These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fleet Boosting, A discussion:

Author
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-08-10 22:30:00 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Boosting characters are often highly trained alts, in feeble ships. This change would eliminate much of the time and training that went into making the alt.

Because this game just needs more alts, right? There's no reason to promote this behavior, except from a business standpoint, which oftentimes does not equate good game design policy.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Offgrid boosters are often still engageable. You can scan them down and kill them. And if they are in a POS, you can destroy the POS.

And how many hours are you planning to spend destroying the POS to get rid of the booster(s)?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Offgrid boosters are often in capital ships... It's not pragmatic to risk a carrier, rorqual, or titan for the benefit of a home defense fleet.

Too many capitals in-game anyway. The more of them get blown up, the better.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Offgrid boosters are widely used in group PvE, Home defense, and fleet warfare. Removing them will be a huge blow to leadership oriented characters, which are under-appreciated enough as is!

I thought you said these were all alts anyway?

Honestly, off-grid boosting simply promotes risk aversion, the proliferation of alts, and allows people to do "solo" PvP without being really solo.

If a fleet wants the bonuses of fleet boosting, then they'd better be willing to risk the termination of those assets. Just like if you want logistics ships, you have to risk losing them.

And yes, most of the command ships are a little too easily destroyed. Just make it so that the command ships can tank very well and be able to do a decent amount of damage, but not so much that they overwhelm other ships.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#42 - 2012-08-10 22:47:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cadfael Maelgwyn wrote:

Honestly, off-grid boosting simply promotes risk aversion, the proliferation of alts, and allows people to do "solo" PvP without being really solo.


Very few people actually do "solo" PVP booster + single combat ship V single combat ship, not to say that no one does it but most people who run links in solo or very small gang configuration do it so they can take on bigger numbers and stand a chance i.e. the popular active tanked gate camping maelstrom which will typically be looking to engage hideously outnumbered, kiting setups like garmon runs, etc.
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-08-10 22:58:54 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Cadfael Maelgwyn wrote:

Honestly, off-grid boosting simply promotes risk aversion, the proliferation of alts, and allows people to do "solo" PvP without being really solo.


Very few people actually do "solo" PVP booster + single combat ship V single combat ship, not to say that no one does it but most people who run links in solo or very small gang configuration do it so they can take on bigger numbers and stand a chance i.e. the popular active tanked gate camping maelstrom which will typically be looking to engage hideously outnumbered, kiting setups like garmon runs, etc.

It's still stupid, no matter how many or how few people do it.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#44 - 2012-08-10 23:06:21 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
If you can't bring an off grid boost so doesn't someone else witch brings everyone at the same level if you have to bring them on grid. Just make more friends.

B-blobbing ?!

Blobbing is a players behaviour, not the game's fault. In whatever pvp game numbers matter and you know it as well or better than I do.
Off grid boosting is bad for the game, is bad for everyone starting by CCP. Fake accounts were not, are not and will never be good for them neither on the long run.

Meh, the fake accounts pay for sub too.


Indeed, this was a bad statement from meh, but at the same time I can't think about this without asking why the hell shouldn't people play with other people instead of alts in a fecking MULTIPLAYER game?
The fac old and bad mechanics aloud this doesn't prove it's healthy for the game by any means specially in such important roles like Command ships/logisitcs/dictors or even caps/supers/titans.
You should be able to do those with your main character without being so heavily penalised (pods cost/docking with supers/titans) and having alts for this should just be a little plus but not a requirement as it is now witch brings metagaming that is no good for the game in the end.

Quote:
But if fleets needed more boosting characters because of (Command ship made better than T3) and (on grid boosting only) there's be a bunch of accounts that would also need months-long training and so on, so it might help.


Completely agree with your statement, for a while it can be a problem for some teams the time they get enough characters with command skills however, it's not like if CCP didn't announced for a while now the tiericide chances so people could train ASAP at least primary required kills for at least lvl1 command ships. (new players it's another thread)

I do not liek the feeling I have to buy an alt account because if I don't have one I'm 50% efficient for most activities in game, this is not a free choice but a penalising consequence "must have because" the neighbour does etc.
I think it's much better to strongly promote first the team play with real people behind their computer and then multiboxing or alts but with heavy consequences meaning if you have to choose in between looking for friends or just pick an alt, you'd rather take some time to find new friends because this should be at first of everything else a social experience.

brb

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#45 - 2012-08-10 23:57:10 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Completely agree with your statement, for a while it can be a problem for some teams the time they get enough characters with command skills however, it's not like if CCP didn't announced for a while now the tiericide chances so people could train ASAP at least primary required kills for at least lvl1 command ships. (new players it's another thread)

New players I don't really think would be looking at fleet boosting *just yet*.
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I do not liek the feeling I have to buy an alt account because if I don't have one I'm 50% efficient for most activities in game, this is not a free choice but a penalising consequence "must have because" the neighbour does etc.
I think it's much better to strongly promote first the team play with real people behind their computer and then multiboxing or alts but with heavy consequences meaning if you have to choose in between looking for friends or just pick an alt, you'd rather take some time to find new friends because this should be at first of everything else a social experience.

