These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

A Couple Simple Changes to Off-Grid Boosting

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-08-19 20:32:55 UTC
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/08/a-couple-simple-changes-to-off-grid.html

On-grid boosting is a technical hurdle for CCP. So the idea of off-grid boosting is likely not going to change anytime soon, if ever.

There are a couple changes that could be made to off-grid boosting, that would limit it's abuse. One change should be fairly simple to implement, the other might be a tad more involved.

Scale Boosting to Fleet Size
Give only a proportion of the boosting bonus dependent upon the number of people in fleet.

Set some number to be the baseline at which 100% of boosting bonuses are received by a fleet. Let's say that number is 50, a full wing. If a fleet only has 2 members in it, then the boosting bonus given to both members if 2/50th (1/25th) of the maximum. If there are 27 people in fleet, then the boosting bonus is 27/50th of the maximum.

This change would limit the viability of using off-grid boosters for small-gang (and 1v1) battles.

Forcefield Proximity
Off-grid boosting is non-functional if the boosting ship is on-grid with a forcefield. (The technical reason would be interference.)

This eliminates risk-free POS boosting, and limits AFK boosting. Boosting ships can now be scanned down and killed.

***

Thoughts? I'm not sure the viability of either suggestion, but on the face of it, they seem to solve two problems with off-grid boosters. Do these changes do what they are intended to do? Or, are there simple ways around them?
Drinking Ethanol
Integrity Holdings
#2 - 2012-08-19 20:43:38 UTC
Scaling with group size is pretty silly tbh. Command ships etc are meant to be force multipliers, how is implementing a minimum force size for a force multiplier a good idea?

Scaling strength proportional to group size also encourages blogging.


Imho an inverse scale is a cool idea, 1-5 gang members, 100% down to 10% at 100 gang size, bring different sized forces into balance. E.g. 10 pilots * 1.0 links vs 100 * 0.1 links == 10.
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#3 - 2012-08-19 21:04:28 UTC
There is nothing wrong with off grid boosting.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#4 - 2012-08-19 21:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
In before Diesel47. If you want a halfway measure - then simply introduce a new ship that has a role bonus for nullifiying bonuses. Pick your favorite hull. Mine would be a second destroyer for each race. If you're on grid - it's just a reduction. If you're off grid it's a complete nullification. Balance is restored to the force. Yay! Roll
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#5 - 2012-08-19 23:30:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
What exactly would these technical hurdles be? Any sources?

As far as I remember, one problem was the way shield HP boosts were applied since they'd briefly lose grid with their booster when warping and would have had to recharge over and over again after each warp. That problem is gone for a while now.

I agree there may be problems with Grid-Fu, however it shouldn't be a problem to have boosts only apply within an invisible 200 km radius bubble.

Since the server doesn't seem to have much of a problem with running 'warp/can't warp' checks on warp interdiction bubbles even if there are literally 100's of them in a system, running the checks on 'receives boost/ doesn't receive boosts' can't be that hard.

Stopping ganglinks from being activated within POS-shields can't be that hard either, although I'm not sure if it's necessary depending on the rumours about new POSes not having shields anymore being true.

Edit: Considering your proposal: The problem with your first point is that people would probably evade that by just breaking down into multiple smaller fleets.
However, it would make it harder to organize the gangs and nullsec blobsheep would actually have to learn to warp themselves, so not the worst idea I've read - should probably be implemented for ongrid boosters once offgrid boosting is gone.

Considering the POS interference: Using grids as a limit is always a bad idea, as grids can easily be manipulated. Moreover, it would render proper boosting (i.e. ongrid) non-viable for fights taking place at POSes - so people would be actually forced to boost from off grid - bad idea.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-08-20 00:11:08 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
What exactly would these technical hurdles be? Any sources?
Everytime CCP/CSM talk about it. CCP hasn't stated what the hurdles are exactly, but why believe they don't exist?

I've got no problem with off-grid boosting ... except from within a POS. That's simply risk-free and lame.

