These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Vary link strength and range by link tier

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-02-11 22:05:21 UTC
Howabout separate fleet, wing, and squad boosts into meaningfully different categories?

Currently fleet boosts are rather overpowered as one pilot can offer very significant bonuses to as many as 256 pilots including themselves. Squad boosts, on the other hand, are pretty underpowered because the boosting ship gives up a large chunk of its potential output to instead boost no more than nine other pilots, and this comes at the further cost that the squad members cannot even receive the booster bonuses if a wing or fleet booster already has the same boost type covered. So most squad boosters don't even fly a booster ship and instead just use their leadership skills for passive boosts.



My proposal is to allow all three boost tiers to stack on top of one another, but to reduce wing boosts to half effectiveness and fleet boosts to 1/4th effectiveness. Furthermore, there should be range limitations: squad boosts should apply only on-grid, wing boosts could carry across the whole system, and fleet boosts could operate through any systems within a range given in light years. This would allow a fleet commander to provide boosts to several parts of a fleet that are spread out, while the strongest boosts would only be available by squad commanders immediately present with their squads.

The end result of this is that fleets will be able to have slightly stronger net boosts, but it will come at the cost of a higher level of organization and a higher cost of ships fitting ganglink modules due to the squad commanders being the most important part of the links,

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Lugh Crow-Slave
#2 - 2015-02-11 23:09:28 UTC
lets just get them on grid first then we can try and get fancy
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-02-12 01:19:36 UTC
I think it's a good idea to roll out a balance pass along with the update, put a bunch of things together at once. There's not much point in only putting them on-grid when we already have the tools and experience to make a better composite right off the bat as soon as the on-grid code is complete and functional.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2015-02-12 02:41:44 UTC
except we don't really know how drastically forcing them on grid will change things

since we have the 6 week cycle time now we don't need to lump a bunch of stuff together we can take it slow and make sure things are done right
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#5 - 2015-02-12 10:54:12 UTC
So I need to get three linkalts to boost my *solo* ship?

If anything, make links weaker when used in context of a wing or even fleet, since right there one dood flies a doubleplated damnation with a painter, but leave small gang intact.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-02-12 20:31:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Isn't that what I proposed?

You could get a higher total link strength in one category by stacking three of the same type, but alternatively you could spread them out across multiple types. In the first case, links are a bit stronger in my proposal than before but at the cost of a greater amount of ships devoted to ganglinks, while in the second case links actually just end up weaker.

Think of it as weaker links with the possibility of making them strong with on-grid boosts once per every ten pilots.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#7 - 2015-02-13 01:09:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
except we don't really know how drastically forcing them on grid will change things

At the moment, forcing links on-grid will change the servers into molten slag.

So ... pretty drastically.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2015-02-13 01:13:57 UTC
Lol how do you figure


(I only ever use them in small gangs)
GavinGoodrich
Perkone
Caldari State
#9 - 2015-02-13 04:16:00 UTC
Would be a nice way to shake it up.

I like the idea of FC being able to do a weak link but across multiple systems. This would allow more fluid engagements instead of "ok well they moved system, lemme get our links in there first before we engage" then wait for 'em to get safed up, etc etc. Meanwhile multiple fleets sit there giving each other dirty looks while waiting on 1-3 pilots (usually just alts anyway) to move around into position.

Not so sure about wing command boosts though. As a dude who spent the better part of a year on maxing out leadership skills, I'd be pretty dissapointed if it got nerfed into the ground. Or a "remap" of leader skills in each tier, but allowing people to re-use invested SP elsewhere if they changed their mind.

Haaaaaalp my head's on fire

Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2015-02-13 06:01:49 UTC
the cross system link would be cool in WHs if you managed to find another system in range and do it(put some utility to the fact that WH systems do have proximity to each other and bring a reason to use the constellation map.



but this would just be "cool" and not something i expect to happen

and again i do like this idea i just feel we should wait and see what happens to links on grid first as i feel this method would involve a pretty heavy rebalance to CS and links
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#11 - 2015-02-13 06:12:58 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Lol how do you figure


(I only ever use them in small gangs)


I figure forcing links to move on-grid will change the servers into slag because CCP Fozzie said so himself. They can flip the switch at any time and force links on-grid but doing so will currently melt the servers and set the hamsters ablaze in their glowing-hot hamster wheels.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2015-02-13 10:11:48 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Lol how do you figure


(I only ever use them in small gangs)


I figure forcing links to move on-grid will change the servers into slag because CCP Fozzie said so himself. They can flip the switch at any time and force links on-grid but doing so will currently melt the servers and set the hamsters ablaze in their glowing-hot hamster wheels.



oh i knew that i had thought that was what they were working on fixing as well as why i am in no hurry to over comlicate things

(had thought there was something we would do as player to cause this problem)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#13 - 2015-02-13 15:12:49 UTC
OP, nothing says your squad leader can't fly a CBC with a single link in its utility high slot. Go check out the SkyCap Drake thread in the military section of your alliance forums. I distinctly remember posting a viable 1-link Drake there when I was in TEST. The same principal can be applied to pretty much any CBC with sufficient fitting available.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-02-13 23:29:48 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
OP, nothing says your squad leader can't fly a CBC with a single link in its utility high slot. Go check out the SkyCap Drake thread in the military section of your alliance forums. I distinctly remember posting a viable 1-link Drake there when I was in TEST. The same principal can be applied to pretty much any CBC with sufficient fitting available.

I could fly a viable 1-link battlecruiser before the rebalance, it's only easier now. The problem is letting them put me in the squad booster position. They seem deaf to the idea that a link has any purpose (probably because wing and fleet boosters have it covered and it really won't do anything), and also they just like the squad booster to be more mobile.

I'm more likely to get squad booster if I'm flying a cruiser or destroyer.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#15 - 2015-02-14 00:56:36 UTC
GavinGoodrich wrote:
Would be a nice way to shake it up.

I like the idea of FC being able to do a weak link but across multiple systems. This would allow more fluid engagements instead of "ok well they moved system, lemme get our links in there first before we engage" then wait for 'em to get safed up, etc etc. Meanwhile multiple fleets sit there giving each other dirty looks while waiting on 1-3 pilots (usually just alts anyway) to move around into position.




Um that wouldnt happen. People would still wait for all the link alts to get into position.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-02-14 01:40:38 UTC
Yeah the waits would probably be longer cause every wing would have to wait--although wings working alone wouldn't have to wait for the whole fleet so that could advance things a bit faster. Also,, with squad boosts being the most important, and they have to be on-grid anyway, you won't have to wait around for them to get in position cause they'll be sticking with the fleet.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."