These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Off grid boosting alts trying to evade the nerfbat
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2012-08-15 08:45:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Off grid boosting should not exist


From the CSM meeting minutes. I wholeheartedly approve of this zero tollerance approach. The off grid boosting alts are nervous though. We see them on the forums now posting suggestions on how to "balance" off grid boosting, on how to reach a "reasonable compromise", how off grid boosting is "good for the game" or "good for CCP" and other sorts of amusing rationalizations. It's reminiscient of the panic caused by the Falcon ECM range reduction and gives us insight into human psychology.

Anyway, I'm here to take a closer look at some of the rationalizations. There are roughly:

1st argument: "If off grid boosting is no longer possible, then small gangs won't have gang links anymore."

No ****, they were designed to be that way. Bringing a fully fledged fleet booster only makes sense for gangs of a certain size.

Besides stating the obvious, command ships and battlcruisers can easily fit a gang link while maintaing good combat strength. You'll just have to make some choices.


2nd argument: "Removing off grid boosting will hurt solo and small gang pvp."

The existence of off grid boosting divides the playing field into two groups: those who have an off grid booster and those who don't. The first group is massively advantaged. This is not good for the health of solo and small gang PvP.

Removing the advantage will level the playing field and allow more players to compete on even ground (and that's precisely what some of these off grid boosting alts are afraid of).

Addendum: a popular variation of this argument is "gang links let us fight the blob". While gang links are a force multiplier, it goes both ways: a gang without an off grid booster is heavily disadvantaged when facing an equally sized gang with such a booster.


3rd argument: "Off grid boosting is good for CCP's wallet"

First, let's put this into perspective: this is thinly disguised and selfish "I'll quit if you nerf my off grid boosting alt" blackmailing.

For us players who don't have access to CCP's statistics, it's impossible to know whether this will harm or benefit subscription numbers.

That said, I doubt that the type of player keeping an off grid boosting alt will stop using a second account. They want every advantage they can get, and even with off grid boosting removed, there are so many ways a second account remains useful. Personally I'm convinced that in the long term, it will be an extremely positive change for the game.


4th argument: "Off grid boosting is not wrong per se"

Off grid boosters directly influence the outcome of a battle without ever being present on grid. Every other ship in EVE must be present on grid to do the same (the one exception are fighters, but they can be shot down). Off grid boosting is clearly outside of the normal combat paradigm.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-08-15 08:59:32 UTC
off grid boosting alts should be the communal portapotty of the EVE community.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#3 - 2012-08-15 09:10:11 UTC
While I'm all for removing off-grid gang links it would have to be preceded by balancing the different command ships first. The Damnation can get a whole lot more EHP than the Vulture and while I fly Amarr that still not "fair".
Whadafool
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-08-15 09:10:19 UTC
you have my sword...... i mean yeah i agree

stuff
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#5 - 2012-08-15 10:13:42 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:


1st argument: "If off grid boosting is no longer possible, then small gangs won't have gang links anymore."

No ****, they were designed to be that way. Bringing a fully fledged fleet booster only makes sense for gangs of a certain size.

Besides stating the obvious, command ships can easily fit a gang link while maintaing good combat strength. You'll just have to make some choices.


Mr. Yamamoto, promoting blobbing since 2012

.
Togg Bott
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-08-15 10:16:31 UTC
agreed the whiners..ooops PRO-OFF GRID supporters are making the exact same arguments that the falcon alt pilots and the nano pilots made.

and yes i DO fly command ships..be on grid or not be effective.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-08-15 10:33:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Roime wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:


1st argument: "If off grid boosting is no longer possible, then small gangs won't have gang links anymore."

No ****, they were designed to be that way. Bringing a fully fledged fleet booster only makes sense for gangs of a certain size.

Besides stating the obvious, command ships can easily fit a gang link while maintaing good combat strength. You'll just have to make some choices.


Mr. Yamamoto, promoting blobbing since 2012



Just a variation of the "off grid boosting is good for small gangs" delusion.

What really promotes blobbing is the ****** attitude of being averse to combat on an even playing field. That's the same motivation that drives people to use off grid boosting too.

