These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#61 - 2012-03-24 17:27:15 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Doesn't that give me more credibility?

It should, but guess ones mileage may vary.

Still have fond memories from the "Nerf Dram" campaign when pilots from Genos, blatant abusers of the OP angel hulls for a long time, came out in favour of a nerf .. once those posts started appearing I knew it was just a matter of time.

Hopefully when a link-o-holic like Garmon can come out and say that something is amiss, we\ll see some improvements Big smile
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#62 - 2012-03-24 17:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Muestereate wrote:
I think its just the t3 thats overpowered so that could be fixed So command ships are superior but there could be another way. They are still vulnerable when changing systems. how about a significant passive visual effect if links are fitted. Make it risky to fly t3 links. Blow up sig radius so its fast to lock, change sensor strength so its easy to probe out

It seems most people don't know how boosts work either and it also seems like I have things to learn yet but everybody talks about the 25% versus 15 % on t3 versus command but thats a small part of the whole boost computation. From what I can tell, after everything is done on a shield hardening boost the difference amounts to only a few percent of hardness. like 32 versus 35, am i wrong? I keep thinking I missed something on the numbers. Its like adding an extra invuln

The first thing I would look at about active tanking would be cap recharge rate. It seems this would free slots, extend tanking time and increase hardness. Neuts would have to work harder but it seems they have some extra capacity already. They could boost recharge up to the predicted neuting rates

While we're on to active tanks. Shield and armor could be balance a little bit by resolution boosts on typically armor turrets. There is no mechanic in game to adjust resolution. shield are usually larger. boosting res would increase hit chance against shield targets while leaving low sigs like armor barely changed. Could make up for lack of damage types somewhat also

DPS DPS buff nerf buff nerf. COme on!, were smarter than this.
Jesus where to start if not a pure troll.

Ganglink T3s already have a dedicated subsystem and thus visual key that they're able to run links. Also links have a visual display, as does ECCM if they're forced to be ongrid and need to be probed/burnt to. And FYI they have a dedicated ECCM subsystem so how would you nerf that without making it truely useless?

PvP active tanks almost never rely on cap regen, and it would break so many things if ships just had a much higher natural regen. IIRC the only ships with such stats are the Retribution and Sac, their problem is then getting dps out of them when it's so much easier to tank them. Beyond them, iirc only T3s can be built to have bonused cap regen & capacity (again for the Tengu this is also the subsystem with a lot of PG because it's plain broken/named wrong).
Boosting general cap regen would mean running neuts with a buffer tank is even less risk to capping yourself out such that you can't mwd away, a huge bonus to kiters again.

It sounds like you don't understand resists (which is only 1 of 3 ganglink bonuses for armour or shields, and doesn't factor in skirmish links sig reduction, prop mod speed, and ability to dictate range with prop jammers). An 85% resists vs an 80% resist is 25% better unless I'm mistaken.

Active tanking needs more raw rep power, atm they're usually just using 1 or 2 mids for cap injectors, the rest of the slots go to tank, tackle and dps. If anything, ships need more cargo/cap booster charges need to be smaller. There are no real slots used by cap mods to free up, especially not ones to be used for dps to counter stronger tanks.
And the ubiquitus cane needs to have a PG nerf so those 2 medium neuts aren't without having to at least downgrade to 220s. If arties get a slight fitting reduction, so be it.

(In related consideration, how about moving arty volley damage to the end of the cycle, so insta-lockers aren't insta-death to all. They'd still point fast if fitted to do so (suiciding afk highseccers isn't affected either way) but you'd be able to get a little bit of transv up rather than being volleyed without any option to do anything. A few seconds could be enough to cycle reppers so they rep as the volleys come in and so you're more able to outrep their dps. For fleet fights there's minimal change. It's also roleplay/physically-justifiable, and not like missiles aren't also dps at end of cycle or worse too. Both weapons systems being able to select damage types too.)
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#63 - 2012-03-24 19:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
It was just mentioned on the "Brave New Module" part of fanfest that there will be new shield boosters/armor, they'd repair a lot more than current boosters but require more resources, from capacitor, but also apparently something else directly from what you have in cargo (pretty sure he wasn't talking about cap boosters to cap booster)

I'm sure there will be more accurate details on that very soon, saying that, most likely wont make it to the game for a while

Edit : Picture
I like Duncan
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-03-24 19:31:34 UTC
Making them ongrid would make it much easier to KILL the links. This would then justify the stupid tanks of, say, the Damnation or the Sleipnir. Reducing the power of T3 links would then practically balance them...

