These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Problem With Entirely Removing Off-Grid Links

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#141 - 2015-12-25 09:30:20 UTC
Seriously, with 7,800 km of grid space there is absolutely no reason to keep/allow off grid boosting.

The booster could still be on grid and.....
1.) still require probes
2.) a cloaky to get close for warp in
3.) a really fast interceptor to provide a warp in.

With the larger grids now....
1.) a fleet could keep an eye on their booster and warp help to it at a moments notice.
2.) the booster...even as an alt would see most trouble coming its way and start burning for safety or warp to it his damn self to protect the booster.

So what is the issue again? Why do we need OGB?
Hell at this point i would not mind all boosting to be on grid....that includes orcas and rorqs.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2015-12-25 10:03:54 UTC
A probing alt requires far more input whilst providing far less advantage than OGB. In choosing which role to fill with an alt, boosting is always the superior choice. In a game nominally about choices and risk/reward, this should not be so.

The "BUT SCANNING ALT" argument is bad every time it gets trotted out and you should feel bad. If scanning was a semi-afk acrivity that provided a tangible benefit to every ship in your fleet just by being in system, you'd have a point. You are not entitled to a nearly risk free and massive stats buff to your ship just because you pay a second sub. If your play style revolves around having a 2k m/s speed advantage over your opponent simply by virtue of giving CCP more money than the other guy, guess what?

It's HTFU time. Learn to fly your ship and choose your targets or unsub.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2015-12-25 11:15:30 UTC
The main reason why OGB are bad is, that no single player would ever play that role, it's an alt only game play. Every role in fleets should be fun and worth playing by an actual person, preferable with better performance than multiboxing an alt. This is for the health of the game.

I'm my own NPC alt.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#144 - 2015-12-25 18:57:11 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Seriously, with 7,800 km of grid space there is absolutely no reason to keep/allow off grid boosting.

The booster could still be on grid and.....
1.) still require probes
2.) a cloaky to get close for warp in
3.) a really fast interceptor to provide a warp in.

With the larger grids now....
1.) a fleet could keep an eye on their booster and warp help to it at a moments notice.
2.) the booster...even as an alt would see most trouble coming its way and start burning for safety or warp to it his damn self to protect the booster.

So what is the issue again? Why do we need OGB?
Hell at this point i would not mind all boosting to be on grid....that includes orcas and rorqs.


Why do people keep saying this? For what feels like the twentieth ******* time now:

They are not taking the existing links and merely bringing them "on grid".

The current plan is for range limited AOE effects. You will not be boosting from 7800km away. Boosters will be in the action.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#145 - 2015-12-25 18:59:21 UTC
Bobman Smith wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
[

He just forgot to mention the part where the booster is 1 click away from safety (docking or cloaking) and he forgot to disclose the odds of being able to land on grid and burn to the moving booster before it cloaks or warps to the object it's aligned to.

I think what he meant to say is
1. scanning is easy
2. blowing up an off grid booster is very easy
3. landing on grid, burning to a moving booster and tackling it before it cloaks or warps to a pre-aligned object (station to dock for example) relies soley on the booster pilot being very very bad at eve.

He clearly didn't omit some of the factual details on purpos. It was just an oversight on his part.


He also forgot to mention that you need a ship bonused for scanning and high grade virtue implants in order to actually scan them, since they can get to the 'unprobable' level where only a perfect scan at min res with a perfect scanning pilot can get them,



That I will agree is a problem. And a simple counter would be that each link adds to sig radius. They should get rid of the almost impossible means to scan down some of these OGB builds.


Thank you for not understanding Eve at all. Let's make it even easier to kill on-grid links... Seriously, stop clinging to your terrible, alt-driven, off-grid advantage.

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

Bobman Smith
Solitary Confinement 4 One
#146 - 2015-12-25 19:14:36 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Bobman Smith wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
[

He just forgot to mention the part where the booster is 1 click away from safety (docking or cloaking) and he forgot to disclose the odds of being able to land on grid and burn to the moving booster before it cloaks or warps to the object it's aligned to.

I think what he meant to say is
1. scanning is easy
2. blowing up an off grid booster is very easy
3. landing on grid, burning to a moving booster and tackling it before it cloaks or warps to a pre-aligned object (station to dock for example) relies soley on the booster pilot being very very bad at eve.

He clearly didn't omit some of the factual details on purpos. It was just an oversight on his part.