Yes, but also no. Sometimes small scale coordination (boosting alt, your cynos) is better done by yourself.

Now if you're thinking of the famous and totally true "CFC bot fleets" ... yeah that's just silly. Even if PVP is just "blobbing and F1" I don't think people go out and multibox 3 Drakes for a fleet, it's just not worth it.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Kalla Vera Quiroga
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#46 - 2012-08-11 00:12:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalla Vera Quiroga
Isn't it ironic that miners are demanded to fit tanks for ganks but if you demand a fleet booster Tech3 to fit tank then they would collapse to tears because their cookie cutter boosting fit crumbles and would no be longer viable? Like, you could fit two different T3s with different links and get their full bonus, why is considered having one ship exclusively for boosting every link balanced?
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-08-11 00:26:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kattshiro
Weren't T3's meant to boost one link really well? Not rainbow it?

Really boosting as a whole needs to be looked at. Not just the proximity. Allow the fleet to have multiple boosters so long as they're not the same link. Furthermore general hud info should only display the class and race of ship not the specific ship its self without a specialized mod. Command ships with this could broadcast this info to the rest of their fleet/squad, and provide other useful info. Adds another layer of gameplay/fitting.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#48 - 2012-08-11 00:44:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
I agree with OP pros and cons especially the "not fun" part.

Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.

By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.


Remove boosting from POS, and keep the fact that a booster can be scanned. Eventually, do something like disabling warp ability for X minuts after activating links, so that an ennemy scan ship has a chance to find the booster.

If the booster is well prepaired (aka sig radius / sensor strength thing + implants, fittings and months to skill properly), a well prepaired ennemy scanship will be required (skill and scan implants to get a 100%). Here is your balance.


And anyway, this is a situation where the two sides can have same bonuses in same conditions, I see no point at changing it.

That's not because a ship is receiving heals and damages that the game becomes fun.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#49 - 2012-08-11 01:22:12 UTC  |  Edited by: MadMuppet
I've said it in the other weakly threads on the issue. On-grid boosting is like asking the pilots of an AWACS aircraft to engage in a dogfight with other fighter aircraft. http://www.opinion-maker.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nato_AWACS_and_USAF_F16_fighter_aircraft.jpg They should only need to be in the system. If a booster pilot is just sitting AFK and throwing bonuses then he is not doing his job (counter scanning, directional scan checks, alternate safe spot positioning, etc...).

The off-grid ship can be scanned down and hunted, but after a lot of thought I think that being able to hide inside a POS shield and still throw a bonus is a bit unfair. It would be like saying an AWACS aircraft can hide in an reinforced aircraft shelter and still be able to do its job. Sure it could sit 'just outside' of the shield and work, but if trouble shows up and it runs inside and hides.... no more bonus.

The one part of the 'kill the off-grid bonus' crowd that always seems to get ignored by the haters.... they could always bring their own, but that would require training time or recruiting talent.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#50 - 2012-08-11 16:46:03 UTC
MadMuppet wrote:
I've said it in the other weakly threads on the issue. On-grid boosting is like asking the pilots of an AWACS aircraft to engage in a dogfight with other fighter aircraft. http://www.opinion-maker.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nato_AWACS_and_USAF_F16_fighter_aircraft.jpg They should only need to be in the system. If a booster pilot is just sitting AFK and throwing bonuses then he is not doing his job (counter scanning, directional scan checks, alternate safe spot positioning, etc...).

The off-grid ship can be scanned down and hunted, but after a lot of thought I think that being able to hide inside a POS shield and still throw a bonus is a bit unfair. It would be like saying an AWACS aircraft can hide in an reinforced aircraft shelter and still be able to do its job. Sure it could sit 'just outside' of the shield and work, but if trouble shows up and it runs inside and hides.... no more bonus.

The one part of the 'kill the off-grid bonus' crowd that always seems to get ignored by the haters.... they could always bring their own, but that would require training time or recruiting talent.


When you fit a 6 link t3 ship with no tank... I can accept this... But I don't rarely are people actually playing a role with these ships... they are far more often just moving them into system and parking them in a safe-ish place...
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
#51 - 2012-08-11 16:51:46 UTC
Whats with the group-think on the forums.

