These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why We Should Support Off Grid Boosting

Author
Ohishi
Apocalypse Reign
#221 - 2013-06-24 03:08:08 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:


Next up, highsec income.
If high sec income is so out of whack, then why do you goons even bother being in 0.0?

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.

Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#222 - 2013-06-24 04:09:28 UTC
Well maybe a good idea, is to allow off grid boosting, but giving it smaller bonuses than on grid boosting. That way you uphold the risk-reward formula, without feeling that there is nothing you can do about removing a big advantage off the enemy. In this manner you also make command ships the better ships in overall boosting, since they have the ability to come on grid and actually take a few shots. T3 will be the ships for offgrid boosting keeping their niche role, but providing only like 1/3 or 1/2 boosts (whatever is deemed as balanced).


Another modification is to make the boosting ships not give benefits to all members of the fleet at the same rate , but diminishing bonuses as you have more members in the fleet, but at the same time having more cumulative bonuses. That way blobs will operate a little less efficiently than small gang. The change in boosts should be small, as not to make the extra numbers useless, but only a little bit less effective. I know you could get around this by having more boosters and more fleets, but that is a lot of extra effort.
Disclaimer: This might be a bad idea, maybe I am not seeing all the angles.

Just to add to the numerous similar responses, boosting is going to change one way or another. In its current state it is just bad gameplay mechanics that hardly adds to meta. CCP devs more than once said clearly that they don't like it. The question is not "if" but only "how" and "when".
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#223 - 2013-06-24 05:22:45 UTC
Benjen Gelade wrote:
The Fair Argument

In competitive gaming 'pay to win' is typically frowned upon. However CCP has made OGB available to all players in EVE via their 'pay to win' mechanism, which makes it ok. Anyone can subscribe an extra account with them, and train up a boosting alt to provide a risk free combat advantage (and actually quite a massive advantage at that). If players do not wish to wait to train the alts, they can purchase plex, and sell this for in game isk, and purchase a boosting alt on the character bazaar.


Benjen Gelade wrote:
The Curbstomp while Outnumbered Argument

It is easy in eve to change a 10 vs 15 fleet fight into the equivalent of a 40 vs 15 curbstomp. All you need is the OGB force multiplier (and you can use this force multiplier at absolutely no risk). The reason why this is a really good thing for the game is because it provides really good content. It is really cool seeing an outnumbered fleet curbstomp a larger group of pilots on youtube, so CCP should definitely not nerf OGB. If anything, make it more of an advantage. Pilots without links will complain, but most pros agree, they need to just deal with it.


More than a year, still laughing at how people bring the second argument after basically undoing it with the first.
Nycodemis
National Institute of Mental Health
#224 - 2013-06-24 08:15:16 UTC
So I can't help but wonder if this is going to be like learning skills. Everyone that's trained the leadership skills gets SP back and everyone in the game gets the now-missing boosts added by some yet-to-be-coded method.

Anyway...

Anyone thinking a Rorq, Orca or any other ship offering benefits to others should be effectively invulnerable needs a reality check. Risk versus Reward is basically part of the game's title.

Perhaps a compromise...

1) No gang links active inside a forcefield. Something about the POS' shield harmonics, divide by zero, blah, blah.
2) Gank links grossly increase the sig size of a ship when active. it stands to reason that something so effective would have a pretty easily traceable signature.
3) Decrease effectiveness of gang links based on range. On-grid = Full Effect. Off-grid = 75% effectiveness MAX. It gets worse the further out you are from the fleet. Energy naturally dissipates. Max off-grid % negotiable, the point is; If you want good boosts, bring it in closer.
4) Pilots boosting for extended periods of time suffer from exposure. This results in decreased agility, increased lock times, decreased targeting range, lower max velocity, E.D. and sterility. Shocked

Lulz... just kidding about #4, though maybe some of those would float someone's boat.

In short, all or nothing isn't going to work. People aren't happy with the current system and there's too much invested to remove it completely. Being unable to see that indicates more problems with the player than the mechanics.
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#225 - 2013-06-24 12:21:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Aramatheia
balance ogbs

have them unable to affect anything through a pos shield. so they cant just hide and be 100% safe

have them equally if not slightly easier to scan down. allow them to stay off grid but easier to find, perhaps impart a warp drive limitation on a ship with active link mods like limited cool off period before a warp can be initiated and reduced ship flight speed with active links (cant insta warp if found)

Since pretty much every argument against ogbs is relative to pvp, making them go on grid in pvp means theyre just going to be primaried off the field, whats the point? No one can deny it, thats why theres such an up in arms about how OP they are. But with some smart tweaks they can remain off the battlefield, but still vulnerable to a smart and prepared enemy.

