These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
VIP Ares
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2012-01-04 06:47:40 UTC
Also a great idea. Want to boost, get in combat man. Not hide in POS or safe spot.

http://www.balex.info/index.php/pilot_detail/47623/
Seventh Seraph
AFK Empire
#182 - 2012-01-13 22:06:27 UTC
+1....confirming that afk / POS / unprobable boosting is just wrong. Give us a chance to fight back or turn the tide of battle by taking out the booster.
Ras Blumin
A Cross The Universe
#183 - 2012-01-14 14:17:04 UTC
ECM. WCS. Superspeeds. Falcon. Dramiel. Will a nerf to offgrid boosters be the next killer of small gang PVP?
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2012-01-16 14:44:44 UTC
Ras Blumin wrote:
ECM. WCS. Superspeeds. Falcon. Dramiel. Will a nerf to offgrid boosters be the next killer of small gang PVP?

Yes...yes it will.

Once offgrid fleet boosters are nerfed all PvP will be completely pointless and EvE will die.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#185 - 2012-01-16 14:55:44 UTC
Don't see the problem. This nerf would hurt our miners too.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2012-01-17 21:15:50 UTC
Naj Panora wrote:
Don't see the problem. This nerf would hurt our miners too.


Oh no! The miners! Think of the miners!

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
MNagy
Yo-Mama
#187 - 2012-01-17 21:40:42 UTC
I agree with this ...

I would however leave 'mining' bonus's off the table.

Orca's and Rorqs cost waaaay too much with minimal defenses to force them to be sitting in an asteroid belt in 0.0 space.

Otherwise +1
Prometheus Bird
Doomheim
#188 - 2012-01-18 15:38:38 UTC
As an aside, how many people have to nay/yay something before someone at CCP considers it?
Zircon Dasher
#189 - 2012-01-19 00:11:32 UTC
Prometheus Bird wrote:
As an aside, how many people have to nay/yay something before someone at CCP considers it?


3,298

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#190 - 2012-01-19 02:36:07 UTC
its quiet simple. CCP either wants players with money $$$, to buy more accounts. done they get a pvp account and a t3 boosting account.

now the ones without the $$$, get screwed cause they cant compete in a 1v1. or have to have 25% more numbers to fight and the booster fleet runs and complains they 'blobed em' mean while the ones without the $$$ thus rage quit.

sooooo the solution is make the boosts, on grid only.

the only people who 'dont support it' are ones with boosters who very style of pvp IS the booster alt. totaly fine they are defending their style of game play. but mine is better, so deal.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Prometheus Bird
Doomheim
#191 - 2012-01-19 13:55:08 UTC
What if ganglink boosts appeared on the killmail?
Ras Blumin
A Cross The Universe
#192 - 2012-01-19 19:44:52 UTC
The way the watchlist works makes me think that there already is some sort of check whether stuff is on grid with you or not. The watchlist is also more data-intensive than simply seeing if something is there or not.

Watchlist only shows HP of stuff that is on-grid with you, right?
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2012-01-19 19:47:44 UTC
Ras Blumin wrote:
The way the watchlist works makes me think that there already is some sort of check whether stuff is on grid with you or not. The watchlist is also more data-intensive than simply seeing if something is there or not.

Watchlist only shows HP of stuff that is on-grid with you, right?


You are correct. I am sure this would be a simple fix...it is a matter of whether or not this is intentional and working correctly or if CCP just doesn't want to make the change.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#194 - 2012-01-20 05:06:34 UTC
About t3 and command ship % bonuses being swapped, I disagree.

A t3 does have a better bonus, but it can only mount and use ONE Link at a time, while a Command Ship can use THREE LINKS at a time.

In order to get a T3 to use more link you have to sacrifice any essence of tank to do so, especially for shield ships as command processors are mid slots.

T3 must use defensive subsystems sacrifices its own tank for better boosts, creating a greater loss of tank.

A command ship are able to mount 3 links without sacrificing anything and they are given tanking bonuses - Damnation with its 5% resist and 10% armor hp bonuses. Vulture with 5% resist and 10% shield hp bonuses. T3's don't have such.

A commandship is able to fit more link than a t3 ever will - therefore T3's and CS are balanced with each other.

T3 can give stronger but less type of bonuses.

A CS give weaker but more types of bonuses. A command ship is able to tank and fight on the field with its fleet as well, therefore it has an advantage over t3's.

CS need to be looked at, see the claymore and eos with their pathetic active lol tank bonuses.
Kade Jeekin
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
#195 - 2012-01-20 22:38:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kade Jeekin
I am ambivalent about the suggestion of limiting gang link effects to on-grid only.

One the one hand I appreciate the "all ships contributing to a battle should be vulnerable" argument but on the other hand I don't necessarily agree that ships need to be ongrid to contribute, eg Carrier's fighters.

Also, Capital Ships with gang link capability also need to be in the discussion. Although rarely used beyond the Rorqual since they have less bonuses than Fleet Command or T3.

Perhaps the whole gang link mechanic could do with an overhaul? eg Retain off-grid, give Capitals bonuses

Finally, a simpler fix would be to just remove the Command Processor module. Hey presto no 6-link ships, no T3 alts. Fleet Command ships get back their eminence in gang bonuses. It wouldn't stop POSsed-up Fleet Command alts, of course, but it's a move towards balance.
Jalmari Huitsikko
Avanto
Hole Control
#196 - 2012-01-21 23:24:22 UTC
there's completely no reason why t3 ship should be able to even activate more than one link. even less than you can do that off-grid. i know i can fly loki with 3 active links on the grid with fleet just fine just for example. and just having 1 link activated is enough for most of time. i call this offgrid boosting bullshit.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#197 - 2012-01-22 11:42:58 UTC
Kade Jeekin wrote:
..Perhaps the whole gang link mechanic could do with an overhaul? eg Retain off-grid, give Capitals bonuses..

That is my reason for pushing this, we have quite a lot of link platforms but none other than T3's are ever used due to the current mechanics .. just try telling an FC that you have a link on your Cane/Archon/et al. .. he'll throw you in the stockade and throw away the key Smile

Quote:
In case gang-link mods are not made on-grid in near future:
- Command and Control Jamming module.
Blocks all (friendly and hostile alike) gang-link communications from off-grid.

Just added this idea to CCPs module brainstorming request in Test forum, might be an outright alternative to changing mechanics in the first place if a decent/competitive hull can be found to carry them.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#198 - 2012-01-22 11:49:06 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Quote:
In case gang-link mods are not made on-grid in near future:
- Command and Control Jamming module.
Blocks all (friendly and hostile alike) gang-link communications from off-grid.

Just added this idea to CCPs module brainstorming request in Test forum, might be an outright alternative to changing mechanics in the first place if a decent/competitive hull can be found to carry them.

Make them fit in gang link slots ;)

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#199 - 2012-01-23 07:12:23 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Quote:
In case gang-link mods are not made on-grid in near future:
- Command and Control Jamming module.
Blocks all (friendly and hostile alike) gang-link communications from off-grid.

Just added this idea to CCPs module brainstorming request in Test forum, might be an outright alternative to changing mechanics in the first place if a decent/competitive hull can be found to carry them.

Make them fit in gang link slots ;)



it should be the new destroyer hull's role.

since theyve expanded all other classes of ships except destroyers.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2012-01-25 20:14:41 UTC
Gang links...single grid...better EvE for everybody!

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