These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

To CCP: If OGB is being removed Is there going to be a SP refund?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#241 - 2012-12-13 19:09:15 UTC
No. Any other questions?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#242 - 2012-12-13 19:14:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
I may be late to the party, but that just makes it worse: we're 13 pages in and I still can't find any explanation for why they should refund SP when the skills do the same thing they always did?

Also…
baltec1 wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Xpaulusx wrote:
Gotta laugh at the offgrid "boosting is cheating" excuse.
That excuse, is just a part of their arsenal. They also don't think you should violence people boats, even if the game allows such things. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should apparently.

It must be great playing chess with these types. Lol

Did you just call me of all people a bear...

Of course he did. You cuddly-wuddly little ganker you. Blink
Mistress Lilu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#243 - 2012-12-13 19:35:24 UTC
CCP has found another way to kill SOLO/SMALL gang warfare by playing around with OGB. Now the only people that will have links will be the blobs, where they will dedicate 3 logis for a command ship. THANK YOU CCP FOR ANOTHER POOR DECISION along with your nerf on the ASB and your bs ecm skills that only give 4% and the bs nerf on ecm ships..
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#244 - 2012-12-13 19:38:27 UTC
OGB doesn't change the core mechanic that makes EVE PvP suck. OGB might move the elements from one side to the other but all battles in EVE are pure one sided and the outcome is still Obvious to Vets before the fight occurs.

The smart move for OGB and the smart move for so many things would be to reduce the bonus, not turn it on or off like most of the things in EVE work out to. From scramblers to ECM to everything in the game. It's either on or off, works or doesn't, is dead or never had a risk of being dead.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#245 - 2012-12-13 19:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
Tippia wrote:
I may be late to the party, but that just makes it worse: we're 13 pages in and I still can't find any explanation for why they should refund SP when the skills do the same thing they always did?


The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.

Fortunately, this is EVE, and choices have consequences. Adapt or sell the character to someone who will.

Edit to add:

On the topic of small gang PvP being dead - that's not CCP's fault - it is the fault of the players, and the play styles they choose. There's nothing that CCP could do,mechanics wise, that wouldn't benefit the blob more than it would benefit the small gang, as OGB amply proves. Even if they implemented stupidly limiting edge cases (like no more than 6 people from one fleet can be on a grid for THIS bonus to work), our players are (thankfully) smart enough to find the loophole that let's them skate right past it and still get that bonus.

Small gang PVP isn't dead because of CCP. Small gang PVP is dead because Large Gangs beat Small Gangs 98% of the time, and people just don't like losing, especially in a game.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#246 - 2012-12-13 19:44:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.

Mistress Lilu wrote:
CCP has found another way to kill SOLO/SMALL gang warfare by playing around with OGB.
Not really, no. If they had the links before, they can have them now. If anything, it hits blobs harder since their booster ships will die before logis can do anything and since the effect of the boost scales with the fleet — the bigger the fleet, the more the boosts bring to the field and the harder the loss is felt.

edit: Also…
De'Veldrin wrote:
Small gang PVP isn't dead because of CCP. Small gang PVP is dead because Large Gangs beat Small Gangs 98% of the time, and people just don't like losing, especially in a game.
…this. The problem with small gangs has nothing to do with OGBs — it has to do with the fact that they're small gangs. As such, they will always be at a disadvantage to “the blob” (defiend as “the size of your fleet +1”).
Spurty
#247 - 2012-12-13 19:45:08 UTC
clearly the Nerf comes along with the '10000MN MWD' module you can fit to your pos, so you just MWD your pos to the gate.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2012-12-13 19:45:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.


You are, unfortunately, preaching to the choir.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#249 - 2012-12-13 19:49:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ocih
Tippia wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.



That's a pen and paper statement. Looks good on paper, doesn't work in game. This particular change is an attack on alts. Most mains in EVE are trained to the max in both situation and effect. It's why CCP fail to impact the game for more than a few months with their nerfs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#250 - 2012-12-13 19:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
De'Veldrin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.

You are, unfortunately, preaching to the choir.

Oh, I know.