He also forgot to mention that you need a ship bonused for scanning and high grade virtue implants in order to actually scan them, since they can get to the 'unprobable' level where only a perfect scan at min res with a perfect scanning pilot can get them,



That I will agree is a problem. And a simple counter would be that each link adds to sig radius. They should get rid of the almost impossible means to scan down some of these OGB builds.


Thank you for not understanding Eve at all. Let's make it even easier to kill on-grid links... Seriously, stop clinging to your terrible, alt-driven, off-grid advantage.


What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more.

At the end of the day, I see this as an argument between those that have paid for a OGS and those that wont pay for OGS. If you don't want to pay for a feature in game, your more then likely to opt out of it. But to convince CPP to nurf PAID accounts is kind of an uphill battle. Whether you like it or not, in a way OGS are paying for the game as there are lots of such accounts solely for OGS and more or less nothing else. Whatever that portion of CCPs revenue is, I doubt they want to risk losing it entirely. So rather then wining about OGS should be 100% nurfed, why not come up with or support the many other balances that can be done so OGS keep their account active and those that hate them get a little more of a means to counter them?

T3 immune to remote reps. They should be the most powerful solo/small gang ships but not useful for large fleets as T2 ships should be used. Remove Insurance from game. Ban Frigate Pirate Ships from Novice FW Plexs. Buy me Ice cream please!
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#147 - 2015-12-25 19:35:45 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
A probing alt requires far more input whilst providing far less advantage than OGB. In choosing which role to fill with an alt, boosting is always the superior choice. In a game nominally about choices and risk/reward, this should not be so.

The "BUT SCANNING ALT" argument is bad every time it gets trotted out and you should feel bad. If scanning was a semi-afk acrivity that provided a tangible benefit to every ship in your fleet just by being in system, you'd have a point. You are not entitled to a nearly risk free and massive stats buff to your ship just because you pay a second sub. If your play style revolves around having a 2k m/s speed advantage over your opponent simply by virtue of giving CCP more money than the other guy, guess what?

It's HTFU time. Learn to fly your ship and choose your targets or unsub.


No, a probing alt is extremely useful even if you are not hunting an OGB; and provides you with alternative ways to make isk via exploration. Secondly, as I have said in another thread, a T3C OGB setup for max boosts will not be able to fit ECCM to make it hard to probe down. So they will be easy to probe and have no tank.

The hardest part about using combat probes is performing a good flash-scan.
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#148 - 2015-12-25 19:59:26 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
The main reason why OGB are bad is, that no single player would ever play that role, it's an alt only game play. Every role in fleets should be fun and worth playing by an actual person, preferable with better performance than multiboxing an alt. This is for the health of the game.


How is that?

You can use ongrid command ships right now.

Removing OGB is killing small kiting meta and thats all. I don't see a reason to get rid of that.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#149 - 2015-12-25 20:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Bobman Smith wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Bobman Smith wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
[

He just forgot to mention the part where the booster is 1 click away from safety (docking or cloaking) and he forgot to disclose the odds of being able to land on grid and burn to the moving booster before it cloaks or warps to the object it's aligned to.

I think what he meant to say is
1. scanning is easy
2. blowing up an off grid booster is very easy
3. landing on grid, burning to a moving booster and tackling it before it cloaks or warps to a pre-aligned object (station to dock for example) relies soley on the booster pilot being very very bad at eve.

He clearly didn't omit some of the factual details on purpos. It was just an oversight on his part.


He also forgot to mention that you need a ship bonused for scanning and high grade virtue implants in order to actually scan them, since they can get to the 'unprobable' level where only a perfect scan at min res with a perfect scanning pilot can get them,



That I will agree is a problem. And a simple counter would be that each link adds to sig radius. They should get rid of the almost impossible means to scan down some of these OGB builds.


Thank you for not understanding Eve at all. Let's make it even easier to kill on-grid links... Seriously, stop clinging to your terrible, alt-driven, off-grid advantage.


What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more.

At the end of the day, I see this as an argument between those that have paid for a OGS and those that wont pay for OGS. If you don't want to pay for a feature in game, your more then likely to opt out of it. But to convince CPP to nurf PAID accounts is kind of an uphill battle. Whether you like it or not, in a way OGS are paying for the game as there are lots of such accounts solely for OGS and more or less nothing else. Whatever that portion of CCPs revenue is, I doubt they want to risk losing it entirely. So rather then wining about OGS should be 100% nurfed, why not come up with or support the many other balances that can be done so OGS keep their account active and those that hate them get a little more of a means to counter them?