So yes, I have no doubt that some players who are incapable of adapting will resort to blobbing when they can't get an advantage through their off grid boosting alts anymore.

The rest will just adapt and get over it.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-08-15 11:02:45 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
What really promotes blobbing is the ****** attitude of being averse to combat on an even playing field.



Strategically, the playing field is even by definition. Tactically, an "even" field is an error.

That said, off-grid effects shouldn't exist. But that's got nothing to do with "fair" or "even".
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Doomheim
#9 - 2012-08-15 12:06:39 UTC
Yes, off-grid fleet boosting should be removed.

But the different command ships do need to be balanced.

Just look at the fitting issues with the Nighthawk.
Jack Murdoc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-08-15 12:25:42 UTC
It's easy, really. Change the price, and rebalance the command ships accordingly. Make it cheaper than a T2 cruiser hull, reduce their defensive capabilies and make them decent offensive ships with on-grid boosting capabilities far better than BC's.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#11 - 2012-08-15 12:26:55 UTC
Contrary to the common belief, blobs (which by definition is any gang that is +1 pilot bigger than your own) are actually born from large organisations. Would you split your forces, if you had 50 guys on tap every night? Or enjoy the success and power that numbers bring? Do you really demand they display ehonoure and ballsyness by purposefully risking getting blobbed, when they have the option to counterblob?

A is a 200-man alliance, and they want to go out for some pew with their matesmatesmates. After 1.5 hours of desperate efforts of forming up, their fleet is 15 pilots, 20 Guardians and a couple of fleet command ships.

B is a 10-man corp, who have been roaming around all this time in their 6-guy "fleet", happily pewing their space enemies in similar gangs, supported by an OGB alt played by the FC who also triples as the scout and logii.

A & B meet, B are happy to engage as the links will improve their chances to get some kills and not get instapwned by the A blob.

Remove OGB, and the engagement never happens, because now the blob not only has the numbers, but also the boosts, until in 2014 when B have finally caved in and joined a large blobiance so they can blob against other blobs, because blobbing is the only way to blob and not get blobbed in EVE Blobline, because it's good game design to increase the blob superiority by making links viable only for blobs.






.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-08-15 12:30:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Roime wrote:
A is a 200-man alliance, and they want to go out for some pew with their matesmatesmates. After 1.5 hours of desperate efforts of forming up, their fleet is 15 pilots, 20 Guardians and a couple of fleet command ships.

B is a 10-man corp, who have been roaming around all this time in their 6-guy "fleet", happily pewing their space enemies in similar gangs, supported by an OGB alt played by the FC who also triples as the scout and logii.

A & B meet, B are happy to engage as the links will improve their chances to get some kills and not get instapwned by the A blob.


And C decides to blob because it stands no chance against B otherwise, while D decides it would rather stay docked than fight B. This is why B has no choice but to engage blobs because other targets are scarce.

It's the same bullshit as with Falcon alts. Everybody had to have a Falcon alt because everbody else had a Falcon alt. The Falcon alt apologists used the exact same justification too "we need it to fight the blob!".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#13 - 2012-08-15 12:35:32 UTC
Boosting alts, pff…

Real pilots have 15M leadership SP on their mains. P
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#14 - 2012-08-15 12:36:03 UTC
I agree, offgrid boosting is a bad mechanic. But your rationale against the 2nd argument is flawed...

Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Anyway, I'm here to take a closer look at some of the rationalizations. There are roughly:

2nd argument: "Removing off grid boosting will hurt solo and small gang pvp."

The existence of off grid boosting divides the playing field into two groups: those who have an off grid booster and those who don't. The first group is massively advantaged. This is not good for the health of solo and small gang PvP.

Removing the advantage will level the playing field and allow more players to compete on even ground (and that's precisely what some of these off grid boosting alts are afraid of).


The existance of Falcons divides the playing field into two groups...
The existance of RR divides the playing field into two groups...

Most specialty ships divide the field into the haves and have nots, if one side "haves not". The side that doesn't have the specialty ships relied on poor intel when they engaged.

