These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Off-Grid Boost Compromise - Signature Radius

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#21 - 2013-06-21 14:46:07 UTC
The problem with killing OGB completely is that a lot of specific tactics and operations get a severe hit. And I really don't like POS bubbles. They're just like the safety of a station but without the timers. While POS shields are a completely different thread, I do believe some forms and situations need OGB too much for it to die completely. I think a mix of increased sig and a weapons timer might be a start in a good direction. Also switching the bonuses of T3s with command ships like the debs had proposed. I think that even if the boosts are off-grid it would provide a fun (in my opinion) way for a smaller squad of tackle/probers to chase down the CS and try to kill it. Similar to the way modern military/police/emergency response all have command vehicles. Not necessarily directly in the fighting but nearby enough for enemy combatants to hunt down and kill.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#22 - 2013-06-21 14:53:00 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I do believe some forms and situations need OGB too much for it to die completely.


Could you provide examples of what forms or situations need off grid boosters please?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2013-06-21 14:54:54 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I do believe some forms and situations need OGB too much for it to die completely.


Could you provide examples of what forms or situations need off grid boosters please?


Mining.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#24 - 2013-06-21 15:01:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I do believe some forms and situations need OGB too much for it to die completely.


Could you provide examples of what forms or situations need off grid boosters please?


Mining.


I've commented on this in many other threads although I believe the solution to mining is in altering the mining ships to make them viable on grid rather than keeping them as off grid boosters.

So, the only exception is mining? If so, that's not enough reason to leave all off grid boosters functioning, really, if off grid boosters are causing all the problems people say they are.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#25 - 2013-06-21 15:18:08 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Making booster's easier to scan down won't help nearly enough! POSes, Gate hugging, station Hugging, etc... are all means to circumvent the "dangers" to the boosting ships:


If you want a compromise:

a.) Reduce t3 warfare link bonus's to be less potent than command ships (nerf to 2% rather than 5% per level).

b.) Move mindlinks from the boosting character to the boosted character... i.e., to get that extra 50% mindlink boost to skirmish warfare link - interdiction manuevers warfare link, the Arazu pilot needs to be implanted with the Skirmish Mindlink, NOT the booster pilot!



Can't take your POS around with you, doesn't take much to force a gate or station hugging command ship to jump/dock or bump them out of range and kill them - most are relatively lightly tanked, same result they lose links.

Moving mindlinks to the recieving character is ridiculous.



I fully acknowledge that mindlinks are in short supply, and this would need to be remedies given my proposal. However, Assuming they increase the supply of mindlinks, why is it ridiculous?

Currently, a claymore boosting Skirmish Interdiction manuevers gives a 32% increase to point range w/out minlink. On a t2 pt, that results in an extra 7-10 kms. For that inty pilot get that last 16% boost (another 3-5 km's), make the inty pilot plug in the mindlink!

  • This makes leadership skills more useful to the general pilot (who currently doesn't need them, but gains the full benefits from an alt with them... wtf).
  • The mindlinks themselves are useful to anyone in a leadership position, even if not in a "boosting ship". For example, the Siege Mindlink increases the standard 10% shield boosts to 15%. These essentially act as +5% implants already, so it's not like they are "useless" when not coupled. Likewise, Armor boosts armor +5%, Skirmish boosts agility +5%, and Info boosts targetting range +5%.
  • Name an implant that gives +10% to any ship attribute? Mindlinks, when coupled, will give your ship a 10-20% bonus to three attributes, making them potent implants to anyone that can fit them.

    • There are two reasons I can think of why you would think this is ridiculous:
    A.) They are already in short supply, and if this is NOT addressed, they would be impractical to use (mining mindlinks are already 1b isk without every miner needing to plug one in a mindlink).

    B.) Mindlinks have high skill requirements (Cyber V, Warfare Specialist V). I could see an argument to reduce their requirements to Cyber V and Warfare Specialist III or some such, making them easier to train into. At the same time, this puts focus on a skillset that isn't Int/Mem or Per/Will, that a specialized combat pilot should desire. I think that would be a good thing!
    Samillian
    Angry Mustellid
    #26 - 2013-06-21 15:23:53 UTC
    Mining doesn't need off-grid boosting.

    Its nice to have the bonuses but mining can still be profitable without them, while I was a miner (a long time ago true) I did well enough without them. If mining cannot function profitably without OGB then there is something wrong with it as a profession and it needs to be looked at.

