These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

The Perfect Gang Link Solution - Active Projected Boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#21 - 2013-01-17 13:13:34 UTC
On field is the most change I, and what I think people who use command ships would accept

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#22 - 2013-01-21 07:35:54 UTC
On-grid links that don't benefit the large fleets as much as small gangs = win

.
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Alpha Trades
Solyaris Chtonium
#23 - 2013-01-21 15:44:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcorian Vandsteidt
Roime wrote:
This suggestion solves the following problems with gang links:

- brings links on grid without the need to code new mechanics
- nerfs links without making them obsolete, putting all the precious SP in leadership into better use than now
- makes boosting and active and interesting gameplay role in a fleet, instead of being a job for alts
- makes ongrid links more viable for small gangs, promoting upengaging

Links as Projected Assistance Modules

Instead of fire-and-forget system-wide boosts, gang links are turned into normal modules, used just like remote repair, remote sebo and remote ECCM.

The main reasons are the need to kill OGBs and kill boring alt-gameplay. Currently players are excited to fly into combat as fighters, recons, logistics and scouts, but show a single person that wants to be an off-grid booster :D This suggestion would turn a gang booster into a logistics-type (but more complex), very active and vital role in a small gang, and good boosting could mean the difference between winning and losing.

- link fitting requirements are reduced so you can fit a full high rack of links on a CS
- their base stats are bit lower, but can be overheated to be higher
- only one module of a kind can be activated on one ship (so no triple Passive Defense IIs, but as many different links as you can)
- command processor requirement is removed

Range is something that requires careful consideration. I feel it should probably be less than logi and certainly less than EWAR range to enforce tactical decisions instead of just working your boost magic from 100km.

In addition to these targeted high-slot modules, there would ECM-burst style small (<10km?) AOE midslot boosting modules, with similar charge mechanics as ASBs. These would create a short-lived sphere of linky love around the boosting ship. These would be harder to fit and give lesser boosts.

Command ships would need to be adjusted to be able to keep up with their boosted mates, and this would mean removing all their offensive bonuses to keep things in balance.

This obviously favours small gangs, but nothing prevents large fleets to bring a wing of space bards. And it's easy to see that focusing boosting on kingpin ships (logi, tackle) and wings would still yield good results in large fleets.

I like this idea because it brings more complexity into battlefield, more tactical stuff to consider and a new, interesting fleet role using existing base mechanics.


Ẃhat do you think?




This Idea is excellent... For PvP.

However you are forgetting ships like the Orca and the Rorq, and Industrial ships in general and their Large mining fleets. Your proposal Bennefits the Pvpers, however it severely cripples the Industrial individuals.

* Severely Cripples the Orca which only has 3 high slots, (And the Rorq but not as badly as it has 6) as at least one of these slots must be a Tractor beam (generally speaking), and one on the Rorq must be the Industrial recon Mod and another a Tractor leaving only 4 slots for command bonuses. (Which again can only boost one ship each with one bonus thus crippling entire fleets)

* Since the Rorq and the Orca have no mining Capabilities, this effectively Cripples the fleet as you's need 1 Orca for every 2 ships, and one Rorq for every 4 ships. (Less if you want to give each ship mre then one bonus) Which basically makes mining with fleet bonuses pointless and VERY expensive. To effective bonus's with this you would need Fully 75% of the fleet to be Indy Command ships which can't mine. So your income in minerals would fall from 90% to a mere 25%.

**** The above would also increase ship and module prices due to the lower income of minerals. The value of which would skyrocket, You probably talking about a 75% increase in price per ship/Mod/etc. Mineral prices would also Skyrocket, and the Orca and Rorq would see very little use in game afterwords except maybe as Haulers (And in the Rorqs case a compressor).

* Means a Mining Fleet can only consist of 2 - 4 Mining Vessels at most per Orca/Rorq, and only receive 1 Bonus each, (Since you have to target the ship). For most mining fleets this is Impractical at best, and completely useless at worst. The effective ration for Bonus's would need to be 1 -1 or 2-1 (1 Command per One Miner or 2 Command per 1 Miner), making the fleet more command ships then Miners.

* Basically turns the Orca and the Rorq, into a mini freighters instead of an Industrial Command/Capital Ships.

My question to you is:

What do you propose for industrial ships in Order to keep the Orca and Rorq inline with the rest of the command ships, while retaining their cargo capacity as well as their Industrial Command and functions abilities?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#24 - 2013-01-21 16:47:45 UTC
Good point, and I suggest the same as most gang link suggestions do- let Mining links work off grid like currently.

Them being off grid does not cause any unfair situations.

.
Callic Veratar
#25 - 2013-01-21 16:58:14 UTC
They should not ever be targeted modules, as they're designed to support a fleet. However, getting them on grid is important. A smart-bomb style AOE effect for in-fleet ships is (in my mind) the only way to make it work without leaving it to be heavily and strangely manipulated with grid-fu.

Command ships and battlecruisers with 30km AOE fields will enable a reason to have more than one ship with links (to ensure full coverage). Such a change would not necessarily break industry links (they could be given a base 100km range or more to cover a full belt).

Back to the targetted links. Unless they offer massive boosts, 1 command ship and 3 drakes will not be as good as 4 drakes, meaning they'll be underpowered right out of the gate.
Kuro Bon
Test Corp 123
#26 - 2013-01-23 02:27:58 UTC
+1 elegant. Simple. Strategic. Love it.

I especially like the decisions which result. Which tackler gets range and scan res bonuses and from whom?

I think it might make sense to remove or diminish hull boost bonuses with this design. That would make it more difficult to determine which ship was the booster. You'd have to identify it by boost effect visual instead of merely looking at ship types. Command ships can be differentiated by having more utility high slots for these boost modules.

Even if the details are all wrong.. this idea is a winner.

Protip: 100M ISK per hour is about $3US an hour.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#27 - 2013-01-23 03:10:32 UTC
Roime wrote:
Ẃhat do you think?


I'm all for nerfing links, but that's not really exciting to me. I've seen mechanics like that before and they've never really been that pleasant.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-03-19 10:13:42 UTC
I agree with adjusting off grid boosting.... instead of just removing it all together.

But I don't like these ideas.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#29 - 2013-03-19 10:18:38 UTC
I like these ideas, +1!

OP is not only staggeringly handsome, but also smart. Props!

.
Previous page12