In a sense, it's just one more aspect of alt-itis. Instead of building a character that can handle whatever you throw at it, it has become customary to get an alt for every specific situation and then be horribly upset when this situation ceases to exist (which can happen with or without CCP intervention). Of course, the notion that one might use these alts as foundations for more general-purpose builds seems entirely lost at this point… Straight

Ocih wrote:
That's a pen and paper statement. Looks good on paper, doesn't work in game. This particular change is an attack on alts.
It works perfectly in-game. If some change accidentally makes single-purpose characters less useful, then that character was poorly built to begin with and it's all because of the bad decisions of the user. Screw alts. The more they get shot in the gut, the better. Now if only someone could come along and feed them some water… Twisted
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#251 - 2012-12-13 19:52:37 UTC
Wouldn't it be interesting if the balancing that is coming with this change made it so that:

1: Command ships (with their now more powerful but limited to 2 gang links) tanked well enough to be highly survivable in fleet fights, and had enough firepower to be common in fleets regardless of whether they had gang links in or not. Meaning you wouldn't automatically know which guy(s) is boosting the fleet.

2: T3's (with their ability to mount 3 links but with less boost) when configured to boost could be fitted to kite really well and move all over the grid faster than most other ships.

At that point really the only people left to complain would be the ones that wanted the advantages of multiboxing in PVP with none of the drawbacks... which come to think about it is pretty much what we are seeing in this thread. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#252 - 2012-12-13 19:54:17 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
Ocih wrote:
Tippia wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.



That's a pen and paper statement. Looks good on paper, doesn't work in game. This particular change is an attack on alts. Most mains in EVE are trained to the max in both situation and effect. It's why CCP fail to impact the game for more than a few months with their nerfs.


The solution is stop having one alt for every individual situation, and train them to cover multiple situations (more generalized) at a time. Then they're less likely to be completely useless after any given nerf.

At any rate, poor planning on the part of the players is, again, not CCP's fault.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#253 - 2012-12-13 19:57:36 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting if the balancing that is coming with this change made it so that:

1: Command ships (with their now more powerful but limited to 2 gang links) tanked well enough to be highly survivable in fleet fights, and had enough firepower to be common in fleets regardless of whether they had gang links in or not. Meaning you wouldn't automatically know which guy(s) is boosting the fleet.

2: T3's (with their ability to mount 3 links but with less boost) when configured to boost could be fitted to kite really well and move all over the grid faster than most other ships.

At that point really the only people left to complain would be the ones that wanted the advantages of multiboxing in PVP with none of the drawbacks... which come to think about it is pretty much what we are seeing in this thread. Smile


I'd be fine with the tank and a secondary Logi role. Shooting stuff and being on Kill Mails was never a high point for me in EVE. Unless CCP make a massive change to the way we lock in PvP, that won't happen. They can't make our ships tank if 200 people can lock it. We would all be flying 20 mill EHP ships.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#254 - 2012-12-13 19:59:26 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Ocih wrote:
Tippia wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.



That's a pen and paper statement. Looks good on paper, doesn't work in game. This particular change is an attack on alts. Most mains in EVE are trained to the max in both situation and effect. It's why CCP fail to impact the game for more than a few months with their nerfs.


The solution is stop having one alt for every situation, and train them to cover multiple situations (more generalized) at a time. Then they're less likely to be completely useless after any given nerf.

At any rate, poor planning on the part of the players is, again, not CCP's fault.

Not to mention that people that follow this "looks good only on paper" advice are never the people crying bitter tears over logical and needed game changes.

Apparenlty it works well on more than just paper. Blink

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#255 - 2012-12-13 20:01:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Ocih wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting if the balancing that is coming with this change made it so that:

1: Command ships (with their now more powerful but limited to 2 gang links) tanked well enough to be highly survivable in fleet fights, and had enough firepower to be common in fleets regardless of whether they had gang links in or not. Meaning you wouldn't automatically know which guy(s) is boosting the fleet.

2: T3's (with their ability to mount 3 links but with less boost) when configured to boost could be fitted to kite really well and move all over the grid faster than most other ships.

At that point really the only people left to complain would be the ones that wanted the advantages of multiboxing in PVP with none of the drawbacks... which come to think about it is pretty much what we are seeing in this thread. Smile


I'd be fine with the tank and a secondary Logi role. Shooting stuff and being on Kill Mails was never a high point for me in EVE. Unless CCP make a massive change to the way we lock in PvP, that won't happen. They can't make our ships tank if 200 people can lock it. We would all be flying 20 mill EHP ships.

You might keep in mind that those 200 pilots need to be able to do more than just lock it. It needs to be in range of their guns and not have a transversal so high that they cannot track it.

