Warfare & Tactics

And I run them on my BCs. I would like to run them on a CS though as I am plexing in FW. I will just have to wait until they redo FW again in the winter expansion.

Yes. it really is that easy to probe down an OGB T3. Even with a fully pimped clone in a faction-fit covops or T3, you have to get the probes down to <1 AU. To say that this can be achieved before the probes are spotted on scan, during a small gang engagement has been decided in favour of the side with the OGB, is entirely disingenuous. Without a ridiculously expensive clone and covops to counter the T3, it is literally impossible.

I agree with the guy who said to nerf the command processor module. Set a limit of 1 per ship. Job done.

Are you linkfags trolling or just ********?

OGB'S are completely fine. They contribute with nothing else than their links, and each site can bring one. If the blob is smart enough to bring an OGB, its not their fault if you refuse to bring one while roaming.

People have payed for OGB, they've trained up a pilot, dedicated an account to it - with the same logic you need to remove titans, because.. well, because I can't have my own, and it's completely unfair if the enemies can do. I don't care if they've worked for it, its not fair !!111

However, if offgrid-boosting is removed CCP really needs to think about the rorq. It will be useless if you need to deploy it ongrid, and noone will ever touch it again for its boosting-purpose.

You also have to keem in mind the law of unintended consequences, I know a lot of you probably don't care about whs, but "on-grid" boosting would break high class wormhole pve. if your booster gets neuted out by sleepers and links go down the entire fleet dies.

Booster alts take several months, half a year, sometimes more to train. Often these characters are owned by the ceo or other long standing members of a corp (especially in small corps). People in leadership positions in eve often are also successful in real life, and are busy with that. This leads to "afk boosting" which can be essential for some small groups, forcing boosing on grid will hamper small corps who use boosts as a force multiplier and newer players relying on an older, busier leader.

I agree that an un-scannable ofgrid booster is a problem, and very much like the idea of command links blowing up sig radius like a mwd to counter, but the argument that having to scan down an ofgrid booster as being too "immersion breaking" or boring is flawed. Possibly "YOU are bad at scanning, running an alt may be immersion breaking for YOU but not everyone. and if you feel like missing out on killmail whoring while you play the part of spec ops to hunt down the linchpin of the enemy fleet ultimately turning the tide of battle from a route to victory as their fleet's capacity is diminished 20-50% in a single blow, then the problem is with YOUR lack of self-confidence and need for gratification, and a failure on the part of the leaders of your organization to properly reward important roles played by specialists under their command. when you scan down and lead to the death of an enemy ofgrid booster, your not a soldier. (usa perspective) You are a cia operative providing vital intel, You are Seal Team 6 shooting Bin Ladin. BOOM f-in Headshot.

EDIT: there are no periods in that massive sentance because periods are for pussies.

tell me again, why do we need to get rid of of-grid boosting again?

I may agree with the no-boosting-inside-pos-shield, if only so this happens more often

(trolling afk orca pilot outside shield)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHKUBXdtuPY&lcor=1&lc=16KNUUUSuJRZeG6WoFYBDnYhJQ-6VXghyw-U-Zx9diY&lch=email&feature=em-comment_received

sleepers have pretty much infinite neut, scram, web, attack range. and please make the argument that it should be required exploit game mechanics to do pve with leashing, grid fu, etc. (please dont dwell on this too much because its not all that important, as you say, they'll figure something out)




Fair enough, doesn't mean i have to like it. That said, CCP has seems to like refunding these days because of how overwhelmingly popular it is. I mean, they crash their servers for an entire day, get burned on the forums for a couple hours(weeks for some) and then people start asking them to crash their servers again? "moar skillpointz preeze!"



this does not necessarily counter my point: the tactical advantage of disrupting command links can be more pivotal to a fight than actually scoring a kill. As long as that booster is warping around hes not providing boosts. I know for smaller fleet battles that may be more important than larger, but I've seen it make a huge difference in the outcome of a fight.

