These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

offgrid boosts
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#81 - 2015-12-02 06:28:09 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

I believe CCP is gonna broaden the T2 BC class into multiple variants like T2 Cruisers (HACs,HICs, Recons, etc). With the removal of OGB, I see no reason for Command Ships to be use as combatant ships anymore. I rather for them to become true Command Ships with focus on on grid boosting, High EHP with very strong tanks. Then around that time CCP can release a new line of T2 BCs designed for pure combat.


Wait, what? On grid boosting is precisely why they have the combat abilities that they do.

You do realize that loading up on nothing but command links in the highslots was the unintended behavior, right? You're supposed to stick a couple in the spares and spread the load out among numerous ships. That's their original design intent.

I mean, let's be real here, flying an otherwise useless buff stick is not much fun. Whatever else it might have turned into now with Game of Alts, the intent is that these be acceptable options for someone to fly solo with and assist his fleet, while not being relegated to an inactive role.

There really is no reason to split them into two ship classes, when you have one class that can perform both roles, but not both at the same time.


Completely agree. Flying an On-grid Boosting ship in small gang fleets is fun. I normally fly a Claymore in such fleets. I try to keep it on grid and at risk. Obviously in a huge fleet situation, it would get killed off, but I try to avoid those fleets as much as I can. Honestly, I would love it if they gave all Command Ships eight high slots - three for links and five for damage. It would encourage people to bring the ships on grid more in small gang situations.

Then completely remove command processors from the game. Let Command Ships fit three links with 3% / level, T3's fit three links with 2% bonus per level, and Battlecruisers & Command Destroyers fit one link. Yes, they are still hideously powerful, but at least you end up with ships that can do something fun on grid.

I also do not mind the idea that gang links should be an on-grid direct boost to targeted ships (sort of like logistics effects) - or a medium range, very small targeted AOE effect.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#82 - 2015-12-02 08:09:51 UTC
Command processors are needed for boosting carriers, imo.

Not sure about 8 highs, combat fit Slepnirs are already beastly. Another utility high (along with the fitting changes needed to run a link as they are quite heavy resource wise) would probably be pretty broken.


@Reaver: Yes, I will say I'm looking only at resist profile and EHP with a view to not having them blapped off field in large engagements. Certainly in small gang context the extra DPS makes the others worth using - analogies like field vs fleet command from days past springs to mind. Trouble is bringing a command ship on a roam is pretty painful and it also absolutely screams "run away" the minute people see it on scan and even more so in todays small, fast kiting ship meta.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#83 - 2015-12-02 12:46:29 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

Then completely remove co-processors from the game.


I wish I could like this post twice, just for this sentence. This needs to happen.

"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.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#84 - 2015-12-02 14:11:48 UTC
If you think command processors are needed for Capital or Supercapital ship boosters, then just make them a module that can only be used on Capital or Supercapital class ships. Problem solved. No more five-six link ships hiding in safe spots.

I'm not really fond of Capital and Supercapital links, even if it makes some sense from a lore perspective. I don't see roaming gangs bringing them along. I just see them being huge defensive advantages for a structure hugging alt. At least the new Command Destroyers can help provide some risk to structure hugging boosters - not so for Capitals. But, if we must have them for the sake of capital fleets, limit them. Titans get four links at 3%, Supercarriers get three links at 3%, Carriers get three links at 2%.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#85 - 2015-12-02 14:19:53 UTC
It's kinda solved anyway, the fitting cost on those things is pretty monstrous. We got away with it in the past, because of off grid, but that's confirmed as on borrowed time so that problem will go away.

Carriers and up are actually unbonused. I only want them so I can have links on field, in a big fight, that are downright hard to alpha off field. Unbonused are better than bonused which keep being vaporised.

Since capitals don't boost any more effectively than battlecruisers then their advantage is merely that one can brick the crap out of them to protect links and have sufficient fitting resource to use multiple command processors (which rather befits the role).

It does create a nice trade off - brick damnation, risk of easier removeal for the best links, or a real brick archon/aeon for weaker yet much more resilient links. Plus with these occupying high slots, you drop a lot of the capitals utility/intended comabt use anyway.

*Feels* pretty well balanced.