    As with anything in EvE if you want the gain you should risk the pain, no exceptions.

    NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #27 - 2013-06-21 15:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
    Malcanis wrote:
    Tchulen wrote:
    Rowells wrote:
    I do believe some forms and situations need OGB too much for it to die completely.


    Could you provide examples of what forms or situations need off grid boosters please?


    Mining.


    *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

    Miners don't "need" OGB. An Orca can be on grid and boost just fine.

    The Rorqual doesn't NEED to be Off Grid, instead it needs to be rebalanced so it can function on grid! (like allow it to perform all it's ore compression and boosting without going into "siege" mode.)

    People rat in carriers, supercarriers, and mulitbillion isk pimped out tengu's, machariels, nightmares, etc, etc, etc... you think miners can't manage putting blingy ships at risk?
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #28 - 2013-06-21 16:12:30 UTC
    I think the main point I wanted to make was that this needs to be taken in steps. As OGB has abilities removed from it, affected doctrines and ships are balanced and changed along with it. So instead of a sudden change that ends up needing to be reworked and re-balanced later on as problems arise, we bring it down to a point where we find the balance on the first go around. I don't believe such a drastic change in such a short time is a good idea.

    For instance, we could start with POS boosting and the ships negatively affected by that (yes I'm talking about the Rorqual). Next would be aggro/weapons timers and after that is increased sig etc. etc.
    Soldarius
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #29 - 2013-06-21 20:40:54 UTC
    OGB is just ******** for PvP. Stay aligned, pay attention, and you will never get caught even if they have a max skilled prober trying to find you. The only ship that has any chance what-so-ever of actually catching an attentive OGB is a stealth bomber decloaking because w/o covert cloak they will see you landing on grid and everything else covert has a sensor recalibration delay that gives the booster plenty of time to click warp.

    In consideration of boosting for mining, I would not mind seeing all cap-ships that currently can fit links to continue to do off-grid boosting. So you either sit at a stationary location in a defensive posture or put your very expensive ship at risk. Sub-caps would have to be on-grid.

    http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
    Rroff
    Antagonistic Tendencies
    #30 - 2013-06-21 21:08:33 UTC
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    I fully acknowledge that mindlinks are in short supply, and this would need to be remedies given my proposal. However, Assuming they increase the supply of mindlinks, why is it ridiculous?

    Currently, a claymore boosting Skirmish Interdiction manuevers gives a 32% increase to point range w/out minlink. On a t2 pt, that results in an extra 7-10 kms. For that inty pilot get that last 16% boost (another 3-5 km's), make the inty pilot plug in the mindlink!

  • This makes leadership skills more useful to the general pilot (who currently doesn't need them, but gains the full benefits from an alt with them... wtf).
  • The mindlinks themselves are useful to anyone in a leadership position, even if not in a "boosting ship". For example, the Siege Mindlink increases the standard 10% shield boosts to 15%. These essentially act as +5% implants already, so it's not like they are "useless" when not coupled. Likewise, Armor boosts armor +5%, Skirmish boosts agility +5%, and Info boosts targetting range +5%.
  • Name an implant that gives +10% to any ship attribute? Mindlinks, when coupled, will give your ship a 10-20% bonus to three attributes, making them potent implants to anyone that can fit them.

    • There are two reasons I can think of why you would think this is ridiculous:
    A.) They are already in short supply, and if this is NOT addressed, they would be impractical to use (mining mindlinks are already 1b isk without every miner needing to plug one in a mindlink).

    B.) Mindlinks have high skill requirements (Cyber V, Warfare Specialist V). I could see an argument to reduce their requirements to Cyber V and Warfare Specialist III or some such, making them easier to train into. At the same time, this puts focus on a skillset that isn't Int/Mem or Per/Will, that a specialized combat pilot should desire. I think that would be a good thing!


    The way I see it a leadership char is trained up to give buffs, I know eve doesn't have character classes like other games but I see it as the job of that char to be doing the leadership stuff and other chars shouldn't have to do anything special other than be in the proper fleet positions. The other issue is quite a lot of people like to PVP with cheap or empty clones so you either have a situation where a lot of people just won't fit them due to the cost, making it silly devoting the time and effort needed to train up a char for boosting or so cheap everyone fits one which comes back to the situation we have now. Or another possibility where if they are fairly pricey people with them will be disinclined to use that character when boosting chars aren't available.

