE.
As long as people can use a strategy to win fights easily they will, if you want "fair" fights play WOW, or chess.

The removal of OGB will disproportionately hurt solo and small gang pilots to the benefit of pilots with a larger fleet.

I will however suggest that using warfare links should result in a weapons timer & perhaps a suspect timer.


I really don't understand how the proponents of ogb can hold on to the notion that its opponents want eve to be "fair" regardless of how many times it has been stated that this is not the case. At all. The argument was that Ogb is an anomaly in an otherwise perfectly unfair sandbox. it's an anomaly in at least two regards: It doesn't leave you time to react unlike even cloaked logis or falcons and it fundamentally negates risk vs reward. The end result is dumbed down pay to win pvp, the fundamental division of the player base in these with links and these without and a lot of less action. That's it from me. I tried to explain the problem with ogb from the perspective of a player which is relatively new to pvp but some folks just seem determined not to listen.
Aivo Dresden
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
WE FORM BL0B
#495 - 2014-12-09 14:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
The use of alts is perfectly fine but within the framework of principles that define the sandbox. See below. Leave the solo/small gang guys some space to find tatctical means against overwhelming force. No?

No, who are you to tell me how to play? I will sandbox how I want.
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
I really don't understand how the proponents of ogb can hold on to the notion that its opponents want eve to be "fair" regardless of how many times it has been stated that this is not the case. At all. The argument was that Ogb is an anomaly in an otherwise perfectly unfair sandbox. it's an anomaly in at least two regards: It doesn't leave you time to react unlike even cloaked logis or falcons and it fundamentally negates risk vs reward. The end result is dumbed down pay to win pvp, the fundamental division of the player base in these with links and these without and a lot of less action. That's it from me. I tried to explain the problem with ogb from the perspective of a player which is relatively new to pvp but some folks just seem determined not to listen.
OffGB don't win PvP. It increases chances, but doesn't guarantee a win. I did the math a few posts back, it's like 20% increase in most often Armor/Shield and Skirmish. Not to mention that IF someone was using links and engaged you in "1v1", you could easily bring your 2nd character out as well and just jam the crap out of him, or just double your DPS with an extra ship. Easy win for you.

Maybe the problem is that you are, as you state so yourself, new to PvP. Not whether or not the opponent is using links.
Nikolina Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#496 - 2014-12-09 15:56:13 UTC
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
[quote=Shaleb Heworo]It's not balanced because factoring the number of accounts into game balance is simply absurd. Does this really need to be explained?
Are you even listening to your self? You're complaining 2 characters have an advantage over 1 character. This has to be the single dumbest thing in this discussion.

We're discussing the impact of an alt account here so yea inherently we're discussing the balance of multiple accounts against another number of accounts, be it 1 or more. That's why this is a useless discussion anyway, because ultimately, 2 accounts will always have an advantage over 1 account, regardless of how that 2nd account is used. Be it OffGB at the moment, be it Jams or neuts when OffGB gets removed. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day 2 accounts will still be better than 1 account.

Unless you want to restrict people from using alts, your comments have no place here. Since when do fights have to be fair anyway?


The use of alts is perfectly fine but within the framework of principles that define the sandbox. See below. Leave the solo/small gang guys some space to find tatctical means against overwhelming force. No?



I can understand your perspective dont get me wrong, I just disagree. As someone who spent the time and isk to get a link alt its not the "win" button you're making it out to be.

As far as solo / small gang guys go, links are our greatest weapon against the blob, they allow us to amplify our abilities to make up for numbers. As i pointed out removing OGB will give the blob yet another advantage over the small gang solo guys.

If OGB is to be removed then i would move to remove links all together.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#497 - 2014-12-09 16:31:55 UTC
If you make this game an endless exercise in deck stacking, people will stop unlocking without a guaranteed advantage. Everyone will play like Russians. Undock with boosts vs. Small gangs or solo players and always upship at least one class, and dock up when a superior force moves through.

You people act like this is real life and winning at all costs is all that matters. This is a game, we are here to have fun (I thought) and no one will enjoy a "sandbox" where people don't play unless they can guarantee victory through factors independent of raw player skill and tactics.

I would settle for evicting boosts from fw complexes though. That would fix solo at least. No more kiting missile boats in novice plexes that cant be caught be anything, including missiles and warrior IIs. Would be a great thing for solo roaming in fw space. Alot more small scale fights in plexes and fighting in an enemy home system would no longer be suicide.
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#498 - 2014-12-09 16:41:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaleb Heworo
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
The use of alts is perfectly fine but within the framework of principles that define the sandbox. See below. Leave the solo/small gang guys some space to find tatctical means against overwhelming force. No?

No, who are you to tell me how to play? I will sandbox how I want.
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
I really don't understand how the proponents of ogb can hold on to the notion that its opponents want eve to be "fair" regardless of how many times it has been stated that this is not the case. At all. The argument was that Ogb is an anomaly in an otherwise perfectly unfair sandbox. it's an anomaly in at least two regards: It doesn't leave you time to react unlike even cloaked logis or falcons and it fundamentally negates risk vs reward. The end result is dumbed down pay to win pvp, the fundamental division of the player base in these with links and these without and a lot of less action. That's it from me. I tried to explain the problem with ogb from the perspective of a player which is relatively new to pvp but some folks just seem determined not to listen.
OffGB don't win PvP. It increases chances, but doesn't guarantee a win. I did the math a few posts back, it's like 20% increase in most often Armor/Shield and Skirmish. Not to mention that IF someone was using links and engaged you in "1v1", you could easily bring your 2nd character out as well and just jam the crap out of him, or just double your DPS with an extra ship. Easy win for you.

