These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM Minutes: Offgrid boosting.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BBQ FTW
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#201 - 2012-09-03 23:22:48 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Simply reducing boosting range and thus allowing huge blobs to gain/keep massive benefits from one single ship would be plain dumb.

CCP needs to realize that boosting values should depend on squad size - more members should result in lesser benefits. That's the only way of making gang-links actually balanced, offgrid or not.

fon for CSM

even if he wants to exterminate my corpmate irl (ingame)
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#202 - 2012-09-04 02:54:59 UTC
BBQ FTW wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Simply reducing boosting range and thus allowing huge blobs to gain/keep massive benefits from one single ship would be plain dumb.

CCP needs to realize that boosting values should depend on squad size - more members should result in lesser benefits. That's the only way of making gang-links actually balanced, offgrid or not.

fon for CSM

even if he wants to exterminate my corpmate irl (ingame)


a) I agree with what Fon posted above.
b) I am in the 'No off grid boosting' fan club.

Give Commands more tank or evasiveness. Hell give them BS+ ehp and frigate speeds for all I care, but force them to be somewhere on the battlefield. Otherwise it sits in the same low risk - high reward situation it has been for too long.

When I pvp, its usually solo or small gang stuff in BC's and smaller (still raising alt's skills for larger ships). I dislike the inherent idea that just having a player (or lets be honest, an alt account) in a T3 with mwd blasting away out in some safe area makes an entire group of ships buffed, with no way to counter it (scanning down a ship with mwds going non stop is not very feasible) other than doing the same is just not right.

If you want to bring the kind of fantastic buffs that command mods bring, great! But do it on the battlefield where you are at risk, and a viable target for the other team. With high tank and / or support, as they are trying to blast you down, your team is blowing them away 1 by 1 (I do think they need more tank though, to counter the fact that they would need to be on the field, as they will hands down be the primary or secondary target next to ECM ships and Logi's).


Just my take on it. Blink
~Zyella

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#203 - 2012-09-04 03:51:17 UTC
+1 vote for nooff-grid boosting. I dislike the idea of an overheated MWD on an Atron being run down from 70km by a Vigilant before it even gets up to speed for a warp-out. Yeah, sure, its a 300M pirate faction cruiser with faction point and webs vs a 380K frigate, with a 800M booster alt for Loki links and a 800M legion alt for uber tank. Arguably, I lost on warp-in as I under-invested in the fight by at least 2.5Bn ISK...but the edge in speed and point range and scan res was blindingly obvious. If you can die to blaster boats at 70km within seconds, something's wrong.

Off-grid boosters stuck in POS shields not only create crazy crap like this, and are totally risk-free, they contribute to less PVP. It doesn't take long for people to finger who compulsively uses boosts to "solo" and who those booster alts are. I now know to totally avoid trying to pick fights in certain systems in FW because the opposition has booster alts, and I am too cheap, lazy and time-harassed to deploy my own alt (who is also not trained for it), to even the score and give me a competitive edge.

There's also a lot of argument about small gang PVP suffering to the Blob, and that off-grid boosters are essential to creating an environment where small gangs can engage blobs. This is bullcrap. Deploy a scout, pick your engagement time and location, and you can deal with a blob easily. If this wasn't the case, EVE Uni would dominate every time they came to FW lowsec because, clearly, we minmatar cannot avoid them and must fight outnumbered. Derp through a gate into a blob, you deserve to be punished, and demanding insane boosts to counter your derp isn't logical, it's just a crutch for crap FCing and poor skill.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#204 - 2012-09-04 06:41:33 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Simply reducing boosting range and thus allowing huge blobs to gain/keep massive benefits from one single ship would be plain dumb.

CCP needs to realize that boosting values should depend on squad size - more members should result in lesser benefits. That's the only way of making gang-links actually balanced, offgrid or not.

Was suggested a while ago that hulls be used to differentiate in such a manner when they are getting overhauled anyway. T3, never being better than T2 (ref: CCP design goals), could be limited to squad boosting, T2 could be limited to wing/squad boosting with capitals being the only hulls with enough juice to transmit across an entire fleet.
Problem is that for min/max'ing a fleets potential it would have to use up to 5-10% boosters which is a tough sell to people who have grown accustomed to having the "One Ship to Boost them All" .. that is the biggest hurdle as I see it.

