These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

The Real Issue with Links - CCP Please read

Author
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#1 - 2012-03-24 01:28:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
I have been using T3 links ever since Apocryphia

The eve community seems to be under the impression that the main problem with links is that :

  • You can put up links in a safespot, should be ongrid to commit to battle
  • T3's fill too many roles, amazing scout and links, easy to move with your gang
  • Able to put up links in POSes, and generally in safety, links present at all times to those that want aslong as they stay in system


  • This is a tunnel vision that the community and perhaps CCP has had for a while towards link ships, the notion that they are very risk averse ship, which is ofcourse true but

    The main problem with them is the fact that they are by far the biggest force multiplier in the game

    What's wrong with making them only ongrid? It doesn't do enough, they will still be used to the same extent as today - sure it would be more realistic and it would be great to see when links are in action, but the main problem will still persist, the bonuses that links give are way too much

    So lets throw some numbers at you and discuss what implications this has for the game


    A standard CFC Maelstrom fit

    So with 4 Scimitars repping it, with 3 reps each, no overloading -

  • Without links - 135k EHP, 4k reps
  • With links - 162k EHP, 7.6k reps

  • Presence of links pretty much changed 4 scimitars into 8, obviously in these fleets far more than 4 scimitars are used, such a ship could potentially represent 15+ ships in term of effectiveness

    For solo/very small gang, an active tanked Maelstrom with crystals -

  • Without links - 1.6k tank
  • With links - 3.26k tank

  • In terms of active tanking, you could call links super crystals or something, without links/crystals, it's a 1.05k tank, the amount links add in comparison to a 2b investment is so massive. It's also worth noting that linked active tanked ships has definitively made it seem active tanks are stronger than what they are, making fixing them less attractive.

    It's true that links can accommodate for crazy/fun fits, 100mn ab cynabal anyone? but sure this is fun, not fair on rest of players

    What implications does this have for the game? Well for starters, it makes a lot of groups more risk averse and more prone to bring more dudes, or in some cases make some people just not want to pvp, which is completely understandable if their opponents use links as it's such a huge force multiplier, and often, an unseen one

    As mentioned today in CCP Ytterbium's presentation on ship balancing, fleet formats gets so fine tuned and there's not much variation, and this is a problem, I do actually believe links contribute to this somewhat

    Fleet formats these days for the most part are very defensive, combined with logistic spam and links, their main priority is to stay alive, which is completely understandable, the two most common fleet formats used to their greatest effectiveness today are CFC's + Solar fleet Artillery Maelstroms, and Tengu spam, the latter is the most defensive one, it gains full bonus on both sets of links, skirmish and siege. While the Artillery Maelstroms format adapts to the over defensive nature of eve due to alpha (durr!), obviously not as effective against tengus due to Skirmish links though

    So what points am I actually trying to make?

    Links have overtanked eve
    They're pushing away some non link users away from competitive small gang pvp
    Less variation in fleets

    In terms of skirmish links on a Loki, signature radius and speed link is self explanatory in a lot of situations especially tengu like formats

    But in small gang, the massive range you get on your warp disruptor and web is so huge, there's two bad points for this, going back towards the defensive route, you take SO much less damage from most gang formats at 42km than you would at 28km, and at that range you're not at all committing to the fight, you always have a better chance to escape tackle. And people are just not expecting a tackle at that range, being webbed at 25km by a 90% web sucks, or tackled at 53km by a Vagabond, it's a bad design

    But why am I whining about this right now?

    Two points, Tiericide and ship balancing, and Crimewatch

    Tiericide and ship balancing, is going to attract a LOT of bittervets and new player alike to pvp with the rebalanced ship, who wouldn't want to fly a bellicose and not get laughed at ?!

    Crimewatch is going to pull a lot more inexperienced people into pvp, mainly because pvp is going to be so much more accessible than it is right now

    Considering the heavy use of links right now, wouldn't it be a damn shame if those guys tried out pvp, die in a complete fire, and then just decide pvp isn't for them? or maybe decide solo/small gang pvp is not for them and become more risk averse

    It's true, I am making a lot of assumptions here, especially with how links have shaped fleet pvp, but the negatives that comes with it is true, it's doing much more bad than good

    So what would I actually change about them?

