These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Real Issue with Links - CCP Please read
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-03-24 02:37:12 UTC
Derth Ramir
Fight The Blob
#22 - 2012-03-24 02:50:40 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:


And buff damps. And nerf the Tengu, the Drake, the Cane's PG, Angels. And buff the cloaky legion. Etc.


Please do not derail this thread with your nerfing rants this is about tech 3 links there is already enoug threads about nerfing ships and modules that you have mentioned.

Fight The Blob.
ROXGenghis
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-03-24 04:03:00 UTC
LOL @ Garmon saying that the problem isn't offgrid links, it's that links are OP in the first place, and half of the responses suggesting ongrid links.

Also it's not just about tanking. Being pointed at 106km is just broken.

The short story is that Links are overpowered to the point they are mandatory, whether they are ongrid or offgrid.
Honeyhole
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#24 - 2012-03-24 04:26:14 UTC
Posting my support that the issue with booster ships no matter T3 or Command is not just the ability to be off-grid or in a Pos shield. It's the almost absurd boost in performance that make the mechanic too good to *not* use. Honestly making them on-grid only or some bubble effect will only pigeon-hole the viable use of the ships to large gate-camps and mega-fleets.

Also please do not mob together to mold a change in Link design because of the natural weakness of Command Ships in today's game. That is a entirely different issue. A re-balance of all Command Ships has been suggested for quite some time, long before the use of booster ships became as popular as they are today.
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-03-24 04:33:46 UTC
Well it might not stop you personally, Garmon, if link ships had to be on grid and were killable easier because you have enough isk not to care. But for the rest of EVE, a t3 link ship is not cheap, especially when podded and people will stop using them if they die far more often.

I call BS on the excuse that CCP cannot code it. Rat bounties and what you can see on overview and other mechanics work on who is on grid.

T3 link ship bonuses need to be toned down and all of the bonuses on the links themselves need to be toned down due to the release of tech 2 links. Tone down the mindlink as well. Maybe give command ships the AF boost treatment so they can fit one link + be useful in an in your face combat role. Except for the info links, those might need to be boosted or rethought completely.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-03-24 04:49:35 UTC
ROXGenghis wrote:
Being pointed at 106km is just broken.

The short story is that Links are overpowered to the point they are mandatory, whether they are ongrid or offgrid.


nah

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#27 - 2012-03-24 05:05:29 UTC
Garmon, the real problem with links is that Skirmish links are OP whether they're on grid or off grid while Armor, Siege, and Info links aren't OP whether they are on grid or off grid. When someone complains about "links" they are almost invariably complaining about Skirmish.

I will be fine no matter what happens, but I do hope that if they nerf links they at least make the gameplay surrounding them fun. Because right now flying a link ship is just about fun enough that throwing it on the alt is the right think to do. And no, just being on grid in a 100 DPS battlecruiser isn't going to magically make it fun.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
spellbound spirit
#28 - 2012-03-24 06:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: spellbound spirit
Vaal Erit wrote:
Well it might not stop you personally, Garmon, if link ships had to be on grid and were killable easier because you have enough isk not to care. But for the rest of EVE, a t3 link ship is not cheap, especially when podded and people will stop using them if they die far more often.

I call BS on the excuse that CCP cannot code it. Rat bounties and what you can see on overview and other mechanics work on who is on grid.

T3 link ship bonuses need to be toned down and all of the bonuses on the links themselves need to be toned down due to the release of tech 2 links. Tone down the mindlink as well. Maybe give command ships the AF boost treatment so they can fit one link + be useful in an in your face combat role. Except for the info links, those might need to be boosted or rethought completely.