Maybe it might make things slightly more enjoyable having small dedicated hunter groups chasing ogbs disrupting boosts affecting the main fleets as they go toe to toe in open war? sure sounds more fun and logical than "full fleet kill the x booster ok now back to the usual"
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#226 - 2013-06-24 12:23:13 UTC
Nycodemis wrote:
So I can't help but wonder if this is going to be like learning skills. Everyone that's trained the leadership skills gets SP back and everyone in the game gets the now-missing boosts added by some yet-to-be-coded method.

Anyway...

Anyone thinking a Rorq, Orca or any other ship offering benefits to others should be effectively invulnerable needs a reality check. Risk versus Reward is basically part of the game's title.

Perhaps a compromise...

1) No gang links active inside a forcefield. Something about the POS' shield harmonics, divide by zero, blah, blah.
2) Gank links grossly increase the sig size of a ship when active. it stands to reason that something so effective would have a pretty easily traceable signature.
3) Decrease effectiveness of gang links based on range. On-grid = Full Effect. Off-grid = 75% effectiveness MAX. It gets worse the further out you are from the fleet. Energy naturally dissipates. Max off-grid % negotiable, the point is; If you want good boosts, bring it in closer.
4) Pilots boosting for extended periods of time suffer from exposure. This results in decreased agility, increased lock times, decreased targeting range, lower max velocity, E.D. and sterility. Shocked

Lulz... just kidding about #4, though maybe some of those would float someone's boat.

In short, all or nothing isn't going to work. People aren't happy with the current system and there's too much invested to remove it completely. Being unable to see that indicates more problems with the player than the mechanics.




Gang links should only work on grid and should not increase your ship abilities as it does today. Ship abilities improvements should come from players skills and fittings, some small benefits for fleeting up like targeting range and agility why not, everything else is way too powerful and significant game changer.

OGB ability needs to be removed, on grid links need to get nerf to the ground.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Ohishi
Apocalypse Reign
#227 - 2013-06-25 00:35:50 UTC
Gank... err gang links have been in the game for a long time. As a fleet booster alt I do not want to see them completely nerfed or removed. The problem all stems from the T3 5% per level and the hard to probe nature of them. If you bring the T3 bonus down to 2% per level it will not surpass the 3% per level the command ships get. That to me would be a very fair trade if OGB is really as hard to code to bring them on grid as people are making it out to be. 5% per level was broken from the start when they introduced command subs. It's like CCP doesn't understand the math they are putting into game, or T3 were only supposed to be able to carry 1 link and they forgot to nix the ability to fit command processors on a T3.

BC only get one link, unless they fit a CP, which greatly nerfs the CP dual link BC. T3 have no nerf because they can SR/SIG tank probes. Unless you are a max skill planted probe character you will not find the T3. I know because I am also a max skill probe alt. In all reality I should not exist. My skill sheet should not be the way it is and OGB is very bad for game play.

Home system advantage, get a probe alt, buy a OGB booster yourselves is not the answer to the problem.

BUT BUT BUT, small gang warfare will die without OGB..... Guess what, that fleet you can go 1 V 1000 with OGB, they have 10 OGB with them. It is not a defense anymore. The time has come for CCP to just straight up nerf the T3 command processor subs. They were talking about it a long time ago. Why it hasn't happened yet I don't know. They will not lose millions of subs and they will survive the ax of the OGB/T3 nerf.

By now you have probably seen my hilarious damnation losses and are thinking to yourselves, noob. Yes, I am, but I put my **** on the line like everyone else should have to as well. Plus, it is actually hard to 6 box PvP. Sleepers, yeah they easy. Real people, drunk against them with ISBoxer is hard. But I digress. Nerf the command sub CCP, you are our only hope.

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2013-06-25 02:36:15 UTC
Benjen Gelade wrote:

In EVE it is not convenient for miners to use mining boosts on grid. The only way for them to mine properly is for them to have a Rorqual provide boosts, at zero risk, from inside POS shields. It is totally unreasonable to ask them to risk in game assets. Everybody in the know agrees on this.


That's why there are New Order Mining Indulgences. You wouldn't want your precious orca or rorqual to be "at risk" would you?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Ghazu
#229 - 2013-06-25 05:29:13 UTC
what kind of dogshite logic is it to even propose allowing OGB for mining but not for combat?

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#230 - 2013-06-25 06:30:56 UTC
Ghazu wrote:
what kind of dogshite logic is it to even propose allowing OGB for mining but not for combat?

Well, if you can accept it for one, then ...

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 ?