Alternative (within framework of On-Grid, 'cause it WILL happen) is to simply add a broadcast power attribute to the relevant hulls/subsystems, T3 are able to cover 100km, T2 can cover 250km and capitals can reach full grid or 500km whichever condition is met first.
BBQ FTW wrote:
fon for CSM

even if he wants to exterminate my corpmate irl (ingame)

Finally snapped, eh? IRL now being referred to as in-game .. guessing you love the Hi-Definition graphics beyond your front door and would love CCP to upgrade IRL to the same level Big smile

PS: Don't mind the people saying you are insane, they are just envious of your clearly superior perception!
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#205 - 2012-09-04 10:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
I dunno, removing boosts imo will just be a significant buff to alpha fleets. I never pos up my booster as its fit for mobility, i agree that possing them up should make the links non-functional.
Aracimia Wolfe
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2012-09-04 12:14:44 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
+1 vote for nooff-grid boosting. I dislike the idea of an overheated MWD on an Atron being run down from 70km by a Vigilant before it even gets up to speed for a warp-out. Yeah, sure, its a 300M pirate faction cruiser with faction point and webs vs a 380K frigate, with a 800M booster alt for Loki links and a 800M legion alt for uber tank. Arguably, I lost on warp-in as I under-invested in the fight by at least 2.5Bn ISK...but the edge in speed and point range and scan res was blindingly obvious. If you can die to blaster boats at 70km within seconds, something's wrong.

Off-grid boosters stuck in POS shields not only create crazy crap like this, and are totally risk-free, they contribute to less PVP. It doesn't take long for people to finger who compulsively uses boosts to "solo" and who those booster alts are. I now know to totally avoid trying to pick fights in certain systems in FW because the opposition has booster alts, and I am too cheap, lazy and time-harassed to deploy my own alt (who is also not trained for it), to even the score and give me a competitive edge.

There's also a lot of argument about small gang PVP suffering to the Blob, and that off-grid boosters are essential to creating an environment where small gangs can engage blobs. This is bullcrap. Deploy a scout, pick your engagement time and location, and you can deal with a blob easily. If this wasn't the case, EVE Uni would dominate every time they came to FW lowsec because, clearly, we minmatar cannot avoid them and must fight outnumbered. Derp through a gate into a blob, you deserve to be punished, and demanding insane boosts to counter your derp isn't logical, it's just a crutch for crap FCing and poor skill.


The Sig, The Rhetoric, you sir are my hero. even if you are Winmatar

Kill it with Fire!

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#207 - 2012-09-04 16:05:34 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Simply reducing boosting range and thus allowing huge blobs to gain/keep massive benefits from one single ship would be plain dumb.

CCP needs to realize that boosting values should depend on squad size - more members should result in lesser benefits. That's the only way of making gang-links actually balanced, offgrid or not.

Was suggested a while ago that hulls be used to differentiate in such a manner when they are getting overhauled anyway. T3, never being better than T2 (ref: CCP design goals), could be limited to squad boosting, T2 could be limited to wing/squad boosting with capitals being the only hulls with enough juice to transmit across an entire fleet.

Problem is that for min/max'ing a fleets potential it would have to use up to 5-10% boosters which is a tough sell to people who have grown accustomed to having the "One Ship to Boost them All" .. that is the biggest hurdle as I see it.

That's right, but the whole point is in having to make trade-offs. At the moment should you start assemling a fixed-number gang of, say, 3-5 ships, you always have to evaluate pros and cons of any particular ship, that's including the boosting one. Are 3 skirmish links really more usefull than increasing your DPS by 25-50% or RR power by 1/3? That's a tough choice. Now it's all entirely different for blobs, they can easily remove one of their 50 Drakes and take a booster instead.

And that's just wrong.

I'd say that this particular thing is one of the most terrible flaws in current EVE mechanics, along with instantenious risk-free hot-dropping.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#208 - 2012-09-08 23:57:38 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:


That's right, but the whole point is in having to make trade-offs. At the moment should you start assemling a fixed-number gang of, say, 3-5 ships, you always have to evaluate pros and cons of any particular ship, that's including the boosting one. Are 3 skirmish links really more usefull than increasing your DPS by 25-50% or RR power by 1/3? That's a tough choice. Now it's all entirely different for blobs, they can easily remove one of their 50 Drakes and take a booster instead.

And that's just wrong.

I'd say that this particular thing is one of the most terrible flaws in current EVE mechanics, along with instantenious risk-free hot-dropping.



The problem with OGBs is that there is no trade-off. Want to run a gang of 3-5 ships? The question is not if you lose 25% of damage, the question is how many members bring their OGB alt. They're never dedicated pilots - just effortless alts.

I agree however that a purely range-based mechanic would overly favour blobs once more, but basing any mechanic on fleet size is only good in theory since most fleet coordination takes place OOG and people would easily circumvent that.