Dodixie > Hek

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#65 - 2012-03-24 19:42:33 UTC
Hi there.

I'm Fon and I'm seconding pretty much everything Garmon says in his original post.

Have been using links since July 2009, btw - 3 months after Apocrypha release Pirate

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

bldyannoyed
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2012-03-24 20:12:54 UTC
Nerfing links by any amount will hit smaller gangs more than larger gangs and that is indisputable maths.

As pointed out they are a force multiplier. They are more effective the more force they have to multiply. Lets take Logistics as an example. Max skilled they boost each repper buy not far short of 100% which pretty much means that once you have 2 Logistics in fleet a max skills link ship gives more Logistic power than a 3rd Logi ship would. At this point the CS is simply "Better".

Reducing the figure won't change that maths, it simply increases the number of Logi ships you need in your gang before you hit that point. Whatever the figure may be there is stilla cut off point at which a link ship gives more Logi power than an additional Logi would.

By that logic nerfing gang links will relegate them to large fleet toys and render them literally uselss below a certain fleet size threshhold. Theoretically they are already useless below a certain threshold but as that threshold is effectively 1 it's never really much of a limiter.

Skirmish links are a whole other kettle of fish and don't fit the same maths as the logi type CS.

Rather than nerfing them what I would suggest is reworking them.

You could introduce many more Gang links, play with the fitting in order to make them fittable on pretty much anything, and then make them a targetted module. Now you don't have one ship boosting a fleet of 200 ships, you have potentially many ships boosting different attributes of their gang mates.

This would result in a far greater depth at all levels of fleet size and potentially benefit smaller gangs as micro-mangement of fitting and links would be possible. Good luck micromanaging a 1000 man null blob but 5 guys could tweak away to their hearts content.

You'd need to rework commandships and the leadership skills but that's no bad thing. Skills could exist to boost the number of targets 1 link can boost at once, up to 5 for example. Theres loads you could do with it rather than simply nerf them.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-03-24 20:19:01 UTC
Absolutely agree with the original post. Links are intrinsically overpowered in their current state and simply restricting their effects to the local grid won't adequately address the issue.
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-03-24 20:26:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Katarina Reid
just sold my boosta cuz cant be botherd to bring it on grid. so i support any nerf to them. how about the new mods there bringing in have a boosta jammer lol
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#69 - 2012-03-24 20:56:12 UTC
I know I'm saying this as a 90% solo frigate pilot but I have experience in small gang and even 300+ fleets but I 100% agree that links currently give way WAY too much advantage, particularly to the larger gangs in any given engagement. Sure everyone can fly links in their roams but it massively improves each individual ship in a gang so much that it's really off-kilter towards defensive large blobs.

I don't know if it should be nerfed down to 20% or 50% or whatever but currently it's a single off-grid ship giving so much extra oomph to every single ship in fleet that it is indeed something of a problem. Forcing them on grid might have an impact but again it just gives too much advantage to larger fleets so an overall reduction seems to make more sense.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Mimiru Minahiro
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-03-24 21:07:21 UTC
Where were all the link haters when t2 links went up on SISI? Almost everyone was like "coo yo"
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#71 - 2012-03-24 21:14:42 UTC
I'm pretty sure plenty of people were unimpressed with TII links at the time.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-03-25 02:16:49 UTC
Garmon wrote:

Copine Callmeknau wrote:
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


Some people could say the same about prenerf titans


True

But pre-nerf titan's aren't accessible to the average player.

Gang-linking is.


At the end of the day you haven't got facts and figures of any players who have left EVE or stopped PvPing because of ganglinks, just the same as I don't have any facts or figures of how many players have joined EVE or started PvPing because of ganglinks.

It's just your opinion, and your opinion is "I don't like ganglinks", don't try to state it as anything else.

There should be a rather awesome pic here

ZGVsaXZlcnkgZ3V5
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-03-25 06:21:53 UTC
garmon so on d money he a foundn father
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#74 - 2012-03-25 07:26:56 UTC
Copine Callmeknau wrote:
It's just your opinion, and your opinion is "I don't like ganglinks", don't try to state it as anything else.


Excepts his opinion is typical and accurate.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Remove Gang-Links
Doomheim
#75 - 2012-03-25 22:16:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Remove Gang-Links
I agree with everything Garmon has said.

Why not remove Leadership skills and give a new role to the super tanky T2 Command Ships?

P.S I use a gang-link alt for small scale pvp.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#76 - 2012-03-25 22:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
I never perceived them as too much of a problem until T3s appeared - cloaky, interdiction nullified, highly mobile, hard to probe off-grid boosters that provide a better boost than Fleet CS and are capable of bonused probing at the same time are a pain in the arse.

