These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[proposal] limit gang links to a single grid

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#141 - 2011-12-02 00:30:17 UTC
Derth Ramir wrote:
You people do realize that majority of people that do use t3 gang links operate in small gangs. All your proposal does is promotes blobs and makes solo/small gang pvp even less viable.



They are not used solo.

There is no reason to think they are used by small groups more than large groups.

The proposal just makes it so you do not need to multibox an alt t3 with gang links to be competitive.

But like I said before if there were a way to give the bonuses and allow others who do not want to multibox alts a way to be competitive I wouldn't mind so much.


I will admit that I like the extra layer of complexity that booster ships can provide.

What if they said boosters basically provide a mechanical means to what a crew could provide. So you could buy crew members for your ship according to the different bonuses links give. The minmatar crew would give the bonuses of the skirmish warfare links a different crew member would be required for each bonus, and you could only have that type of crew working together. You don't need to have the whole crew though just for the bonuses you want.

Also since the crew members provide the bonus that you otherwise get from the boosters you can't add them together.

This way people like me and others who hate the idea of dragging an alt around everywhere could simply by crew members which provide the same bonuses.

The crew members would of course cost isk. I suppose you could set up academies or something on planets through pi in order to train them to different levels.

You could keep your t3 alts as long as others who don't want alts can still compete.

Crew members would be destroyed or drop just like other modules in your ship

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#142 - 2011-12-12 17:35:22 UTC
Supported, and look at all these shitposting alts.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2011-12-12 18:42:44 UTC
Derth Ramir wrote:
You people do realize that majority of people that do use t3 gang links operate in small gangs. All your proposal does is promotes blobs and makes solo/small gang pvp even less viable.


What? lol...stupid statement is stupid.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#144 - 2011-12-12 19:39:15 UTC
Willl Adama wrote:
How about this.

Nerf T3 links slightly (mby just remove the command bonus so they are the same as Battlecruiser links) but leave them alone otherwise (still able to be offgrid).

Then buff commandship links to current T3 stats but limit them to ongrid.

This will allow small roaming gangs, who doesn't have manpower to bring people in command ships, to still bring their alts in cloaky t3s like they do now - slightly less effectively. And it will ensure that an ongrid dedicated command ship will do the job better, rewarding the people who actually bring their links to the fight.

tbh I would rather not see it changed at all, but this is a compromise I can live with

Problem is that all that accomplishes is roll back Eve to pre-T3 times and probably make CS even more of an unused class .. it will in fact probably be worse than pre-T3 as the multi-link CS are a lot easier to probe out than the T3 ditto .. the concept of being able to directly influence the performance of <250 people at once has always been broken, T3's abuse just pushed it into the open, the only "feature" that historically even comes close to that kind of power was deliberately crashing a node.

In short: If anything, an off-grid booster should be operating at a significantly reduced capacity as opposed to when being on-grid - as in half strength .. makes it a conscious choice to opt for the slight but 'hidden' edge rather than the full monty.

They don't necessarily have to become insta-gibbed when moved on-grid, that only applies if it is done with nothing further changed:
- When the CS are revised (which they have to, way outdated) the Field commands should be given 2 free links slots (up from 1), the Fleet commands unlimited (up from 3, no command procs needed) and they should both get tank boost as well as a signature reduction.
- T3 command subsystems should have their link allowance doubled (2 'native' rather than 1) and the tanking bonuses increased, could be a sig decrease or maybe even an +% incoming RR.

Once people learn that the 6-link hull is kind of useless, links will be spread out onto multiple hulls to minimize the risk of being completely stripped .. Goddess knows there are enough BC's floating around these days to pick up any slack that might appear.
Add a revision to fleet window where the commander (or assigned role) can list all available links in fleet and change boosters on the fly .. will have to sort out the shield crap first if rapid switches is to be viable for all though.
Kn1v3s 999
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2011-12-14 11:23:21 UTC
+1 supported.

I agree with the idea that CS should be on grid
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2011-12-14 12:41:39 UTC
I have to say that I find off grid boosting lame (even though I enjoy Will Adama's PvP videos and the fact that he doesn't hide that he uses off grid T3 gang links). The boosts that these ships give are clearly profound and to be able to use them in relative safety is baad mmkay.

@people who say you can't fit these ships for on grid boosting without utterly gimping them; get a life and adapt your fitting. It's very easy. Remember only FLEET COMMAND SHIPS are supposed to be able to use three gang links simultaneously EFFICIENTLY. Not T3's.

To that end:
I support the idea of "On grid fleet boosting". +1

However I believe that off grid boosting should also be possible but at a heavily reduced effectiveness. 50% or even 75% less effective as on grid boosting.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#147 - 2011-12-14 13:40:58 UTC
In a fleet fight, you can destroy your enemies damage dealers, logistics, ewarfare, dictors/hictors, tacklers, etc.