CCP has shown perfect willingness in the past to nerf game play, if they deem it bad for the rest of the experience. Now you are making the same losing argument that people made when they announced the change to input broadcasting last year. "Wah, I will quit and CCP will go broke if you nerf my links!"

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

SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#150 - 2015-12-25 20:52:54 UTC
Bobman Smith wrote:

What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more.



You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links.

That will change when off-grid links are removed.

So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Shova'k
The Bank Of Jita
#151 - 2015-12-25 21:37:41 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Bobman Smith wrote:

What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more.



You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links.

That will change when off-grid links are removed.

So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links.



i only ever used links on grid in pvp only time i ever employed them off grid is for high sec incursions since in that case on grid would be wasting a slot needed for proper DPS dealer. only advantage i ever saw to the t3 off grids was before they nerfed em and u had 5% bonus on them since they now boost less then commands and have for some time now commands on grid boost more and have ridiculous tanks. i may be a some what rare case but ever fleet we went up against had boosting commands on grid as well at least in my experience of thats a small fraction of null and low activity but the pattern to me was rarely seeing off grids.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#152 - 2015-12-25 22:07:42 UTC
Shova'k wrote:

i only ever used links on grid in pvp only time i ever employed them off grid is for high sec incursions since in that case on grid would be wasting a slot needed for proper DPS dealer. only advantage i ever saw to the t3 off grids was before they nerfed em and u had 5% bonus on them since they now boost less then commands and have for some time now commands on grid boost more and have ridiculous tanks. i may be a some what rare case but ever fleet we went up against had boosting commands on grid as well at least in my experience of thats a small fraction of null and low activity but the pattern to me was rarely seeing off grids.

Incursion communities discussed this right back when CCP first started talking about removing OGB several years ago. Answer was to put the booster on grid. This was before they got decent DPS on them even. It's not a wasted slot in the slightest, incursion fleets were fine to adjust, so they are no an excuse to not remove OGB.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#153 - 2015-12-25 23:03:13 UTC
Rosal Milag wrote:

To demand that all PvP pilots need to either have a scanning alt in fleet or that someone needs to sacrifice fitting or ship to fly a dedicated scanner just to deal with OGB is not a good argument. Putting the fleet further behind any opposition with links running.


Then I guess I shouldn't also demand that PVP pilots fit tackle to keep their prey locked down? Because why sacrifice tank or damage application to keep a target locked down. Roll

Rosal Milag wrote:

I'd like your answer to how easy it is to catch a nullified, t3, cloaking booster with combat probes. Seriously, the rest of us would love to know how you can easily deal with it. And no, dropping probes isn't going to 'scare' OGB away. If they are properly fit, you have to get within at least 1 AU with all 8 probes to have a pray at a warpable return. Set d-scan to 1.5 au range, spam refresh. Do I have 8 probes visible? If nope, keep spamming. If yes, cloak and warp to next safe.


And forcing the OGB to warp or cloak causes the links to shut down. If a person is clicking Dscan on their OGB every 6 seconds, I doubt that it's just an alt they keep tabbed out. From there you can use dscan to ninjadrop the probes on the OGB, so if they do indeed miss a dscan, you can get a ping on them, and get rid of the probes. If you know the guy has a prop mod fit, you can always just fleet warp an insta locking ceptor on him.

FT Diomedes wrote:
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:



You can probe and kill Links t3 with any thing that does dmg and it's really not that hard.




Clearly this is not something you have ever done against a competent opponent.


Agreed, but not everyone is competent Big smile

SurrenderMonkey wrote:

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.


I guess I’ll bite for this part. So if it was my problem to investigate the server load adding falloff (which this is funny because this is such a stupid little detail), don’t you think that would mean that every person that plays this game could just make a new thread on any idea, and then simply tell everyone that picks apart their proposal “Come back to me with hard numbers after you have investigated it, and until you do, my idea is a good idea”. So here’s something quick I will throw together.