Maybe also reimburse that useless SP it becomes on peoples characters? Cause LS skills will become useless and t3's are in no way designed to be able to survive on grid fight. 2 tornados and there is no chance of survival for skirmish loki, cause he'll be alfa'ed

What you're proposing will push eve even more to blob>rest, imo it started with warp scramblers change(at the time when CCP argued that speed tanking is too much 0/1), and continues, that's actually a sad news for ppl who would like to go and fight f/x 2hacs/vs 5bc's. IMHO problem is tied to people having all llv5 now, which they didnt have 4years ago -> CCP didnt add any new real skills. The other problem encouraging blobbing is that t2 combat ships aren't better than battlecruisers...
Garmon, links are not a problem in a fleet fight neither is tank, as with 1.8k ppl in local you will just get alphaed and funny thing is that you dont see a problem with that. Links change things, especially offgrid, for solo/few man gang that want to multiply their force and have a fighting chance with blob. If they nerf links people will just bring falcons instead.

I agree that t3 links should be switched in effectivnes with command ships, commands should be further boosted, they might need some kind of nerf, but it should be tied directly with providing solo/small groups with tools to invest their money in smth that makes them more effective than ppl without those investements, else in 1 year we'll all just fly drakes/hurricanes, cause anything else wont make sense.
Btw. If you remove/sriously nerf links it will kill some roaming setups, cause there will be no way to tackle someone over 72km... This will kill quite a lot of setups, and make tier3 alpha BC's even more popular, cause only way of fighting at range over 50km will be alphaing your primary.
Endeavour Starfleet
#29 - 2012-03-24 06:46:22 UTC
Posting in a dumb "OH NOES NURF TEH OFF GRID CAUSE I CANT PVP FOR CRAP" Thread
Sverige Pahis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-03-24 08:27:36 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Posting in a dumb "OH NOES NURF TEH OFF GRID CAUSE I CANT PVP FOR CRAP" Thread


Hi nameless NPC alt #26375484842332 I see you and garmon haven't been acquainted
Jane Vendetta
Cancer Terapy
#31 - 2012-03-24 08:38:48 UTC
As a small gang PVPer I have to disagree with you Garmon. Links allow me to fight blobs where as without them I either don't engage, or I engage and die. I get outnumbered/blobbed all the time, links give me the edge I need to stay ahead. CCP nerved small gang PVP for me with the nano nerf, nerving links is going to hurt me even more.

If you have to nerf links at least nerf blob warfare. Remove jump bridges and make eve big again. It isn't fair that I outsmart an enemy fleet, and am more agile then them. Yet they can jump bridge ahead of me and camp me in requiring absolutely no skill on their part.

Where is the love for the under dogs here?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-03-24 08:41:04 UTC
An additional thing to consider is for gang assist modules to only be effective for squad command spots. If you want to boost a massive fleet of 256, then you need to bring 25 boosters, not just the one guy..

Not saying that is the fix to the whole situation, but it does balance out what large gangs have to sacrifice personnel wise, to be on par with what small fleets have . 1:9 ratio

Also switch the bonus of fleet command ships and T3's. If you want the best bonuses and don't want them on grid, have fun trying to make a command ship hard to prob and also no bubble nullifier and cloak for you either.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#33 - 2012-03-24 08:58:15 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Posting in a dumb "OH NOES NURF TEH OFF GRID CAUSE I CANT PVP FOR CRAP" Thread


Never fails to fail.

You really know how to pick your targets and show everybody your knowledge!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-03-24 09:06:25 UTC
I agree with the OP but shouldn't you be banned for using that JF exploit on the undock that was reported?

Daneel Trevize wrote:


And remove ECM.

.


It needs adjustment but it needs to stay.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#35 - 2012-03-24 09:24:11 UTC
Links do indeed scale insanely well, the more the merrier .. literally.

Reducing them for everyone hurts small-gang action as much as it benefits it so not sure it is the best way to go, slight downward tweak in general is in order though. Why not base the bonuses based on number of possible recipients?