Maybe the problem is that you are, as you state so yourself, new to PvP. Not whether or not the opponent is using links.


It's interesting how you argue with the sandbox when ogb is against the very spirit of the sandbox. Think about it: A sandbox means relative freedom of action within a given framework Framework means that all players have to use the same tools laying around and can't rely on tools which are off limits. Ogb is a unique tool unlike any other which becomes available due to "off limit" out of sandbox action (paying for a second account) and only to a certain part of the player base. It kind of creates a box in the sandbox. Do you know hat i mean?

Regarding the other points you made: Don't get me wrong but there seems to be a certain mindest that prevents people from seeing where the criticism of ogb comes from. It is NOT about winning or not winning, It is about the tactical quality of combat and the number of fights happening. While ogb doesn't make you fully automatically win or lose it massively decreases the margin for error for the solo guy and at the same time increases it for the gang he fights. Simply because 18km webs and snake speed across the bord will get you killed in a kiting ship when the pilots you're fighting are only half way competent. The combination of faction web + loki links on the others hand just means instadeath. In that scenario links in fact do automatically win the fights for you. Therefore "dumbing down eve pvp" because links severely limit or fully negate the tactical means (mostly kiting/range ontrol tactics) of solo/small gang pilots against linked gangs and/or linked faction fitted "solo" pilots!

For me it's not so much the ├Čncreased tanking but the speed on top of point range on top of web range on top of scram range. Your targets become massively boosted in the critical areas that allow you to operate against them to a point where an engagement 1vsX becomes almost futile. I had enough engagements to know this for a fact and i also know that this leads to a lot less fights happening since many of the massively disadvantaged players without links become increasingly distrustful and less willing to spontaniously take fights. Especially in FW main Systems. That's why to the very least it should be noticable that a target X is boosted if this forsaken mechanic must remain until code rework. because afterall that's what we are talking about since ccp seems to be aware of the problem.
Shaleb Heworo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#499 - 2014-12-09 16:43:40 UTC
Nikolina Oncomata wrote:
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
[quote=Shaleb Heworo]It's not balanced because factoring the number of accounts into game balance is simply absurd. Does this really need to be explained?
Are you even listening to your self? You're complaining 2 characters have an advantage over 1 character. This has to be the single dumbest thing in this discussion.

We're discussing the impact of an alt account here so yea inherently we're discussing the balance of multiple accounts against another number of accounts, be it 1 or more. That's why this is a useless discussion anyway, because ultimately, 2 accounts will always have an advantage over 1 account, regardless of how that 2nd account is used. Be it OffGB at the moment, be it Jams or neuts when OffGB gets removed. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day 2 accounts will still be better than 1 account.

Unless you want to restrict people from using alts, your comments have no place here. Since when do fights have to be fair anyway?


The use of alts is perfectly fine but within the framework of principles that define the sandbox. See below. Leave the solo/small gang guys some space to find tatctical means against overwhelming force. No?



I can understand your perspective dont get me wrong, I just disagree. As someone who spent the time and isk to get a link alt its not the "win" button you're making it out to be.

As far as solo / small gang guys go, links are our greatest weapon against the blob, they allow us to amplify our abilities to make up for numbers. As i pointed out removing OGB will give the blob yet another advantage over the small gang solo guys.

If OGB is to be removed then i would move to remove links all together.


Ogb and solo pvp are by definition mutually exclusive. Gladly links are not needed at all to fight blobs. Ccp has given us a great number of tools in that regard. I understand your argument that links make "soloing" against unlinked gangs a lot easier but at the same time this is just another way of saying that links make pvp generally easier against unboosted targets. Instead of one group of players relying on their superiority over the other due out of game factors (rl money/time) tactic and skill should become even more decicive on a more leveled field. Don't you think that generally that would b a good thing?
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#500 - 2014-12-09 18:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ong
Shaleb Heworo wrote:
Ogb is a unique tool unlike any other which becomes available due to "off limit" out of sandbox action (paying for a second account) and only to a certain part of the player base.



But thats compleatly untrue, you can choose to train a second account and have OGD links yourself, or an ecm alt or anothr dps alt or a probing alt to probe the OGB char and kill them, its part of the sandbox. Bringing your inability to fund a 2nd account either via rl money or plex is your issue and should not be part of the argument for or against OGB.

Shaleb Heworo wrote:


While ogb doesn't make you fully automatically win or lose it massively decreases the margin for error for the solo guy and at the same time increases it for the gang he fights. Simply because 18km webs and snake speed across the bord will get you killed in a kiting ship when the pilots you're fighting are only half way competent.



Sorry but now you just sound like your crying because you cant kyte all the things in your ships that abuse the OP nature of scorch.