You should be able to destroy your enemies fleet boosters as well. Destroying a fleet booster means removing enhanced abilities that may be affecting the entire enemy fleet, thus possibly improving your odds in a fight.

The concept of safespotted T3 with ganglinks running during a fight with cov ops/interdiction nullifier to move around unchecked is beyond terrible.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2011-12-16 14:12:13 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
In a fleet fight, you can destroy your enemies damage dealers, logistics, ewarfare, dictors/hictors, tacklers, etc.

You should be able to destroy your enemies fleet boosters as well. Destroying a fleet booster means removing enhanced abilities that may be affecting the entire enemy fleet, thus possibly improving your odds in a fight.

The concept of safespotted T3 with ganglinks running during a fight with cov ops/interdiction nullifier to move around unchecked is beyond terrible.


Quoting for truth.

And bump!

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#149 - 2011-12-19 17:01:03 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I have to say that I find off grid boosting lame (even though I enjoy Will Adama's PvP videos and the fact that he doesn't hide that he uses off grid T3 gang links). The boosts that these ships give are clearly profound and to be able to use them in relative safety is baad mmkay. ...



Yeah it's bad.

The question ccp needs to address is whether this blatant attempt to go after alt accounts is going to outweigh their desire to make the eve a long term good quality game.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#150 - 2011-12-21 01:34:25 UTC
Supported, if something has a huge outcome on the fight like a T3 fleet booster, it should be also on grid and a viable target for the other side.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Roonia
Vassagon
#151 - 2011-12-21 04:46:25 UTC
+ 1 supported.

The ship which DECISIVELY affects the outcome of a battle is currently untouchable. This in itself is ridiculous. Its a balance issue dealing with you being able to drastically affect the battle without anyone being able to do a damn thing about it.

Bonuses should apply to and come from ONLY FIELDED SHIPS. A command ship should not be hiding at a POS or sitting at a safe somewhere. It should be in fleet and on the field, if you want to put it that way. I think the best way to do this is to give fleet command ships, battle-cruisers, or whatever warship a maximum of 500km (or whatever the grid is) range on the effects of its links. This should only apply to combat ships.

Think if the roles of the command ships were reversed and instead of boosting fleet members bonuses, they take away attributes from the enemy. Would you like to have a ship reduce your armor resists, shield resists, or whatever the second you enter the system and there is NOTHING you can do about it? On a balance scale, its about the bonuses of one fleet vs another, so if you decrease the attributes of one its the same as if you were boosting the other. Ying Yang.

I do not think this should apply to miners because miners do not affect the outcomes of battles, that wouldb . It would be a impractical and extraordinarily risky to park a Rorqual or Orca in a belt in 0.0 or on grid there. I suppose being 400km away from the hulks would give you plenty of time to warp back to POS.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#152 - 2011-12-21 14:10:02 UTC
Roonia wrote:

I do not think this should apply to miners because miners do not affect the outcomes of battles, that wouldb . It would be a impractical and extraordinarily risky to park a Rorqual or Orca in a belt in 0.0 or on grid there. I suppose being 400km away from the hulks would give you plenty of time to warp back to POS.


It should apply to them as well. It may not be a combat advantage but it is still an advantage. Risk should be required for advantages of this scale. With good intel/scouts/security there should be no issue.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#153 - 2011-12-21 16:19:54 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
It should apply to them as well. It may not be a combat advantage but it is still an advantage. Risk should be required for advantages of this scale. With good intel/scouts/security there should be no issue.

Concur. Once you start making exceptions then any change, even if good, can be questioned thus eroding it to oblivion.

Hopefully such a change as this will be implemented alongside changes to the principal link carriers, namely Command Ships, so that a mining operation can choose whether they want to risk the big boat for the extra bonus or are content with non-bonus links on a sturdier hull.

PS: Really wish CC's are updated Soon™ regardless ..
Vitoc Slave
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2011-12-22 06:07:04 UTC
Agreed that if a ship is getting bonuses I should be able to shut those down by having a chance to kill the booster.

This was a flawed mechanic!

+1
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#155 - 2011-12-22 07:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Cearain wrote:
They are not used solo.

Actually, yes, they are.

Cearain wrote:
There is no reason to think they are used by small groups more than large groups.

Large groups rarely use T3s for boosting, as the fleet is rarely stationary. A three-link Loki, Legion or Tengu would have a hard time surviving even with logistics (you have ****-all resists), and considering that such groups routinely use fleet warps (i.e. to land the fleet on a POS at optimal) it would be impractical to boost from off grid.