The larger point is thus, Will changing offgrid boosting to ongrid boosting create more interesting and fun game-play, is the mechanic actually broken? What are all the alternative solutions and how do they compare in achieving the goal of creating meaningful game-play? Does having a booster ship on grid offer meaningful options to either the booster or the enemy fleet?

Does off-grid boosting work? what is it's goal?
It's clear that there is an opinion that off-grid boosting is negatively effecting nulsec pvp in the eyes of many as it lacks a sufficient counter. the same complaint is not being made in wh space (to the best of my knowlege). in highsec the complaint is of out-of-corp boosting alts.

Interdiction nullfield covert cloaky warp core stabbed boosting t3?
yeah this is broken and stupid (but nice to have if you have it) this variant of t3 is just too powerful, agreed! The solution is to nerf the t3, such as moving the warfare processor subsystem to electronics subsystem, meaning you have to choose between cloaking and boosting. If a person is paying enough attention to their booster to see probes and warp, then they aren't passively playing and this is in line with other mechanics as boosts do not work in warp.

another solution could be to have warfare-links immobilize your ship or prevent warp.

The problem with any nerf is that skillpoints in leadership shouldn't be viewed as wasted by the people who trained them, if boosts are to be moved on grid they need to be a viable option in the majority of situations they are currently used and flexible enough to respond to new developments in pvp. This doesent mean offgrid (or boosts in general) dont need a nerf, but a better solution may be to create a counter or make them easier to counter

my point here is mostly to play devils advocate because I dont know the answer and I'm hoping meaningfull discussion comes out of it and some dev can come read it after the changes have already been finalized and say "man, I really wish we had looked at

It's an easy fix, I don't see the need to delete offgrid boosting nor switch around the command ships / T3 setups.

A. Remove boosting within/near a POS
B. Limit command modules to command ships (cpu requirement reduction similar to covert ops ships and their cloaks), as you shouldn't use them on T3's anyway. this will effectively put both ships back into their proper role.
C. Make active boosts increase align times and/or restrict cloaking for a few seconds after deactivation, forcing more active gameplay (watching d-scan, timing cycles, keeping aligned or not) on the boosting pilot. More importantly, this would negate the usage of the OP cloaky-nullified-booster T3s a bit.

Note: Another way to negate the cloaky-nullified-booster T3 is to have each of those subsystem increase/decrease (like implants) a certain unwanted/wanted attribute. (f.e. Increasing sig radius, mass, inertia or pg/cpu usage of certain mods; decreasing sensor strength, cap stability or speed)

On the topic of offgrid boosting being risk-free and overpowered, here's a few options:

• Increase scanable signature size of actively boosting ships, making them easier to scan than normal C or BC sized ships. This would also allow a smart scanner in a decent fleet to detect a possible booster during an engagement. (best option imho)
• If that doesn't sound like a good solution, you can also give offgrid boosts an effect radius of say 14 AU, making them have to appear to all hostiles on dscan during engagements.

Please, CCP, don't give in to the constant whining of certain individuals. The only two things really needed here is to restrict boosts from being used inside a POS, making it possible for a hostile gang or fleet to jump on the booster before/during the engagement, and to restrict the usage of command modules on T3s. A T3 boost should be focusing on the needs of a small to medium gang, while command ships should be focusing on providing varied boosts to a medium to large gang/fleet. It doesn't fall in line with the whole generalisation vs specialisation concept of T3 vs T2 ships, but it is definetly better this way than the other way around.

looks like we found a college dropout /golfclap (47% ftw?)

How about the rediculous price of the ogb ship and implant and time to skill the 13.5m sp in leadership
you say sway battle in favour of ogb side
Then bring your own ogb ffs or is the time and isk investement to hard for you

Lol when did ogb solo fleet? lmfao
the thing with ogb is EVERY gang can have them and tbh if your gang doesnt then lol they make fighting better
better tank/better speed/longer point web/better defence against ecm
whats not to like i dont mind enemy gang useing ogb makes things intresteing if i cant warp out and am tackled at 40k+ means i gota use my head

i was only stateing price and cimitment of ogb as someine was crying about price of covops and imps to probe them lol