Anyway - with CCPs glacial speed, fixing the issues will probably take years, but they'll have to start somewhere and I think everyone in his right mind can agree upon the fact that OGBs should be removed, so that's a start.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#209 - 2012-09-09 11:14:37 UTC
I can see both points of view on this one. Personally I would rather see things that are really broken such as Corp/POS Roles & permissions fixed first rather than this.
psycho freak
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2012-09-09 11:24:01 UTC
posting in another lets dumb down eve becouse joe internetspaceship has a boosting alt they put aprox 6 months of training and cash into

welcome to alts online

my spelling sux brb find phone number for someone who gives a fu*k

nop cant find it
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#211 - 2012-09-10 17:59:26 UTC
One issue is that fleet boosts are not part of the "diminishing returns" associated with almost every other aspect of Eve Online. Fleet boosts are expensive and give massive levels of boosts compared to other ways. They should be expensive and give marginal boosts instead.

5% bonus due to expensive implants is a bit OP as well, but these implants affect a single character. These are the improvements that help solo pvp'ers succeed over a fleet. Each single person who wants these same advantages must pay.

With fleet boosters, an ENTIRE FLEET receives an even larger % bonus to performance. This is way too OP (IMO), and also hurts the solo pvp'er. Now an entire fleet has better attributes than this single player - all because of a single invulnerable fleet booster.
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#212 - 2012-09-24 23:06:27 UTC
The main problem are POS-shield boosters or terrible noobs like Diesel47.

Both should die (ingame).
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#213 - 2012-09-25 02:21:04 UTC
psycho freak wrote:
posting in another lets dumb down eve becouse joe internetspaceship has a boosting alt they put aprox 6 months of training and cash into

welcome to alts online



Odd, I would say forcing them to be on field would reduce the 'dumbing down' factor, by giving you a way to counter it, and by putting those buffs / that ship at risk. Not to mention making it much harder to put that 6 month trained afk alt into play on the field. ;)

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Gul Harat
The Loner Souls
#214 - 2012-09-25 12:00:36 UTC
Disable gang links inside pos shields and add signature increase to command processors.
That way T3 can have one active link to be hard to scan down or be really easy to scan down if they are off grid with more links.
Command ships still get their 3 links and they can decide to stay with fleet or be outside pos shields or easy to scan down as they currently are.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#215 - 2012-09-25 12:19:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:


That's right, but the whole point is in having to make trade-offs. At the moment should you start assemling a fixed-number gang of, say, 3-5 ships, you always have to evaluate pros and cons of any particular ship, that's including the boosting one. Are 3 skirmish links really more usefull than increasing your DPS by 25-50% or RR power by 1/3? That's a tough choice. Now it's all entirely different for blobs, they can easily remove one of their 50 Drakes and take a booster instead.

And that's just wrong.

I'd say that this particular thing is one of the most terrible flaws in current EVE mechanics, along with instantenious risk-free hot-dropping.



The problem with OGBs is that there is no trade-off. Want to run a gang of 3-5 ships? The question is not if you lose 25% of damage, the question is how many members bring their OGB alt. They're never dedicated pilots - just effortless alts.

The same is true for Falcons or cloaked supplementary logistic, so I'd rather impose a limit to have a solid discussion ground. Given how EVE works, there's hardly a way to move that additional ship unscouted, whether OGB alt or not, so the opposing ones do take it into account for the most part.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#216 - 2012-09-25 13:28:12 UTC
So like, initially I wasnt going to post here, while I feel OGBs are an issue, thought needs to put into Command Ships, as there are some glaring issues if all boosting was forced on grid.

Issue 1, Tank; All CS would need to be able to field a tank equivalent to the Damnation (400k+), as well as tanking types on links.
Issue 2, Speed; Example; You have a kiting Nado gang, you want that gang to have Siege links, a Vulture cannot keep with Nados even when heavily agility fit, therefore kiting gangs no longer have Shield links, as they would get bogged down and die right at the start of the fight.

Solutions
Issue 1; Increase the base tanking attributes and change the active bonuses on the Claymore and Eos (NOTE, NOT THE Sleipnier/Astarte) to a resist bonuses, as well as modifying some slot layouts.
Issue 2; Multirole CS, example;
Claymore (Siege/Skirmish)
Eos (Armour/Information)
Vulture (Siege/Information)
Damnation (Armor/Skirmish)

Or something along those lines, reasoning being;

There is now an Armour tanked ship that can provide Skirmish links.
There is now a shield tanked ship that can provide Information links.
There is now a Siege linker that can keep up with kiting gangs (Maybe has slightly less buffer than the Vulture to balance).
All the CS can now weather significant amounts of damage.
All now can perform multiple roles while keeping all useful.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#217 - 2012-09-25 13:33:18 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
One issue is that fleet boosts are not part of the "diminishing returns" associated...