I post this from the viewpoint of OGB are dead and buried. It's not too great today, but the coming meta will b very different.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2015-12-03 05:26:07 UTC
I'd like to eventually see a return to the special command bonuses on capital ships, like the old 50% hit point bonus all fleet members got when a titan was the fleet booster. It's good those were removed with off-grid links, but once we get on-grid links it'll be cool to have unique command bonuses depending on the capital ship, while their ganglinks are unbonused. That gives some reason to put them on the field and in danger so we can keep killing caps and supercaps.


I wouldn't give the hit point bonus to titans, rather I would adjust each bonus to have a critical weakness to stave off its power creep. The titan is the hardest to remove from the field, so its bonus should be damage which will make a clash between two titan-boosted fleets go much faster, and will lead to more supercapital deaths. If the damage affects the superweapons, it'll be easier to alpha supercaps off the field with titans.

Sometimes the weakness in the bonus is that its ship is weak to an enemy fleet with the same bonus. This sort of rock beats rock, paper beats paper layout will prevent any one style from dominating because no matter how strong it is, its critical weakness is equally strong. This leads to pyrrhic victories with both sides taking heavy losses, making the choice to field capitals a dangerous gamble, thus increasing capital volatility.

I have no idea what numbers to use, but 50% hit points is probably too high. I'll just list what ships I think should have which bonuses:
Force Auxiliary: boosts fleet members' hit points
- weakness: force auxiliary is easiest to remove from the field
Carrier: boosts fleet members' weapons tracking and missile explosion velocity
- weakness: carriers are best for sig-tanking capital weapons but squishy if they can't
Dreadnought: boosts fleet members' electronic warfare power
- weakness: dreadnoughts are only good for shooting; a disrupted dreadnought is harmless
Supercarrier: boosts fleet members' electronic warfare resistance
- weakness: supercarriers make use of special capital-sized EWAR, a fleet with resistance negates the effectiveness of the modules
Titan: boosts fleet members' damage
- titans are the hardest ships to kill, made more vulnerable by going up against a fleet with a titan damage boost
Rorqual: I can't think of a good one

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."
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2015-12-03 13:14:07 UTC
Those special bonuses are still there on titans....
erebus 7.5% to armor hp per level
avatar, cap regen
Leviathan, shield hp
Rag, sig reduction
rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2015-12-03 13:29:52 UTC
My beef with offgrid bonus/links removable is that "ongrid bonus/links only" will favor most who ever controls the grid. i.e The blob!
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#89 - 2015-12-03 16:44:19 UTC
rsantos wrote:
My beef with offgrid bonus/links removable is that "ongrid bonus/links only" will favor most who ever controls the grid. i.e The blob!

too true...
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#90 - 2015-12-03 16:46:34 UTC
I've dabbled in pvp over the years. I'm by no means an expert or elite, but I have been somewhat successful. I don't recall ever using / needing boosters of any kind to be successful. Then I read these things that seem to imply you can't pvp w/out a booster and a booster isn't useful unless you have 5 active links running.

Am I actually totally awesome at pvp because I'm successful w/out links or are all the link jockeys just a bunch of tittybabies?

This needs looking into.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2015-12-03 16:49:23 UTC
rsantos wrote:
My beef with offgrid bonus/links removable is that "ongrid bonus/links only" will favor most who ever controls the grid. i.e The blob!

A lot of things favor the blob, especially when the blob has a lot of skill. I think it's all going to work out as long as a single squad can get max command bonuses and have a squad booster fully ready to do battle while boosting. That is the case when you use three command ships and hold two of them above the squad and outside the squad boosts, but I'd like to see some changes made to put different command levels at more of a redundancy role rather than stacking double/triple boosts onto large fleets. Perhaps the boosts you receive would be prioritized: squad booster > wing booster > fleet booster, with a "trickle down" system allowing any booster to provide their own boosts, the boosts of their ship, and the boosts from ships controlled by upper-level boosters with a maximum total boost of 3 ganglinks and 1 ship bonus boost (like the titan boosts).