A cloaky, bubble-proof scout and prober that provides an insane bonus - yeah - right Roll...

Whenever engaging someone in low/null and there's a neut in the system, it could be some lameass off-grid T3 booster. As opposed to popular belief, they're detrimental to solo/very small gang pvp - solo being quite obvious as it's not solo anymore if someone is fleeted with his booster alt.

The only reason off grid boosting had a right to exist was the nature of siege links - since that has been fixed, I don't see a reason too make them being on-grid mandatory.

Garmon may be right about the overall magnitude of gang link effectiveness being too good, but I'm more in favour of changing things one by one.

Off-grid boosting should go first - then probably diminishing returns with increased gang size as a next step (yeah - people will evade that, but it requires way more organisation to do so).

Changing too many things at once leads to the same fuckups when they changed projectiles and TEs at the same time.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Cyrina Manto
RBS Inc.
#77 - 2012-03-25 23:00:15 UTC
If anything is done, at least swap the Command ship link bonus and T3 link bonus.

A ship that is faster to train gets 30% better performance, can be made neigh impossible to scan and be immune to bubbles? Only downside is tank, but that isnt an issue 90% of the time with off grid boosting.

Really, Id like to see Gallente links and EWar fixed. Damps are ok, but they are still a bit sub par. And info links for ECM on the race that has no need for ECM?

IMHO, each race should get three different link types, 1 for racial tank (shield/armor, active/passive), 1 for racial EWar, and one racial secondary attribute (drones, speed, neuts, missiles, sniping, etc etc). And the command ships would get bonuses to the three (or whatever number is deemed nessicary) race specific links.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#78 - 2012-03-25 23:28:01 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:


Garmon may be right about the overall magnitude of gang link effectiveness being too good, but I'm more in favour of changing things one by one.

Off-grid boosting should go first - then probably diminishing returns with increased gang size as a next step (yeah - people will evade that, but it requires way more organisation to do so).

Changing too many things at once leads to the same fuckups when they changed projectiles and TEs at the same time.


While I don't disagree at all with the OP, I think the above is important. Wholesale changes have much more potential to screw everything up.

Making the boosters come on the grid is a critical first step. Once you make the boosters come on grid, you have some risk involved. If you want those sexy 5% T3 bonuses, you run the risk of losing your expensive ship (and some SP). Or, you can stick with the CS and get smaller bonuses. Once those changes go through, we can step back and see whether boosters need more changes.

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

Large Collidable Object
morons.
#79 - 2012-03-26 00:07:53 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:


While I don't disagree at all with the OP, I think the above is important. Wholesale changes have much more potential to screw everything up.

Making the boosters come on the grid is a critical first step. Once you make the boosters come on grid, you have some risk involved. If you want those sexy 5% T3 bonuses, you run the risk of losing your expensive ship (and some SP). Or, you can stick with the CS and get smaller bonuses. Once those changes go through, we can step back and see whether boosters need more changes.



Compared to the magnitude of bonusses you get from leadership skills, the 15% vs 25% isn't that much of an issue imho - having to be on grid, you wouldn't want to gimp your fit with 2(+) command processors.

T3 boosters would be viable as they would provide better boost, but could only fit one - maybe two - links without being paper-thin.

The main issue I personally have with T3 boosters and off grid boosting is that they are easier to move around than a cov ops frig (they can't be interdiction nullified after all) whilst providing the same scouting and probing power and giving the best gang boost in game at the same time.


As soon as boosters have to be on grid, I either see there's a T3/Fleet CS/Titan/SC/Carrier (yeah - they get a bonus to fit command links as well) and know what I'm up to and wont engage or there's not.

Oh - and they should pull aggro for giving out bonusses.

You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Muad 'dib
The Nine Nine
#80 - 2012-03-26 09:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
I think by far the second largest problem with the links (after the huge bonuses) is that its not actually a viable and fun role that a player actually wants to do. Saving people like a hero with repping is a fun thing to play, just sitting there in a link ship you want to get as many links and that means little tank (often) and next to do damage or RR ability.

CS links should always be the best links, you dont give full bonuses to all the EW version of the tech3s right?

My vision for a good change is the combination of a logistics ship with boosting links so a pilot might actually be able to take part in a fight and not insta die and loose the links for the whole gang (also bad).

Its no wonder everyone flys an alt for links, cram as many on and put it in a safespot/pos, everything points to this being the best use currently.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.