The only thing that will allow small gangs to compete on a level playing field would be 2 opposing FCs looking for good fights instead of just hunting, or some sort of arena setting.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-08-15 12:36:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrin Stella Oerndotte
Why not just make off grid gang links ineffective? That way the whole fleet boost chain won't be disrupted because one wing commander or squad leader is off grid due to split fleet or whatever.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2012-08-15 12:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
War Kitten wrote:
I agree, offgrid boosting is a bad mechanic. But your rationale against the 2nd argument is flawed...

The existance of Falcons divides the playing field into two groups...
The existance of RR divides the playing field into two groups...

Most specialty ships divide the field into the haves and have nots, if one side "haves not". The side that doesn't have the specialty ships relied on poor intel when they engaged.


I think you're wrong in making this comparison. Recons and logistics actually need to be piloted to be effective. An off-grid fleet booster is more like a passive bonus that mostly doesn't participate in combat.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#17 - 2012-08-15 12:52:10 UTC
Why not instead of nerfing off-grid boosting, increase the incentive to put them on-grid?

Take the Damnation for an example:
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity and 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level

Command Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to armor hitpoints
3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored Warfare Links per level
4% bonus to effectiveness of Armored Warfare Links per level for ships on the same field of play(aka grid)

Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need. Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#18 - 2012-08-15 13:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Roime wrote:
A is a 200-man alliance, and they want to go out for some pew with their matesmatesmates. After 1.5 hours of desperate efforts of forming up, their fleet is 15 pilots, 20 Guardians and a couple of fleet command ships.

B is a 10-man corp, who have been roaming around all this time in their 6-guy "fleet", happily pewing their space enemies in similar gangs, supported by an OGB alt played by the FC who also triples as the scout and logii.

A & B meet, B are happy to engage as the links will improve their chances to get some kills and not get instapwned by the A blob.


And C decides to blob because it stands no chance against B otherwise, while D decides it would rather stay docked than fight B. This is why B has no choice but to engage blobs because other targets are scarce.

It's the same bullshit as with Falcon alts. Everybody had to have a Falcon alt because everbody else had a Falcon alt. The Falcon alt apologists used the exact same justification too "we need it to fight the blob!".


C "blobs" (remember the first rule, +1 fleet size is always a blob) because while they have only 10 more members in corp, they are thriving with high motivation and participation levels, are organized enough to be able to form the fleet quickly and have inspiring FCs. Obviously they can't just leave 15 random guys docked up because fleet A is smaller.

D stays docked because while of similar size, a major chunk of them are in a different timezone, including their logis and FCs.

Alternatively, C are failfaggots and D cowards. It's always your own fleet that is just the right size, right Blink

.
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-08-15 13:08:06 UTC
Jack Murdoc wrote:
It's easy, really. Change the price, and rebalance the command ships accordingly. Make it cheaper than a T2 cruiser hull, reduce their defensive capabilies and make them decent offensive ships with on-grid boosting capabilities far better than BC's.

I think you're taking the exact wrong approach.

Command ships should be super tanky, have decent firepower, and boost.

That way they can actually survive being shot at, since they're definitely the next target after ECM and Logi.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2012-08-15 13:20:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caldari 5 wrote:
Why not instead of nerfing off-grid boosting, increase the incentive to put them on-grid?
Because between choosing to risk losing the ship and its fleet-wide benefits (for a damnation, that can easily equate to millions of HP on the field across even a small subcap fleet) and not having those benefits go away three seconds into the fight, anyone with a bit of sense will choose the latter.

You'll have to take into consideration that these are prime targets that will be evaporated once the numbers go up. The on-grid benefits would have to be ridiculously large to outweigh that and that completely breaks them at the lower-end of the fleet size spectrum.

brain-barf edit: …in fact, in a sense, if you'd want to go that way, the solution would probably have to be rather backwards: you reduce the boost they give overall so that losing one won't make that much difference, but then we immediately go into “so why bring one?” territory. I suppose you could fix that issue by making them generally appealing to fly for anyone, even the fleet CSes, so that the actual boosters can hide in the crowd of all those other people flying the same ship, only those others have filled up all their highs with tons of weaponry instead of command modules.
123Next pageLast page