    Well it's very simple actually, instead of 100%~ bonus to your tank through active tanking/logistics, it should be more on the line of 20%. It would still give fleets an incentive to use links, but make small gangs, especially solo players, much less incentive to use them. And nerf skirmish links to the same degree

    Sure this would nerf commandships even more, they might get fixed some day, but I think the problem with links is a MUCH bigger issue

    Please show your support if you agree, and if you do not agree, please post too, but god damn look at the numbers they give

    tl;dr


    [A BUNCH OF EXAMPLES HERE]
    [THIS IS MAKING LINKS A REQUIREMENT TO PVP COMPETITIVELY AND INFLUENCING FORMATS THIS IS BAD]
    [CHANGE THEM LIKE THIS]
    I like Duncan
    
    Kessiaan
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #2 - 2012-03-24 01:49:26 UTC
    No. That is all.
    Garmon
    Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
    #3 - 2012-03-24 01:55:32 UTC
    Kessiaan wrote:
    No. That is all.


    That is all because it would hurt your play style too much
    I like Duncan
    
    Andski
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #4 - 2012-03-24 01:56:52 UTC
    TIL our Maelstroms apparently have 135k EHP.

    Twitter: @EVEAndski

    "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

    Tweety Bird
    Tackled In Belt
    xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
    #5 - 2012-03-24 01:57:36 UTC
    Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
    Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
    Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
    Kessiaan
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #6 - 2012-03-24 02:00:41 UTC
    Garmon wrote:
    Kessiaan wrote:
    No. That is all.


    That is all because it would hurt your play style too much


    This game already has enough incentives to blob, it doesn't need more.

    Also, wtb my old damps back.
    Garmon
    Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
    #7 - 2012-03-24 02:02:22 UTC
    Kessiaan wrote:


    This game already has enough incentives to blob, it doesn't need more.

    Also, wtb my old damps back.


    Thinking extreme force multipliers encourages small gang pvp is completely delusional, it's the complete opposite
    I like Duncan
    
    Im Super Gay
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #8 - 2012-03-24 02:06:59 UTC
    Garmon wrote:
    Kessiaan wrote:


    This game already has enough incentives to blob, it doesn't need more.

    Also, wtb my old damps back.


    Thinking extreme force multipliers encourages small gang pvp is completely delusional, it's the complete opposite

    Thinking removing extreme force multipliers removes blobs is completely delusional as well.
    AkJon Ferguson
    JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
    Ferguson Alliance
    #9 - 2012-03-24 02:07:14 UTC
    How can such a stellar PVPer be so incoherent?

    Links are imba. Making them on-grid only is a big step in the right direction and is better than nothing. Getting rid of all leadership skills would be better.

    (And I just started my Cha/Wil remap last week.)
    Flyinghotpocket
    Doomheim
    #10 - 2012-03-24 02:10:19 UTC
    yea please this stuff needs fixed. when t3 boosting became 'the thing' in fw nearly all small scale/1v1 pvp ended. and only people who are suicidal like me still fight without links.

    Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

    Garmon
    Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
    #11 - 2012-03-24 02:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
    Im Super Gay wrote:


    Thinking removing extreme force multipliers removes blobs is completely delusional as well.


    Sorry but where exactly did I imply this?

    AkJon Ferguson wrote:

    Links are imba. Making them on-grid only is a big step in the right direction and is better than nothing.

    I'm not even sure if they're going to do this, in fanfest it was said it's a bit hard to do due to coding and all that, sure it would be a step in the right direction but it wouldn't completely fix the issue, I would adapt, as other people will

    AkJon Ferguson wrote:

    How can such a stellar PVPer be so incoherent?


    Accept my apology if I was hard to understand, if you could point out what parts I had problems with I'll try and fix it
    I like Duncan
    
    Nicolo da'Vicenza
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #12 - 2012-03-24 02:11:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
    off-grid boosters are dumb as hell, extreme-o gay
    why the hell should something not in the battle be effecting stuff on grid?
    I can't shoot on gate from the station, why should bonuses be able to?
    not as bad as remote cyno-DDing, but it's on the same principle.
    Warzon3
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #13 - 2012-03-24 02:12:48 UTC
    I agree that it isnt fun fighting against a gang that has 100 km points and webs and this should be fixed.
    Derth Ramir
    Fight The Blob
    Kingless.
    #14 - 2012-03-24 02:14:12 UTC
    TBH I really think links should be ongrid(maybe make it some kind of bubble that only effects fleet members and doesn't not stack). But that most likely won't happen. Another idea is reduce the tech 3 bonus from 5 to 3.5 but make it apply to all links types(based on the idea that techs 3s are more general and less effective) and give command ships the 5% to their specific link type.