Dakor Istamer
Perkone
Caldari State
#231 - 2013-08-05 19:44:08 UTC
Honestly its another Dynamic of the game there are ups and downs

1. thews that wine that its not good to have off grid boosting is because they are the ones loosing there ships crying because they were not the ones paying attention and did stupid things

2 if were going to change the off grid for combat Let the on-grid booster be Cloak able there is no reason otherwise to change from what we currently have it works and as the old saying goes Don't Fix what is not broken


as the comment that a fully trained booster to the max gives as much as 2 officer Mods (what crack are you smoking )
the Boosts only Give a % of what you have so Yes you are correct if you have like 3 officer mods on your ship then yes its like having 1-2 more but that's why some one payed over 10 billion of isk and 2-3 months of there time training the booster and spending the 4-800M isk to keep the alt Up to par with the others out there
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#232 - 2013-08-05 20:02:20 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Benjen Gelade wrote:
The Fair Argument

In competitive gaming 'pay to win' is typically frowned upon. However CCP has made OGB available to all players in EVE via their 'pay to win' mechanism, which makes it ok. Anyone can subscribe an extra account with them, and train up a boosting alt to provide a risk free combat advantage (and actually quite a massive advantage at that). If players do not wish to wait to train the alts, they can purchase plex, and sell this for in game isk, and purchase a boosting alt on the character bazaar.


Benjen Gelade wrote:
The Curbstomp while Outnumbered Argument

It is easy in eve to change a 10 vs 15 fleet fight into the equivalent of a 40 vs 15 curbstomp. All you need is the OGB force multiplier (and you can use this force multiplier at absolutely no risk). The reason why this is a really good thing for the game is because it provides really good content. It is really cool seeing an outnumbered fleet curbstomp a larger group of pilots on youtube, so CCP should definitely not nerf OGB. If anything, make it more of an advantage. Pilots without links will complain, but most pros agree, they need to just deal with it.


More than a year, still laughing at how people bring the second argument after basically undoing it with the first.

Confirming that we are not constantly broadcasting to get more LOKI BOOSTERS in flleet.

And actually leaving with LOKI BOOSTERS in fleet.

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 ?

Verra Keyne
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2013-08-06 00:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Verra Keyne
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If two forces of different size are fighting each other, and the boosting can only be done on-grid, then the larger force gets a significant advantage over the smaller force, because:

1. the larger force is more able to defend its boosting ships due to being able to proportionally field more logistics
2. the larger force is more able to attack the smaller force's boosting ships because its superior DPS overpowers them quicker
3. the larger force, by its very nature, is more able to field backup boosting ships to immediately replace the ones lost due to enemy action

These three factors combined would make smaller forces objectively worse off when fighting larger ones, and that is on top of having a numerical disadvantage, than they are today.

So, if you advocate on-grid boosting, you're basically saying "I like to blob my enemies, and it would be nice if CCP made it so that I could blob my enemies more efficiently. Please, CCP, change this mechanic so that I am able to use my organization's superior numbers to an even greater advantage over smaller parties. Creating such a disincentive to small-scale pvp would really help me further my own goals at the expense of the game as a whole."


I agree with this.
But, this is EVE. It's not fair, and attempting to make it fair is just bad.
So you have a smaller force? Make allies. Run bomber fleets. Don't play into the enemies plan - stand down or avoid the fight. You have options, and asking CCP to change the game so you can "win" shouldn't be one of them.

Yes, I'm training to be a command ship pilot and I look forward to risking my ass..ets on the field with the rest of my fleet.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2013-08-06 00:52:44 UTC
Benjen Gelade wrote:
It is totally unreasonable to ask them to risk in game assets.


The rest of the OP was really long, and while I did read it, to address everything on a point-by-point basis would be uselessly wordy when I can just address the core premise to all your arguments, which is the line I have posted.

If you're playing EVE with the mindset that it is ever unreasonable to risk in-game assets, then you're playing the wrong game. You seem to be arguing that it's up to CCP to provide the mechanics that mitigate this risk for you. It's not, it's up to you whether or not the risk is worth it, and then it's up to you to mitigate that risk as you see fit. For example, learn a bit of grid-fu and how to keep a Rorq 1000km away and still be on grid.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#235 - 2013-08-06 03:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
I, uh, think he was being ironic or something.

Also, people can probe out the rorq during it's 5 minute long cycle, grid-fu or not. They obviously won't just warp to the belt at 0 and expect to find it there, they'll warp straight to it at 0.

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 ?

grrlet
Leper Outcast Unclean
#236 - 2013-08-06 03:18:19 UTC
My brain totally derailed while reading this thread with the thoughts of once they remove OGB, if they added cute little command frigates to allow those l33t "solo" pvp3rs to maintain the boost that their l33t "solo" pvp needs.