Heh, yeah. Really is an insane amount of oomph one can get from an off-the-shelves item .. yet they have the audacity to complain that a booster does not get his own augmentation even if his 200 sheep "friends" do.

Fleet boosting has spoiled Eve players senseless, for that alone it should be nerfed into the ground Cool
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The same is true for Falcons or cloaked supplementary logistic, so I'd rather impose a limit to have a solid discussion ground. Given how EVE works, there's hardly a way to move that additional ship unscouted, whether OGB alt or not, so the opposing ones do take it into account for the most part.

Huh? Unless something changed drastically that gave ECM and RR the ability to function system wide then using those ships for comparison is out of bounds. Besides, MWD/Cloak trick (can't believe it hasn't been patched out to be honest) can and will get you anywhere you want to go barring a large'ish bubble camp.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2012-09-25 13:42:32 UTC
So many people just utterly miss the point on the t3 boosters. CCP never designed them to be sat at safe with a cov ops cloak and 4 boost running at once on a a horribly gimped fit that explodes if a fly touches the ship.

If you want to run multiple boost at one time, it's called use a CS that is fit to provide multiple boost at decent performance.

If you want to provide a single boost that is extremely potent, it's called use a boosting t3 that uses one boost at amazing performance.

The idea was never to have 4 amazing boost running at the same time. One of the easiest ways to solves this problem once and for all:
T3s are restricted from using the command processor module. We have plenty of modules that restricted to dedicated ships and classes, so why can't the command processor be the sole owner to the command ship class...god knows they need a reason to be flown again.

Wow look at that, problem is solved to the cloaky/interdicted nullified t3 running around at 99.9% safety providing insane boost. If you bother to park the alt in system to provide one excellent boost at a safe, so be it. But tbh, if you're gonna do that you might as well fit that ship for real combat and throw it in the fray.

And before people argue, well you can still park a command ship at a safe and provide 4 boost. Yes but you also can't warp around cloaked, be immue to bubbles, and have to travel through gates knowing you could get caught quickly by any gate camp if you're not careful/scouted beforehand. But what if he's already logged in system at his safe? Well he still can't warp around cloaked and he's a hell of a lot quicker to probe down being that he has a battlecruiser sig radius.

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#219 - 2012-09-25 14:47:25 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
So like, initially I wasnt going to post here, while I feel OGBs are an issue, thought needs to put into Command Ships, as there are some glaring issues if all boosting was forced on grid.

Issue 1, Tank; All CS would need to be able to field a tank equivalent to the Damnation (400k+), as well as tanking types on links.
Issue 2, Speed; Example; You have a kiting Nado gang, you want that gang to have Siege links, a Vulture cannot keep with Nados even when heavily agility fit, therefore kiting gangs no longer have Shield links, as they would get bogged down and die right at the start of the fight.

Solutions
Issue 1; Increase the base tanking attributes and change the active bonuses on the Claymore and Eos (NOTE, NOT THE Sleipnier/Astarte) to a resist bonuses, as well as modifying some slot layouts.
Issue 2; Multirole CS, example;
Claymore (Siege/Skirmish)
Eos (Armour/Information)
Vulture (Siege/Information)
Damnation (Armor/Skirmish)

Or something along those lines, reasoning being;

There is now an Armour tanked ship that can provide Skirmish links.
There is now a shield tanked ship that can provide Information links.
There is now a Siege linker that can keep up with kiting gangs (Maybe has slightly less buffer than the Vulture to balance).
All the CS can now weather significant amounts of damage.
All now can perform multiple roles while keeping all useful.

I actually like this. Tweaking the numbers for tank/speed/etc to achieve balance for all of them would be difficult, and oh god dat Claymore, but I like it.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#220 - 2012-09-25 18:18:51 UTC
Remove off-grid boosting. Actually, better still, give boosting a max range of 200km.

Add booster to all KMs. Add ANYTHING that effects a ship to KMs.

Change agro and docking mechanics to prevent aggressed ships from docking in anything, including a carrier, for 60 seconds.

Remove Titan drops from low sec. Hell, remove non-industrial Capitals from low sec. Better still, remove them from game altogether, or limit their weapons, reps, and what not from functioning on any sub cap ship.