To force them away from a POS is fine ... and it creates new roles within large-scale battles, that of small gangs of probers dedicated to finding the boosters and taking them down. The wider the variety of activities necessary to be successful in large-scale battles, the better, I figure.
Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-08-20 00:27:36 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
What exactly would these technical hurdles be? Any sources?
Everytime CCP/CSM talk about it. CCP hasn't stated what the hurdles are exactly, but why believe they don't exist?

I've got no problem with off-grid boosting ... except from within a POS. That's simply risk-free and lame.

To force them away from a POS is fine ... and it creates new roles within large-scale battles, that of small gangs of probers dedicated to finding the boosters and taking them down. The wider the variety of activities necessary to be successful in large-scale battles, the better, I figure.


One of the issues I suppose CCP has is to do with mining bonuses etc and I'd imagine the game treats them exactly the same as other kinds of bonuses.

While having a combat ship on grid makes perfect sense changing the code would likely force roquals etc into the belt which would get slightly messy Big smile
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#8 - 2012-08-20 00:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
What exactly would these technical hurdles be? Any sources?
Everytime CCP/CSM talk about it. CCP hasn't stated what the hurdles are exactly, but why believe they don't exist?


I didn't say I believe they don't exist, I'm just curios what they are and making the hurdles public can't hurt - parts of the community are quite ressourceful and it could probably help finding a solution more quickly.

Quote:
I've got no problem with off-grid boosting ... except from within a POS. That's simply risk-free and lame.

To force them away from a POS is fine ... and it creates new roles within large-scale battles, that of small gangs of probers dedicated to finding the boosters and taking them down. The wider the variety of activities necessary to be successful in large-scale battles, the better, I figure.


Well - I have a problem with offgrid boosting since it's just as risk free and lame.

I triple box on a regular basis (not offgrid boosting - despite having two characters who'd be capable of doing it, I simply don't - it's for the same reaon I don't use falcon alts).
However among the combinations I use is a Loki that's not even (formerly) unprobable, but still quite hard to probe thanks to the hg halo set I use on that character. Running three clients on three screens, I have not once ran into even being close to be probed down thanks to proper use of dscan.

If I was offgrid boosting, I'd use sensor strength implants which yield a better sigradius/sensor strength ratio for less isk and the worst thing that could happen to me if I had a bunch of probers on me would be more or less constantly warping around and setting up new safes or cloaking up if it gets too annoying, which would both effectively nullify my boosting alt.

However, It would still be essentially risk-free.

[edit]:

Thomas Kreshant wrote:


One of the issues I suppose CCP has is to do with mining bonuses etc and I'd imagine the game treats them exactly the same as other kinds of bonuses.

While having a combat ship on grid makes perfect sense changing the code would likely force roquals etc into the belt which would get slightly messy Big smile



Yeah - but then Stanziels proposal would make even less sense since they typically boost from withing POS shields - doubt a sieged Rorqual on a safe would survive for long if a gang moves through =).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-08-20 01:50:56 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Yeah - but then Stanziels proposal would make even less sense since they typically boost from withing POS shields - doubt a sieged Rorqual on a safe would survive for long if a gang moves through =).
But ... what about proper use of d-scan and hopping about between safes?
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#10 - 2012-08-20 02:01:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Yeah - but then Stanziels proposal would make even less sense since they typically boost from withing POS shields - doubt a sieged Rorqual on a safe would survive for long if a gang moves through =).
But ... what about proper use of d-scan and hopping about between safes?



Roll
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-08-20 02:37:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Yeah - but then Stanziels proposal would make even less sense since they typically boost from withing POS shields - doubt a sieged Rorqual on a safe would survive for long if a gang moves through =).
But ... what about proper use of d-scan and hopping about between safes?
Roll
Yeah yeah yeah sieged Rorqual.

Why does a Rorqual need to be sieged to provide it's boosts, whereas other ships do not? (Actually wondering, I'm not a mining guy, thus my suggestion takes into account nada about mining.)
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#12 - 2012-08-20 03:31:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Poetic Stanziel wrote:


Why does a Rorqual need to be sieged to provide it's boosts, whereas other ships do not? (Actually wondering, I'm not a mining guy, thus my suggestion takes into account nada about mining.)