    Fight The Blob.

    Kessiaan
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #15 - 2012-03-24 02:23:13 UTC
    Derth Ramir wrote:
    TBH I really think links should be ongrid(maybe make it some kind of bubble that only effects fleet members and doesn't not stack). But that most likely won't happen. Another idea is reduce the tech 3 bonus from 5 to 3.5 but make it apply to all links types(based on the idea that techs 3s are more general and less effective) and give command ships the 5% to their specific link type.


    I would agree with this. T3 links may be a bit OP and off-grid boosting has always been stupid, but the links themselves are fine, IMO.

    I do a lot of skirmish fleets these days - the biggest fleet we can field is like 20 people and the space we roam through the local sov holders can scramble twice that on a moment's notice. A well-coordinated fleet with links can engage a blob 2, 3 times its size only by good use of the bonuses granted by links in their current form. Long point range, long web range, and speed bonuses to GTFO when the time comes.

    I just don't see how it's necessary - in big fleet fights everyone will have links anyway so it's moot. 1v1 has always been about who can out-fox the other more than anything else. In a small gang a sleipnir will **** you up because it's a sleipnir, not because it's giving a link, though that might help.
    Caldari Citizen20090217
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #16 - 2012-03-24 02:28:13 UTC
    If you really want to enccourage small gang....

    Make boosters have to be on grid.
    Make the bonus fall off as fleet size increases.
    Andrea Griffin
    #17 - 2012-03-24 02:29:22 UTC
    As someone who does a lot of solo, single-account PvP, I don't have the benefit of uber-links following me around all over the place. Yeah, I know, boo-hoo, sucks to be me, right?

    Except that kinda sucks gameplay-wise for someone who really does want to go at it alone. I shouldn't NEED a T3 alt account or a gang to back me up in order to be competitive.

    If I see a potential target but I also see some T3 hanging out in space, I'm likely to move on instead of engaging. I happy to take a risk, but I'm not interested in just throwing away isk.
    Derth Ramir
    Fight The Blob
    Kingless.
    #18 - 2012-03-24 02:32:20 UTC
    Caldari Citizen20090217 wrote:
    If you really want to enccourage small gang....

    Make boosters have to be on grid.
    Make the bonus fall off as fleet size increases.


    There is a problem with the coding to allow on grid boosters(unless you use some kind of bubble effect)

    And the bonus fall off for fleet side completely goes against what eve is all about.

    Fight The Blob.

    Daneel Trevize
    Give my 11percent back
    #19 - 2012-03-24 02:33:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
    The real real issue is active-tanking is weak, far too weak. EHP has only grown with the rig changes. Coupled with the fact that mobility is key and shield rig drawbacks are nothing compared to armour ones, and that armour rigs are just plain more expensive too while shields also regen for free, and I can't help but feel that local rep setups should be far more powerful than they are atm relative to buffer fits, especially armour. Increasing them would increase the engagement envelope of all the solo & small gang peoples, and not unbalance fleet/sov fights.
    Yes you'd likely have more 'stalemates' where 1 can on paper tank 1, but then there's always something to decide the outcome in a mirror match: range control, neuts, sentries, SP and module management, even previous cap charge & heat usage carried over to the current fight.

    Improve active tanking so it doesn't need links to be sane to fly about, and then you can nerf link bonuses.

    And remove ECM.

    And buff damps. And nerf the Tengu, the Drake, the Cane's PG, Angels. And buff the cloaky legion. Etc.
    Skex Relbore
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #20 - 2012-03-24 02:35:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Skex Relbore
    The only really bad thing about T3s with links is that they get a 5% per level boost from a rank1 skill while Fleet command ships are limited to 3% from a rank8 that just don't seem right to me.

    My suggestion would be to lower the boost on T3s to a 2% per level bonus and give them the ability to mount 3 links. Part of the reason why you don't see T3's boosting on grid is because the requirement to use command processors makes it impossible to fit anything resembling a tank on one.

    Letting them fit 3 links without needing command processors and lowering their boost so that Fleet command ships have a clear advantage would go a long way towards addressing the imbalance.

    Currently T3 level 5 defensives subsystem 25% boost compared to a command ship with CS5 15% boost.

    Change T3s to a 2% boost and it would be T3 level 5 def 10% boost compared to CS5 15% or even CS4 12%.
    123Next pageLast page