So, for instance, we have a 500 person fleet with an Erebus fleet booster using one of each armored and information warfare ganglink, for a total of 6 ganglinks. Our wing's booster is in an Avatar fitted with all three skirmish warfare links. Our squad booster is in a Damnation fitted with two armored warfare links: passive defense and rapid repair. While everyone has everything running, our squad will get leadership skill boosts based on the Damnation pilot's skills, passive defense and rapid repair from the Damnation, evasive maneuvers ganglink and the capacitor bonus from the Avatar and based on the Avatar pilot's skills, and nothing from the Erebus. Evasive maneuvers has list priority over the other ganglinks on the Avatar and there is only room for one to be used at the moment. The Avatar pilot could turn off evasive maneuvers and interdiction maneuvers to make rapid deployment affect our squad. Now assuming the Avatar leaves everything running and our squad booster's Damnation gets destroyed, we will be without a squad booster but will get all three skirmish ganglinks from the Avatar, plus leadership skill boosts based on the Avatar pilot's skill, and the Avatar's capacitor bonus. The Erebus still isn't affecting our squad, but with some teamwork we could organize to use the Erebus' boosts by having the Avatar shut its ganglinks off. We'd then get 3 ganglinks from the Erebus.

Now a small enemy fleet has eight members, seven in Hurricanes and one in a Sleipnir. The Sleipnir is their squad commander and has 3 skirmish ganglinks fitted and active. They all receive leadership skill boosts based on the Sleipnir pilot as well as the Sleipnir's three ganglink boosts. Their total boosts per fleet member is one less than ours, as we have the skills, ganglinks, and the titan boost. They also have a smaller amount of redundancy: should the Sleipnir die, they will initially be without any boosts at all until they assign the backup booster into the squad booster slot. This backup booster is in a Hurricane fitted with interdiction maneuvers ganglink--once assigned to squad booster slot, their fleet will have leadership skill boosts and the one ganglink, much less than what our fleet has.


This change would also negate the ability of a single ship to run more than 3 ganglink effects at once. Command processors would primarily be used on ships that can't already fit three ganglinks; fitting more than 3 can be done but its only use would be to switch ganglinks in the middle of a fight.

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."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2015-12-03 17:02:33 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Am I actually totally awesome at pvp because I'm successful w/out links or are all the link jockeys just a bunch of tittybabies?

This needs looking into.

It runs deeper than that. In small battlecruiser roaming fleets I have been the only one in fleet with a fitted ganglink and been denied for squad booster position because...well I don't know why to be honest, and they wouldn't tell me when I asked.

It's like people have a fear of on-grid ganglink boosts and/or feel some need to always set on-grid boosters as some frigate instead of someone with a ganglink. Sure, maybe the Dramiel pilot is less likely to lose his ship, but if my battlecruiser goes down you can just switch him into squad booster position.

But nobody wants to do that.

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."
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#93 - 2015-12-03 17:03:24 UTC
I think the above idea needs more complexity. Possibly an additional fleet window with 5 or six pull downs to organize your boosts with various losses and what not prioritized.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2015-12-03 17:08:11 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think the above idea needs more complexity. Possibly an additional fleet window with 5 or six pull downs to organize your boosts with various losses and what not prioritized.

Yes, I was imagining having a boost organizing window in which you can view your fleet's boosts as a tree, with animated trickle-down lines to show boosts coming down from one booster to another, and you could mouse over then to see what they are, but it would be color-coded to show the difference between different types of ganglinks, or titan boosts. Then the fleet boss could drag and drop pilots anywhere on the tree, including staging several pilots into backup booster positions. That little hurricane fleet might have a lot of 'canes with interdiction maneuvers ganglink, and with them all lined up as backups for the squad booster, it'll be awfully difficult to take out their interdiction maneuvers bonus.

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."
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#95 - 2015-12-03 17:10:50 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Am I actually totally awesome at pvp because I'm successful w/out links or are all the link jockeys just a bunch of tittybabies?

This needs looking into.

It runs deeper than that. In small battlecruiser roaming fleets I have been the only one in fleet with a fitted ganglink and been denied for squad booster position because...well I don't know why to be honest, and they wouldn't tell me when I asked.

It's like people have a fear of on-grid ganglink boosts and/or feel some need to always set on-grid boosters as some frigate instead of someone with a ganglink. Sure, maybe the Dramiel pilot is less likely to lose his ship, but if my battlecruiser goes down you can just switch him into squad booster position.

But nobody wants to do that.