Someone makes a topic, then everyone else has to make a thread on the same topic.

It's like you're all robots getting your robot directives at the start of a week.

"This week you'll complain about miners."

"This week you'll complain about boosting"

You could at least consolidate into a single thread on the same subject.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#52 - 2012-08-11 17:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
MadMuppet wrote:

The one part of the 'kill the off-grid bonus' crowd that always seems to get ignored by the haters.... they could always bring their own, but that would require training time or recruiting talent.


There are other ways to deal with it to i.e. if they bother you that badly and your regularly fighting a corp/alliance that makes good use of gang boosters you could do things like infiltrate that corp and give intel on things like which pilots are in squad leader positions (kill them, break bonuses) or less subtly give a warp in on the gang booster. Or move the fight to another system where they don't have their POS'd booster alt, etc. etc. while difficult its also possible to catch a nullified, hard to scan link ship at gates, etc. with a bit of luck, effort and skill.

If you want a fair fight, or wanting to fight without having to be creative, think outside the box, etc. your definitely playing the wrong game.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-08-11 17:19:26 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Completely agree with your statement, for a while it can be a problem for some teams the time they get enough characters with command skills however, it's not like if CCP didn't announced for a while now the tiericide chances so people could train ASAP at least primary required kills for at least lvl1 command ships. (new players it's another thread)

New players I don't really think would be looking at fleet boosting *just yet*.
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I do not liek the feeling I have to buy an alt account because if I don't have one I'm 50% efficient for most activities in game, this is not a free choice but a penalising consequence "must have because" the neighbour does etc.
I think it's much better to strongly promote first the team play with real people behind their computer and then multiboxing or alts but with heavy consequences meaning if you have to choose in between looking for friends or just pick an alt, you'd rather take some time to find new friends because this should be at first of everything else a social experience.

Yes, but also no. Sometimes small scale coordination (boosting alt, your cynos) is better done by yourself.

Now if you're thinking of the famous and totally true "CFC bot fleets" ... yeah that's just silly. Even if PVP is just "blobbing and F1" I don't think people go out and multibox 3 Drakes for a fleet, it's just not worth it.



I know a guy doing it frequently with 5 Drakes Blink not meh of course.

brb

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#54 - 2012-08-11 21:15:59 UTC
Kattshiro wrote:
Weren't T3's meant to boost one link really well? Not rainbow it?

Really boosting as a whole needs to be looked at. Not just the proximity. Allow the fleet to have multiple boosters so long as they're not the same link. Furthermore general hud info should only display the class and race of ship not the specific ship its self without a specialized mod. Command ships with this could broadcast this info to the rest of their fleet/squad, and provide other useful info. Adds another layer of gameplay/fitting.


This is a good idea...
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#55 - 2012-08-11 22:01:02 UTC
Altrue wrote:


Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.

By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.



I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#56 - 2012-08-11 22:13:42 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.

By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.

I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ?

Plus, the chances you'll be primary are very high!

It's exciting !

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#57 - 2012-08-11 23:04:33 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sheynan wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.

By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.

I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ?

Plus, the chances you'll be primary are very high!

It's exciting !


I think this depends on the size of the fleet battle.... In small to medium gangs (<20), CS's are rarely called primary....
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#58 - 2012-08-11 23:26:40 UTC
1. Keep off-grid boosting
2. Change each racial command ship to have two bonuses, their main racial at 5% and a secondary at 3%
3. Change t3 to allow only a 3% bonus to any booster type.
4. Using links balloons sig radius, making it easier to scan down.
5. Cant boost in POS shields. (shields could possibly vanish in POS update anyway from CSM minutes)
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2012-08-11 23:49:49 UTC
Kalla Vera Quiroga wrote:
Isn't it ironic that miners are demanded to fit tanks for ganks but if you demand a fleet booster Tech3 to fit tank then they would collapse to tears because their cookie cutter boosting fit crumbles and would no be longer viable? Like, you could fit two different T3s with different links and get their full bonus, why is considered having one ship exclusively for boosting every link balanced?


the difference is that boosting in a paper-thin T3 isn't really an income activity

Twitter: @EVEAndski

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

Nicholas Tong
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-08-11 23:51:29 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sheynan wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.

By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.

I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ?

Plus, the chances you'll be primary are very high!

It's exciting !


Then you'd want to bring a lot of **** that gets primary, arazus, falcons, vagabonds, tornados, logis, SBs right? But nobody is going to hit any of these but the 100k+ EHP sitting away from the fight. And here I though goondrones knew any better.