Both of which are relatively easy to achieve in this day and age where extreme range snipers are considered obsolete.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2012-12-13 20:01:42 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Not to mention that people that follow this "looks good only on paper" advice are never the people crying bitter tears over logical and needed game changes.

Apparenlty it works well on more than just paper. Blink


The only alts I have that are built just for one situation are my cyno alts. And that's only to keep their skill points under the 900k limit for the free clones.

(People will pod cyno pilots for some reason.)

And honestly, I'd be so happy at NOT needing them to move capitals, I wouldn't care if CCP made them useless.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#257 - 2012-12-13 20:03:51 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Ocih wrote:
Tippia wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.



That's a pen and paper statement. Looks good on paper, doesn't work in game. This particular change is an attack on alts. Most mains in EVE are trained to the max in both situation and effect. It's why CCP fail to impact the game for more than a few months with their nerfs.


The solution is stop having one alt for every situation, and train them to cover multiple situations (more generalized) at a time. Then they're less likely to be completely useless after any given nerf.

At any rate, poor planning on the part of the players is, again, not CCP's fault.


Now you are preaching to the choir. Blink

Four mains, all trained in all 4 races, ships and guns. I can't be nerfed. Every nerf CCP has implemented in the last 3 years gave me an advantage. For all the wrong reasons. I have more money to spend in EVE than most.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#258 - 2012-12-13 20:12:43 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
So wait, my interceptor should automatically lose skirmish bonuses as soon as I warp after an enemy I want to tackle for my gang?
Seems pretty dumb to me.
Better fix: disallow activation of gang links in warp, disallow activation of gang links within a certain distance of POS shields, and bloom signature radius by several hundred percent while gang links are active (alternatively reduce cut sensor strength and scan res by 90% or thereabouts, would probably be a better solution to avoid boosters taking ridiculous amounts of damage from capital weapons).
The result: making OGB vulnerable and really easy to find.

It is not possible to activate gang links in warp already. I am for being a substantial distance out of a pos shield to activate them. Increasing signature radius would penalize those who are on the battlefield. Sensor strength reduction to make is easier to prob is nice, but everyone at a safe spot with boosters spams the directional scanner so much it would make worm hole dwellers say, "God damn!" Also those on the battlefield would become perma jammed the whole fight by a couple light ECM drones.

I would be more for the sensor strength change if ECM had a completed overhaul or all EW drones were removed until the EW overhaul.

Yeah, I used to suggest the signature radius thing until I realized that would be unfair to on-grid boosters, but eh. The signature radius/scan resolution thing would probably be better.
I don't think dscanning is a problem, really. If someone with a booster in a safe spots someone probing them down and decides to cloak or warp off, their gang links will disengage until they uncloak or warp is completed..
As far as ECM goes... I think you really shouldn't need to lock anything when you're in a fleet command ship. What I think does need to change is removing the need to be able to lock a target in order to broadcast it to your fleet.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mistress Lilu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#259 - 2012-12-13 21:20:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
The real problem, as I see it, is the entitlement complex. "They" spent all this time training this particular skill set to fit a particular situation. Now that CCP is removing that particular situation, "they" feel like they are owed those skill points back, since they wouldn't have trained those skills had the situation been like CCP wants to make it in the first place.
Probably.

Solution: don't train for situations — train for effects. The effects are still there and as useful as ever.

Mistress Lilu wrote:
CCP has found another way to kill SOLO/SMALL gang warfare by playing around with OGB.
Not really, no. If they had the links before, they can have them now. If anything, it hits blobs harder since their booster ships will die before logis can do anything and since the effect of the boost scales with the fleet — the bigger the fleet, the more the boosts bring to the field and the harder the loss is felt.

edit: Also…
De'Veldrin wrote:
Small gang PVP isn't dead because of CCP. Small gang PVP is dead because Large Gangs beat Small Gangs 98% of the time, and people just don't like losing, especially in a game.
…this. The problem with small gangs has nothing to do with OGBs — it has to do with the fact that they're small gangs. As such, they will always be at a disadvantage to “the blob” (defiend as “the size of your fleet +1”).

Do you ever play the game or are you like the biggest forum troll in eve.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#260 - 2012-12-13 21:26:27 UTC
Mistress Lilu wrote:
CCP has found another way to kill SOLO/SMALL gang warfare by playing around with OGB.


Have been doing small gangs for six years without OGB.