    The main problem is the recons which in combination with the relevant gangboost and their own bonus get stupidly over the top bonuses to ewar but nerfing that hits ships without bonuses making the links not very effective on a smaller scale, reduce the recon bonus tho and they become a bit silly without links. One possibly solution would be to have ganglinks have stacking penalties with ship bonuses but thats potentially very complex and likely to have other issues of its own.
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #31 - 2013-06-21 21:41:04 UTC
    Rroff wrote:
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    I fully acknowledge that mindlinks are in short supply, and this would need to be remedies given my proposal. However, Assuming they increase the supply of mindlinks, why is it ridiculous?

    Currently, a claymore boosting Skirmish Interdiction manuevers gives a 32% increase to point range w/out minlink. On a t2 pt, that results in an extra 7-10 kms. For that inty pilot get that last 16% boost (another 3-5 km's), make the inty pilot plug in the mindlink!

  • This makes leadership skills more useful to the general pilot (who currently doesn't need them, but gains the full benefits from an alt with them... wtf).
  • The mindlinks themselves are useful to anyone in a leadership position, even if not in a "boosting ship". For example, the Siege Mindlink increases the standard 10% shield boosts to 15%. These essentially act as +5% implants already, so it's not like they are "useless" when not coupled. Likewise, Armor boosts armor +5%, Skirmish boosts agility +5%, and Info boosts targetting range +5%.
  • Name an implant that gives +10% to any ship attribute? Mindlinks, when coupled, will give your ship a 10-20% bonus to three attributes, making them potent implants to anyone that can fit them.

    • There are two reasons I can think of why you would think this is ridiculous:
    A.) They are already in short supply, and if this is NOT addressed, they would be impractical to use (mining mindlinks are already 1b isk without every miner needing to plug one in a mindlink).

    B.) Mindlinks have high skill requirements (Cyber V, Warfare Specialist V). I could see an argument to reduce their requirements to Cyber V and Warfare Specialist III or some such, making them easier to train into. At the same time, this puts focus on a skillset that isn't Int/Mem or Per/Will, that a specialized combat pilot should desire. I think that would be a good thing!


    The way I see it a leadership char is trained up to give buffs, I know eve doesn't have character classes like other games but I see it as the job of that char to be doing the leadership stuff and other chars shouldn't have to do anything special other than be in the proper fleet positions. The other issue is quite a lot of people like to PVP with cheap or empty clones so you either have a situation where a lot of people just won't fit them due to the cost, making it silly devoting the time and effort needed to train up a char for boosting or so cheap everyone fits one which comes back to the situation we have now. Or another possibility where if they are fairly pricey people with them will be disinclined to use that character when boosting chars aren't available.

    The main problem is the recons which in combination with the relevant gangboost and their own bonus get stupidly over the top bonuses to ewar but nerfing that hits ships without bonuses making the links not very effective on a smaller scale, reduce the recon bonus tho and they become a bit silly without links. One possibly solution would be to have ganglinks have stacking penalties with ship bonuses but thats potentially very complex and likely to have other issues of its own.


    My suggestion doesn't prevent a leadership char from giving buffs, it just requires both the leadership toon and the "receiving toon" to be trained up to receive MAX buffs. Furthermore, this doesn't prevent a character from "PvP'ing" in an empty or cheap clone. It simply means that clone is less effective than if it was implanted. We have this now, as I can put a slave set in my pod and significantly boost the effectiveness of my ship, or I can choose not to.

    As for availability, I'd hope their supply/demand curve would place them somewhere betwen +3% and +5% (25-150m isk). Does this mean they will be pricey for that dictor pilot to plug in? Sure, but a recon pilot should easily accept that!

    And to be frank, it's not the coupling of Recon bonuses and Booster bonuses that are obnoxious. Frankly, a 100km point or 100km web one a few very dedicated fleet roles generally doesn't break the game. Most recons can easily be countered (damps), jams, etc..

    It's Condor that moves 30% faster, has 50% more tackle range, has 50% more EHP, all while using an empty clone and a completely safe Booster alt sitting in a POS elsewhere that is game breaking!
    Hakaimono
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #32 - 2013-06-22 01:41:53 UTC
    T3s and CSs stay on-grid.
    OGB should be strictly for capitals and supercaps.
    Risk vs Reward sustained.
    Previous page12