Cearain wrote:
The proposal just makes it so you do not need to multibox an alt t3 with gang links to be competitive.

But like I said before if there were a way to give the bonuses and allow others who do not want to multibox alts a way to be competitive I wouldn't mind so much.

You do not need to run a T3 gang link alt to be competitive, believe it or not.

Cearain wrote:
crew members

This isn't World of Tanks.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#156 - 2011-12-22 08:39:25 UTC
Yeah I'd like to see gang links only work on grid. That way you could shoot them out the same way you shot out logi, rather than just have them safed up at a POS.

granted this is probably an API swapping session changing nightmare, having people's stats going up and down depending on whether their squad, wing, or fleet boosters were warping on and off grid.

Also if you don't like the idea of a grid (being to met gamey or whatever) just say it only works within 300km.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#157 - 2011-12-22 12:52:15 UTC
Andski wrote:
...Large groups rarely use T3s for boosting, as the fleet is rarely stationary. A three-link Loki, Legion or Tengu would have a hard time surviving even with logistics (you have ****-all resists), and considering that such groups routinely use fleet warps (i.e. to land the fleet on a POS at optimal) it would be impractical to boost from off grid....

Assuming you meant on-grid, so what? That would only affect the noobier fleets that where the FC warps everyone around with no warning .. the experienced fleets are already accustomed to bringing logis/ewar in separate from the dps/ehp boats and adding a handful of link hulls to those groups should pose no problems for them.
Besides, who says that there can ever only be one ship with links present and that it has to carry all of them at the expense of tank/dps/tackle/ewar/etc.? With a little Dev time I am certain that multiple ships could be assigned as fleet/wing/squad booster, part of the problem is that the system is designed to have just one booster per fleet level which makes the current 1 super-link boat not only obvious but downright mandatory.
Andski wrote:
You do not need to run a T3 gang link alt to be competitive, believe it or not

Guess that depends on where and how one operates. Try going up against a boosted Hurricane in your unboosted ditto and see how well you fare .. he'll have longer scram, higher speed, lower sig and more EHP than you can ever achieve "alone". But for a gank on a gate/undock or a bait/trap it does indeed make little difference.
Wolodymyr wrote:
...granted this is probably an API swapping session changing nightmare, having people's stats going up and down depending on whether their squad, wing, or fleet boosters were warping on and off grid...

This is the main reason why the change has to be carefully implemented, especially since CCP has so far been unable to solve the shield HP issue that is caused by fleeting .. may have to change the bonus to one of recharge/resists or something to circumvent it.

Ideally the change would be in conjunction with an overhaul of the link ships so that the need to warp in/out constantly is limited, it should still be there but not even close to what we see with ECM birds and logistics.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#158 - 2011-12-23 09:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Guess that depends on where and how one operates. Try going up against a boosted Hurricane in your unboosted ditto and see how well you fare .. he'll have longer scram, higher speed, lower sig and more EHP than you can ever achieve "alone". But for a gank on a gate/undock or a bait/trap it does indeed make little difference.


So you want off-grid fleet boosting to be nerfed, to the detriment of practically everything in the game (incursions, ratting, mining, defense fleets, etc.) for the marginal benefit of ~honour~ matches?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#159 - 2011-12-23 10:44:14 UTC
Andski wrote:
So you want off-grid fleet boosting to be nerfed, to the detriment of practically everything in the game (incursions, ratting, mining, defense fleets, etc.) for the marginal benefit of ~honour~ matches?

Jumping to conclusions big time are we? Big smile You were the one who said they are not needed to be competitive, I merely tried explaining why you were wrong.

Is it a nerf if it brings balance to the game as a whole?

Consider what links are able to do .. infinitely (up max. fleet size) scalable bonuses that enhance very important characteristics. Why on Earth are logistics and eWar required to not only be on-grid but in range of almost everything when their individual "contribution" is infinitesimal by comparison?

How is Incursions, defence fleets et al. unduly "nerfed" by a change such as this? The only thing that changes as far as they are concerned is that the link ships (note: plural) will need actual pilots available as multi-boxing can be kind of iffy in combat situations.
Mining would be only be affected to the extent of losing the extra 15% bonus granted by the Orca whereas the Rorqual provides nothing additional .. where does it say that mining should be barges only with all auxiliary craft stuck in POS until needed? Throw a tanked command platform into the belt, it can even help with rat clearing!!!
Note: Personally abhor the current mining system and would prefer it be changed entirely thus making the above completely obsolete, so 'meh'.

PS: Keep in mind that only a few (Nutters!) have asked for an on-grid change with nothing else done, best solution would be to go over the CC's, T3 subsystem and whatever else might need tweaking to facilitate the change.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2011-12-23 13:52:46 UTC
After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821