Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If OGB users really liked this as an alternative, they would quit their ******* crying and just do it instead of making lame pseudo-threats about how sorry everyone is going to be when they do that instead.

I'm sure some will do it. Most would quite obviously prefer to keep their OGB, as it's safer, easier, requires less attention to manage, and lets them maintain the self-illusion that they are "solo" PvPing.

Uh...they do. It sucks when you warp into a medium Fw plex to engage the T1 frigate sitting in there; only to encounter his Recon pilot also.

I already acknowledged that. Pretending that this rare event is comparable in scale or frequency to bog-standard OGB is an idiotic non-argument of last resort, however.

Furthermore, the people who already do that won't also have an OGB sitting somewhere off grid, anymore, so it's still a significant win.

Honestly, what ******* point do people imagine they are making when they make this suggestion? That it's impossible to fix every form of alt-play, therefore the most clearly broken and easily fixed forms should be tolerated in perpetuity?

Why? There's no valid gameplay reason to do that. It's not consistent with any other aspect of the game. I can't shoot you from off grid, rep you from off grid, scram you from off gird, etc. Why would there be any compromise here?

**** gets nerfed all the time. You don't generally get compensated for it.

What does that have to do with the fact that OGB is inconsistent with every other aspect of Eve combat?

Most people who complain about links are the ones who have lost to them, think solo pvp is legitimately viable in EVE, or can't be bothered to bring their own.

OGBs are not invincible. They can be probed down if in a deep safe. If you catch them, easy kill. If you don't and he cloaks or warps away, then the links are not on. If the links are sitting on station, pull them off using a command destroyer or alpha them with a few Tornados. If you can't be bothered to do any of the above and know the guy has an OGB; then don't engage.

To the self-entitled players who think solo play in an MMO is a thing, harden up and pick better targets.

Why should links not be brought on grid? Because doing so doesn't make it balanced for all areas of play. Specifically, HISEC. All the opposing person/fleet has to do is use a neutral alt. In which case you would have to gank the links to get rid of them. Thus sacrificing some ships.

OGBs can be balanced by giving a weapons timer on activation and cause sig strength to bloom, thus making it easier to scan down. Also put the OGB on the kill mail. The last, because it gives an accurate account of the fight and will tell people which individuals use links; so they can be avoided if so desired. I would say give it a suspect timer, but it kind of unbalances them for hisec use. Especially for people using mining links.

Next thing you know people will be complaining about combat booster drugs being OP.

Oh, to all you who think they will be coming on grid soon; don't count your chickens before they hatch. No dev blog about it yet, nullsec structures are primary on the list, and were only vaguely mentioned about in a twitch stream. You do the CCP math on that one.

This is my links account.



As opposed to self entitled players who think their multiple accounts should mean they win all the time?



Hahahaha, what? You can already do that with an off grid booster! There's no reason at all you can't use an OGB in high sec, only now you can't gank it because you had no idea it was even there because it's *gasp* off grid. Or if you did know it was there, you had to scan it down first, then gank it. Oh yes, that's a vast improvement. Your argument is just another reason to remove off grid links. They are even more cancerous in high sec.

Oh Boy here we go again.

1. Off grid links are not hard to kill

2. As mentioned Solo*/small gang pvp VS much bigger fleet will be basicly no more.

when you don't fly with logi, and have like 4 people on grid fighting 15-20, they can deploy on grid easy; While you can't

Also Comand ships have problems with fitting more than 3 links while command destoyers can fit only one!

at same time you can run 5 links tengu or any other t3.



I DON'T get the problem the people have with Off grid Linkz. Just probe and kill them it's not that hard ....


It kills small scale forcing people into much bigger fleets and i think this is very unhealthy mechanic.

The links are very helthy in current state, they were nerfed but still give decent advantage TO SKILL FOR A YEAR TO HAVE THEM!


Now it will be take blob with 3 command ships or go home. GG THX FOZZIE

just wow ...... WTF RIP 16 mil SP on every offgid booster!

Not sure when was the last time you haters flew solo vs a gang. It all seems to me you all OFFGRID booting Haters are just buch of Blobing newbies that don't know how to Probe or how to deal with Kiters so you cry to remove the links ......
GO BACK TO WOW


Links Give Advantage to do awesome stuff and removing it would kill the game for many TryHards.

REMOVING THE OFFGRID MEAN NO MORE OF THOSE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYfBHr-z7D0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn1DbCaBsBE

And many many others.

Holy **** you are dense. Here, let me help you out.

https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie/status/679385773511061508

Defined-range AOE links. That's what you're getting, okay? You can be shocked and amazed and wring your whiny little concern-troll hands about the server load all day long, but that's the plan.

We can reasonably assume that they've already investigated the feasibility of this, performance-wise, so guess who actually has the burden of proof problem here, friend?

And I was, since you apparently need it spelled out in remarkably small words, being sarcastic with the falloff suggestion, as an inverse square function would drop the effect to 0 at a phenomenal rate. It was a sarcastic counter-proposal to your idiotic notion that there should be a "compromise": an inverse square falloff so they still technically "work" but don't actually do anything.



It surely is your responsibility to provide numbers to back up YOUR claim that the load would be unreasonable.




And, as an aside? Your understanding of burden of proof is utterly ******* backwards. By this idiot-**** logic, any pea-brained objection some moron could think of would suddenly become someone else's problem to investigate.

YOU made the positive affirmation - it would cause too much server load - YOU support that positive affirmation (******* off is a suitable alternative and probably your best bet in this case, though). If you suggest that some gameplay change might suddenly cause a rift in the spacetime continuum and then prattle off some irrelevant horse **** about mass and e=mc^2 and something you once saw in an episode of Dr. Who, I don't have to run off and prove that a tweak to Eve Online isn't going to cause a black hole to form in the middle of Reykjavik. YOU have to prove that it WILL.

You haven't actually supported your claim, and I'm assuming your desperate attempt to shift the burden onto me means you can't, in fact, quantify the load, so you can be ignored like any other quack making spurious claims.

They're paying for those extra accounts. Managing all of those accounts. If it was a OGB + T2 Frigate or Recon + T2 Frigate, versus 1 person; the result would be the same.

Again, another person who can't read. For OGBs in hisec nothing changes, but lowsec and nullsec have to risk their boosts. Balance for boosters should be even across the board.