In addition to moving them on-grid; Squad booster gives 100% of potential buff, Wing booster gives 50-66% and Fleet booster gives 25-33% (random numbers, obviously to be adjusted).
- The organized roamers are already in the habit of using multiples to allow for tanks, redundancy and broader bonus type coverage and roaming fights often happen with links right smack in the middle of it when it kicks off (jumps ins) so should be marginal change for them.
- "Solo'ers" are affected primarily by an on-grid change as multi-boxing becomes a little harder. Still easy as hell though, depends on implemtation and if a range limit is included to account for grid-fu scenarios.
- Fleets are largely unaffected, except for slightly less overall DPS (presuming linkships are not 100% combat fit) and the lower bonuses in general. Numbers are so large to begin with that just about anything dies in seconds at any rate.
Marshiro
MOE Corp
#36 - 2012-03-24 09:34:49 UTC
Simply agree with OP here.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-03-24 11:03:49 UTC
ROXGenghis wrote:
LOL @ Garmon saying that the problem isn't offgrid links, it's that links are OP in the first place, and half of the responses suggesting ongrid links.

Also it's not just about tanking. Being pointed at 106km is just broken.

The short story is that Links are overpowered to the point they are mandatory, whether they are ongrid or offgrid.


:thumbup:

They're too powerful, the Skirmish links in particular. They're becoming, if not mandatory then too useful for their own good, not only for fleets but also for small gangs - and, laughably, for "solo" ("soloing" with my Loki alt, lol). "Mandatory" links is a highly unattractive barrier to new pilots and new corps starting out in PVP - they require a lot of SP and a lot of ISK, relative to the SP and ISK required to fly frigates and cruisers. This is fundamentally bad for the game.

Introduction of the T2 links was flat stupid. They need a serious session with the nerfhammer.
Copine Callmeknau
Dirty Vagrants
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#38 - 2012-03-24 11:24:33 UTC
I disagree with the base premise that links cause people to not want to PvP

Personally it gave me something to aim for in EVE

There should be a rather awesome pic here
Talizman
Bend over and smile
#39 - 2012-03-24 11:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Talizman
Gypsio III wrote:
"Mandatory" links is a highly unattractive barrier to new pilots and new corps starting out in PVP - they require a lot of SP and a lot of ISK, relative to the SP and ISK required to fly frigates and cruisers. This is fundamentally bad for the game.

Introduction of the T2 links was flat stupid. They need a serious session with the nerfhammer.


So what you saying is that they're bad cause new players cant use them? So we should just accomodate everything in this game for new players? Cause I dont get what you and you alike people want? EvE to be simplified enough so new players wont feel they're worse than those playing game for 5years and having billions of isk? What's the point in playing if only way I can get better is to get in a bigger fleet?
If there is no "vagabond/nanosacri or 100mn ab tengu for solo/ small gang, then what's my isk sink? Oh yeah... I should probably buy a super or a titan, cause that's only thing i could pursue after 3 years of playing. Like we dont have enough titans already...


P.S
ISK and SP arguments are none existant to me. Even 4month old noob can do incursions and quickly earn enough isk to buy high SP character with NO RISK... Not to mention that you only need 1 t3 or CS for a FLEET, so it's hard for new players to find working pvp corporation without those...
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#40 - 2012-03-24 11:46:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
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.


That change would do literally nothing, a few %'s is not going to make these any less used and OP

Kessiaan wrote:


1. 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.

2. 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.

3. I just don't see how it's necessary - in big fleet fights everyone will have links anyway so it's moot.

4. 1v1 has always been about who can out-fox the other more than anything else.


1. The main problem with making links on grid, people are just going to keep using them, but in the form of commandships, in terms of how that would actually effect the game, it would just benefit very small gang pvp for the most part, where baiting a soloer is a big part of it, people would stop using links with their frigates. But it wouldn't change gameplay for some one like me, I'd just roam with a CS

2.
  • You'd still be able to do this with the appropriate recons, or even with fleet interceptors
  • Links have made your non tackle ships have appropriate tackle, that's the case for us atleast
  • If you're fighting a 60 man fleet that's not using links, that just shows how disorganized they are, and I'm pretty sure you don't need links to fight them

    • 3. Not moot because links have influenced fine tuned fleet formats heavily

    4. That's true about 1v1's but if links are involved, it's a lot more straight forward

    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.



    Making the notion that links should be mandatory to small gang pvp is not going to encourage it

    Andrea Griffin wrote:
    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.



    Exactly
    I like Duncan