If the guys you fly with make your life too complicated and not fun enough, maybe fly w/ someone else??

You want to fly a single link and boost me - wooooot. (I also don't mind a few cracker crumbs mixed in the bed sheets).
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#96 - 2015-12-03 17:12:18 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think the above idea needs more complexity. Possibly an additional fleet window with 5 or six pull downs to organize your boosts with various losses and what not prioritized.

Yes, I was imagining having a boost organizing window in which you can view your fleet's boosts as a tree, with animated trickle-down lines to show boosts coming down from one booster to another, and you could mouse over then to see what they are, but it would be color-coded to show the difference between different types of ganglinks, or titan boosts. Then the fleet boss could drag and drop pilots anywhere on the tree, including staging several pilots into backup booster positions. That little hurricane fleet might have a lot of 'canes with interdiction maneuvers ganglink, and with them all lined up as backups for the squad booster, it'll be awfully difficult to take out their interdiction maneuvers bonus.



Apparently my sarcasm didn't come through as well as it could have.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2015-12-03 17:16:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Serendipity Lost wrote:
If the guys you fly with make your life too complicated and not fun enough, maybe fly w/ someone else??

You want to fly a single link and boost me - wooooot. (I also don't mind a few cracker crumbs mixed in the bed sheets).

I do fly with others every now and then. My loyalties work like this:
Loyalty 1: TEST
Loyalty A: DROWI
Loyalty I: the fleet

In the event of a conflict, I let my inner lust for chaos decide. It usually sides with NPSI and everybody has been fine with that.

I'm pretty good about cracker crumbs though.

Serendipity Lost wrote:
Apparently my sarcasm didn't come through as well as it could have.

I was serious, and I think that pushing upper fleet boosts into redundancy roles will do a lot to reduce fleet boost bloat. Blobs already get a big bonus for being big. Just because you can find a lot of larger groups way less skilled than you doesn't mean the system is entirely fair. Maybe it's less fair and more filled with complacency. I'd prefer if it was fair.

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."
Cov Ops
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2015-12-04 06:46:32 UTC
I am totally against removing OGB completely. Small gang need them.
Instead just limit OGB to only two active or make them weaker while on grid boosts stronger. That way you'd also have a nice concept for the new command destroyer as it can warp in and out while still maintaining some sort of boosts, stronger the closer it is.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2015-12-04 07:01:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Cov Ops wrote:
I am totally against removing OGB completely. Small gang need them.
Instead just limit OGB to only two active or make them weaker while on grid boosts stronger. That way you'd also have a nice concept for the new command destroyer as it can warp in and out while still maintaining some sort of boosts, stronger the closer it is.

No.

Everyone "needs" off-grid boosts but they help large gangs more than anyone else. Once they are gone, nobody will be able to use them, and the playing field will still be level. Also, the command destroyers will be particularly good at providing on-grid boosts.

P.S.: everyone please stop using the acronym 'OGB' to refer to either off-grid boosts or on-grid boosts because it is ambiguous and nobody can tell which one you are referring to.

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."
rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2015-12-04 14:21:12 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

No.

Everyone "needs" off-grid boosts but they help large gangs more than anyone else. Once they are gone, nobody will be able to use them, and the playing field will still be level. Also, the command destroyers will be particularly good at providing on-grid boosts.

P.S.: everyone please stop using the acronym 'OGB' to refer to either off-grid boosts or on-grid boosts because it is ambiguous and nobody can tell which one you are referring to.


Uh!?

Sure the "large gang" will bring their on-grid booster and the small-gang will stay docked, die, or fck-off!

I can fairly say that without an off-grid fleet booster, during BRAVE stay in YZ-LQL, I wouldn't have undock most of the times.
Try to figth boosted fleets of 20-30, 10 tackle frigates doing 6-7 Km/s, with 2-3 mates. Without leveling the booster "un-fairness" there is no point.

Say what you say! Off-grid boosters are more "fair" than on-grid boosters! Everyone can bring theirs with the same level of risk - the large gang and the small gang.

Command destroyer aren't even out... I would rather wait and see how they are used and if they turn out to be a good alternative to off-grid boosters before making any changes.

People continue to mix the "un-fairness" fleet-boosted vs no-booster with off-grid vs on-grid. They are not the same problem!