Without Falloff
If actualrange < boostingrange
Then currentshieldresist*shieldresistbooststrength
End

With Falloff
If Actualrange > boostingrange
Then
Else If Actualrange < boostingrange
Then currentshieldresist*shieldresistbooststrength
Else shieldresistbooststrength*distanceinfalloff*currentshieldresist
End
End

So that’s just throwing some if together quickly, but I’m sure this is where you will come pick that apart. So to save you the trouble, please optimize it otherwise CCP is 100% for sure going to use what I just wrote down. Now if you want actual server performance numbers, we would have to know how much falloff we would be giving these links, and then from there we would have to bring this onto Singularity and do some mass tests to see how much time the links spend in falloff with how the players utilize them. So since you want all this hard data, I will let you write the petition to CCP because you want the hard numbers.

With this said, can we please move off the falloff topic that you even mentioned was a sarcastic response…

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#154 - 2015-12-25 23:43:55 UTC
Quote:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


I have removed a post and those quoting it for the above reason.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#155 - 2015-12-26 02:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
*snip* Quoted deleted post. *snip* ISD Max Trix


the part I said about increasing the server load had nothing to do with removing the OGB. It had everything to do with you suggesting to add falloff to the links.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#156 - 2015-12-26 02:20:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
*snip* Quoted deleted post. *snip* ISD Max Trix


You are actually trying to argue with 2 variables in your argument. range-limited AOE model aside (which would basically be required if you were dealing with falloff anyways because you have to have an optimal range first). Yes an AOE model would increase server load compared to what we have now because the server would need to do range checks with each cycle. However, the process it would have to go through to deal with also having to calculate falloff means an even greater load. I gave you the logic in a previous post on this page, so you work through it yourself to see, yes, it takes even more power. And I don't see any benefit from introducing falloff when they could just increase the optimal range and make it a simple boolean calculation.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Shova'k
The Bank Of Jita
#157 - 2015-12-26 05:33:22 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Hopelesshobo wrote:
*snip* Quoted deleted post. *snip* ISD Max Trix


You are actually trying to argue with 2 variables in your argument. range-limited AOE model aside (which would basically be required if you were dealing with falloff anyways because you have to have an optimal range first). Yes an AOE model would increase server load compared to what we have now because the server would need to do range checks with each cycle. However, the process it would have to go through to deal with also having to calculate falloff means an even greater load. I gave you the logic in a previous post on this page, so you work through it yourself to see, yes, it takes even more power. And I don't see any benefit from introducing falloff when they could just increase the optimal range and make it a simple boolean calculation.



the range checks would have to be way more often then each cycle of the links would need a constant real time range check since some ships will leave/enter even leave and re-enter the ranges during the links cycle times meaning the boosts would either stay on them when they leave range until the next cycle range check or they would get no boost when entering range until next range check. so it would have to be a real time constant check that would be a pretty heavy load on the server.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#158 - 2015-12-26 08:06:15 UTC
Shova'k wrote:

the range checks would have to be way more often then each cycle of the links would need a constant real time range check since some ships will leave/enter even leave and re-enter the ranges during the links cycle times meaning the boosts would either stay on them when they leave range until the next cycle range check or they would get no boost when entering range until next range check. so it would have to be a real time constant check that would be a pretty heavy load on the server.


Technically that would be the most realistic option, however to reduce server load by 10 fold (from current cycle times), it would be easier to run the check at the beginning of each cycle. But if CCP were to run this check with every server tick, then that would be more of an excuse to not give boosts falloff.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2015-12-26 18:13:48 UTC
How about we leave the coding to the coders and focus on l33t PvPer tears about to lose their crutch? Lol

To be honest, I get why boosts come in handy; but having ALL boosts running from near-perfect safety is a bit too much. Extreme longpoints, speed and reduced sig radius are the main culprits in my experience, although I do respect pilots flying that way. There is considerable skill involved on their part; it'd just be nice to see a little less boosting going on to give people without alts (yes, some people attempt genuine small gang without links) at least a fighting chance.

Kiters, you have my respect. I'm sure you'll be able to do that just fine with command destroyer links ON grid. Fly (w)reckless!
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#160 - 2015-12-28 17:43:51 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Bobman Smith wrote:

What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more.



You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links.

That will change when off-grid links are removed.

So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links.


Are you really linking a 2 year old post? Still haven't seen a dev blog article yet, just the twitter feed people keep referring to as gospel.

I'll believe this is coming when I see it for testing on SISI. Till then, I guess it will be another 2 years before they are brought on-grid.