COMMAND FRIGATES FTW!!!!!!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#237 - 2013-08-06 03:23:05 UTC
T3 frigates with excessive command boosts.

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 ?

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#238 - 2013-08-06 03:52:57 UTC
Yummy Chocolate wrote:
Where were you when they announced Off-Grid boosting will be booted in the head?

Quote:
'pay to win'


Check your facts. there's only Pay To Play and Pay To Lose in EVE Online. THE WIN IS A LIE.

on a serious note: I too support off-grid boosting FOR SOLO OR SMALL GANGS, UP TO 4 OR 5 CHARACTERS IN ONE FLEET. bigger fleets should not get off-grid boosts. If you can manage that, CCP, you win 9,001 internet.


What will prevent your enemy from fielding 10 5 man fleet with boosters to face up your 5 man with booster fleet? Ah ****, your cahnge just made tehm use what they already have more of than you, organisation.

Logical Chaos wrote:


Then question yourself the following: Who will be hurt more when OGB is removed: The 100man gang that can easily field a Command Ship or the solo/small gang pvper? So whats the outcome? I'm eager to hear about that!


See above. The side with better preparation/organisation deserve to win.
Dr Silkworth
#239 - 2013-08-06 04:06:42 UTC
I agree we should keep OGB. Admit I haven't read the rest of the thread but I have an opinion I haven't seen voiced in previous similar threads.

OFF Grid Boosting is a balancing component of a general boosting scheme. The other is the current ON Grid Boosting. The conversation should center around balance rather than elimination.

Off grid boosts are mostly defensive in character. The possible exception being Skirmish for its boosts in Offense. But even Skirmish has many defensive aspects such as reduced target radii and kiting abilities which end up as defensive.

On grid we already have a system. Most are offensive in nature. These are readily deployed with cheap disposable boats of the ECM and Logistical Varieties. ON Grid we have a dual balance of defensive and offensive with things like tracking links and remote sensor boosters balancing tracking disruptors and ecm or damps for instance.

The balance instead of teetering on a balance like a seesaw is more complex. It has to form a stable triangular base to keep one from over-tipping. It has to hold position almost like a gyroscope can remain static in unnatural positions.

Our on grid boosts are very cheap both skill wise and isk wise. Our offgrids are very expensive in those manners also. They also take complimentary skills, one being strategic and another piloting. THere is a lot of balance already in place, IT does not need destroyed but there is some room for tuning. I also see some room for adding to it on the OFF GRID side with some more offensive boosts besides skirmish and targeting speed

What are the current ON grid counters to the Off Grid system? Are they complete and balanced? and in what ways? Most important, What would a winning/successful boosting system look like when it was done?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#240 - 2013-08-06 04:22:10 UTC
Dr Silkworth wrote:
I agree we should keep OGB. Admit I haven't read the rest of the thread but I have an opinion I haven't seen voiced in previous similar threads.

OFF Grid Boosting is a balancing component of a general boosting scheme. The other is the current ON Grid Boosting. The conversation should center around balance rather than elimination.

Off grid boosts are mostly defensive in character. The possible exception being Skirmish for its boosts in Offense. But even Skirmish has many defensive aspects such as reduced target radii and kiting abilities which end up as defensive.

On grid we already have a system. Most are offensive in nature. These are readily deployed with cheap disposable boats of the ECM and Logistical Varieties. ON Grid we have a dual balance of defensive and offensive with things like tracking links and remote sensor boosters balancing tracking disruptors and ecm or damps for instance.

The balance instead of teetering on a balance like a seesaw is more complex. It has to form a stable triangular base to keep one from over-tipping. It has to hold position almost like a gyroscope can remain static in unnatural positions.

Our on grid boosts are very cheap both skill wise and isk wise. Our offgrids are very expensive in those manners also. They also take complimentary skills, one being strategic and another piloting. THere is a lot of balance already in place, IT does not need destroyed but there is some room for tuning. I also see some room for adding to it on the OFF GRID side with some more offensive boosts besides skirmish and targeting speed

What are the current ON grid counters to the Off Grid system? Are they complete and balanced? and in what ways? Most important, What would a winning/successful boosting system look like when it was done?


What you consider on grid boosting is remote assistance and EWAR. All of those are targetted making them much less powerfull when you consider how large a fleet can be. Most of the EWAR also has it's own counter directly on grid right now so there is no reason to balance it all with off grid boosting. There is no reason why something with such a potential impact on a fight should be able to stay away from the fight itself.