You'll have to ask CCP - not sure if it needs to be sieged to provide a bonus or just to compress ore - I hardly ever mined. Wouldn't matter much if it's sieged, because with that sigradius it would yield a warpable result pretty much instantly.

I even wouldn't have so much of a problem with safespot-boosting if T3 boosting had never been introduced - command ships are easily probed down.

But close to unprobable, warpcore-stabbed, interdiction nullified, cov ops cloaked 4-link offgrid boosters with a bonused probelauncher whilst being quicker to train than command ships and offering a better bonus are gamebreaking batshit-insane.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-08-20 03:45:52 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
But close to unprobable, warpcore-stabbed, interdiction nullified, cov ops cloaked 4-link offgrid boosters with a bonused probelauncher whilst being quicker to train than command ships and offering a better bonus are gamebreaking batshit-insane.

I'm surprised that boosting while cloaked is allowed. That's crazy. Cloaking interferes with everything but boosting? That's nuts. Boosting becomes more risk-free by the minute.

I don't want to make it ridiculously dangerous for boosters, but neither should you be able to park and AFK a booster. If it's going to supply battle bonuses, it should be vulnerable to that battle, even when off-grid.
Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-08-20 03:52:29 UTC
1st I've heard about being able to be cloaked while boosting. I know that once you activate your cloak, the boosts turn off (or finish that cycle) as does every other module you're running.

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-08-20 04:03:44 UTC
Garr Earthbender wrote:
1st I've heard about being able to be cloaked while boosting. I know that once you activate your cloak, the boosts turn off (or finish that cycle) as does every other module you're running.
I misread something. I kept reading people talking about cloaked T3 boosters. I was under the impression that you couldn't be cloaked to boost, but a few comments got me confused on the issue.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#16 - 2012-08-20 04:13:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
But close to unprobable, warpcore-stabbed, interdiction nullified, cov ops cloaked 4-link offgrid boosters with a bonused probelauncher whilst being quicker to train than command ships and offering a better bonus are gamebreaking batshit-insane.

I'm surprised that boosting while cloaked is allowed. That's crazy. Cloaking interferes with everything but boosting? That's nuts. Boosting becomes more risk-free by the minute.

I don't want to make it ridiculously dangerous for boosters, but neither should you be able to park and AFK a booster. If it's going to supply battle bonuses, it should be vulnerable to that battle, even when off-grid.


Even for me, some attempts at trolling are just too dumb to post a proper response.

I know your blog, I know you fail, but even you can't possibly be that stupid.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-08-20 04:26:43 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
But close to unprobable, warpcore-stabbed, interdiction nullified, cov ops cloaked 4-link offgrid boosters with a bonused probelauncher whilst being quicker to train than command ships and offering a better bonus are gamebreaking batshit-insane.

I'm surprised that boosting while cloaked is allowed. That's crazy. Cloaking interferes with everything but boosting? That's nuts. Boosting becomes more risk-free by the minute.

I don't want to make it ridiculously dangerous for boosters, but neither should you be able to park and AFK a booster. If it's going to supply battle bonuses, it should be vulnerable to that battle, even when off-grid.


Even for me, some attempts at trolling are just too dumb to post a proper response.

I know your blog, I know you fail, but even you can't possibly be that stupid.
I misread something. I kept reading people talking about cloaked T3 boosters. I was under the impression that you couldn't be cloaked to boost, but a few comments got me confused on the issue.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#18 - 2012-08-20 06:26:50 UTC
Here is a simple way to fix off grid boosting. When you are off grid all you get is basic leadership boosts. When you are on grid you get the full shebang. Links, hardwirings.. Seems simple to me.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
drunk asfck
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-08-20 11:41:45 UTC
Nothing wrong with ogb

will all the whineing pansys just play the damn game and stop b1tching
Nicholas Tong
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-08-25 10:40:41 UTC
Did we need to make another thread?

Anyway, grid manipulation, theres a big grey area on this subject related to OG boosting.
12Next page