These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Klown Walk
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2013-08-01 22:23:28 UTC
That "nerf" is not enough.
i'myour goddess
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#282 - 2013-08-01 22:31:01 UTC
yes the idea of ridding the game of links is something that could bring a new future......

Cavalira
Habemus
#283 - 2013-08-01 22:32:54 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.


Honestly, you're right.
Maelgar
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#284 - 2013-08-01 22:33:00 UTC
delete them and give me back the SP I have in leadership for the links.... nom nom.
Raging Beaver
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2013-08-01 22:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Raging Beaver
The whole idea is very nice but I think the overall bonuses of the combat links should be nerfed much more. In my perfect eve there are no combat links at all, but as this would cause a rage of epic proportions I understand it won't happen (or maybe...some day...), therefore, I'd say the maximum overall bonus of each link should never exceed 15%.

T3 boosters - these should have no link strength bonus at all, the fact that they can remain off grid, get there with virtually no risk, be nearly impossible to probe down and have multiple links running should be quite enough.

The suggestion that came up a couple of times in this thread that a booster ship should inherit timers from the ships it's boosting is also a very good one (however this should apply only once the links are running). Want to have a booster to help you suicide-gank in highsec? Say goodbye to the booster. Want to keep a CS on undock while boosting a fight on the gate? Sorry, can't dock until weapon aggro passes. Seems pretty fair to me - maybe indirectly, but the ship is taking a part in the fight. Logistic ships get the aggro, why shouldn't the booster be affected as well?

As for the suggestions to introduce a distance from the POS shield where the links can be started - pointless - what will stop such a booster from staying aligned to a tower and warping in there at the first sign of threat?

Also - Fozzie - thank you for a healhy dose of leet-peeveepee tears, all of a sudden they feel threatened? Aren't their superior skills (...of getting the booster alt into the system) enough? Oh, and please hurry with the elimination of off-grid boosting (grids need to be fixed first, eh?).
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#286 - 2013-08-01 22:38:13 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
Cearain wrote:


Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs:

Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses

Making links much cheaper.

Power grid for links reduced

t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues.

Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps.

I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future.

Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight.


You realise t3s went from 5 percent per level to 2 percent per level but across 3 races now?


Yes I do. Its a horrible mechanic whether the net boost is 5% or 50%.

Dez Affinity wrote:

You realise that if they didn't have a t3 they'd have a falcon - they won't just unsub their character. But then you'd be here whining about falcons again.



They won't use falcons because then no one will fight them anymore. (you get added to peoples contact list when you do lame stuff like that.) Plus falcons show up on the killmail so it destroys the whole point of their running alt accounts hidden away in safespots to get a pro killboard.

The best troll ccp could do is add the t3 booster ships that effected combat retroactively to killmails.

I don't think they will unsub their account. I will just be glad when the horrible ogb mechanic will end and eve will stop being the game where you need to multibox a booster alt to be competive.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Dracorimus
Stars in No Sky
Backward Time in a Strange Land
#287 - 2013-08-01 22:40:11 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.


Absolutely right
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#288 - 2013-08-01 22:41:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Draekas Darkwater
Should the benefits of using these modules really trickle down to entire fleets as they do currently? Seems to me it would be mean more if there was squad boosting only. That way you'd have to be selective about what links you picked (since you can't have everything anymore), and the bonus from one player isn't so completely overpowering as to greatly buff potentially hundreds of players in the fleet.
Anna niedostepny
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort
Deepwater Hooligans
#289 - 2013-08-01 22:42:03 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.


+1 please do this.
F3X5ON
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#290 - 2013-08-01 22:42:08 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.



I support this.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#291 - 2013-08-01 22:44:30 UTC
Now give the Eos back its 125 drones bandwidth and we can be friends.
Mimiko Severovski
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#292 - 2013-08-01 22:46:12 UTC
Remove links entirely please, it will be beneficial to everyone in EVE.

Thank you CCP for doing an awsome job at destroying small gang and solo pvp!

Also gimme my sp back!
JannaMies
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#293 - 2013-08-01 22:49:06 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.



THIS!

EVERYONE WOULD BE HAPPY, AND ALSO REMOVE MINING LINKS, MAKE THEM ONGRID SO I CAN GANK MORE ORCAS
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#294 - 2013-08-01 23:01:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Strength of link bonuses should be inversely proportional to the number of people that they apply to. Not sure how you'd exactly implement this though. It's probably just easier to write them off as a bad idea and delete them.
Klown Walk
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2013-08-01 23:08:36 UTC
+1 For removing links.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#296 - 2013-08-01 23:11:14 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
Dear CCP,

I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.

Please reconsider.

I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.

Everyone is happy.

Thanks.

+1

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Eukaryotic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2013-08-01 23:12:32 UTC
I am a new player who likes to solo pvp. I find myself getting killed in small engagements alot because someone is linked to hell by an offgrid booster. I have no chance against them and do not want to pay to win to be able to compete with this tactic. I refuse to buy another account. That is dumb. Smaller scale pvp has evolved into buying new accounts to win, what kind of game does that make this. It is demoralizing to new players who think they will have fun flying by themselves and fighting.

New players having low sp, low isk, and little experience take a big risk when they pvp because often times the opponent is superior in these categories but instead of being encouraged to continue this brave type of gameplay despite the odds against them, it is like they are being punished by off grid boosters to just forget about pvping because without links it isn't happening.

And the sad part, many do forget pvp and some Eve. But that's okay right CCP? More links = more subs right? Dishonor.

Please remove links.
Hexatron Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2013-08-01 23:18:23 UTC
As someone noted before, for mining, the increased lockrange, and increased laser range complemented each other.

Without the lockrange boost from leadership skills, the improved laser range will not be all too useful, as it is suddenly capped by the ships lock range.




What are you planning to do there? Give mining barges a higher lockrange bonus into the base hull to compensate for the lost leadership lock range boost?
Sigras
Conglomo
#299 - 2013-08-01 23:19:14 UTC
Aznwithbeard wrote:
Why does it not surprise me that CCP nerfed all the useful links (siege, skirmish, armor) and kept the ewar crap strong?



+1 for taking boosting outta pos shields
- a million for making it that much harder to fight outnumbered :/


CS5 in queue - check.

you realize that e-war is a way to fight outnumbered right?

you realize that no matter what you do, gang boosts will benefit a large fleet over a small one right?
Sigras
Conglomo
#300 - 2013-08-01 23:20:57 UTC
Eukaryotic wrote:
I am a new player who likes to solo pvp. I find myself getting killed in small engagements alot because someone is linked to hell by an offgrid booster. I have no chance against them and do not want to pay to win to be able to compete with this tactic. I refuse to buy another account. That is dumb. Smaller scale pvp has evolved into buying new accounts to win, what kind of game does that make this. It is demoralizing to new players who think they will have fun flying by themselves and fighting.

New players having low sp, low isk, and little experience take a big risk when they pvp because often times the opponent is superior in these categories but instead of being encouraged to continue this brave type of gameplay despite the odds against them, it is like they are being punished by off grid boosters to just forget about pvping because without links it isn't happening.

And the sad part, many do forget pvp and some Eve. But that's okay right CCP? More links = more subs right? Dishonor.

Please remove links.

you dont want links removed, you want links brought on grid. Removing links removes meaningful choices from the game, forcing them on grid adds meaningful choices to the game.