These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#781 - 2013-08-16 19:01:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Winter
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):

Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EG-602 at least.
[Nighthawk, XLASB]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II


Warrior II x5

At the point you've got that fit...why don't you just use a Claymore?

Lots more tank, not much less gank, and a medium +small neut instead of two smalls. With no implants required. Plus, faster and a smaller sig.

The Nighthawk is awful next to the Claymore. At the very least, the Nighthawk needs another midslot instead of that low.
Valterra Craven
#782 - 2013-08-16 19:02:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting What?


Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?!


You were saying?

Ok now I'm done posting fits for realzies, no more baiting me out.


Apologies, I honestly was not trying to bait you. I misspoke, I didn't realize the vulture with dual xlasb didn't have any links on it.

Personally I still think these ships are being shoe horned into things given that you always link the less cpu intensive heavy electrons and neutrons instead of the t2 250 rails.

I personally always fit rails because I like damage projection instead of close range.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#783 - 2013-08-16 19:14:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
An actual solo fit armor Astarte would generally beat that XLASB Nighthawk in a real 1v1 given equal pilot skill, but the point is that it wouldn't be as big of a whitewash as some might think and the projection on the Nighthawk is really useful for stuff that isn't command ship 1v1s.

Yes the mythical 1v1 is not a good way to balance ships in Eve. Lol

But on that note it wouldn't matter either way since all we will see is fleets of Cerbs to rival the prevalence of Drake use of old. Which btw, I'm much greatful for you guys killing off the Drake hegemony. But now you will be replacing them with fleets of Cerbs. Please stop before it's too late. Or if you don't, don't let it last 3 years like Drakes Online did.Straight

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
#784 - 2013-08-16 20:15:19 UTC
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:
I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right?

Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all.


Just because so ignorant people like You !

And for explanation to people like you: The risk (and the amount of ISK) for a miner to play with an Rorqual which is locked for five minutes in space outside the FF, with not relevant defence and offence - compared to the risk for a PVP'ler is like: Low-Sec PVP with T1 frigates vs. 0.0 SCAP fights...

But it seems some people don't like to understand the role of a mining fleet and the role of a pvp fleet.... and some of them are really resistant in learning

Sure your main job is ganking freighters and now you are crying because you get no additional easy kills.
Damm it - all this ignorant player.
cearaen
Plus 10 NV
#785 - 2013-08-16 21:17:36 UTC
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:
I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right?

Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all.



It actually does make them equal. Neither one will have any risk.

The pvp ships will effectively be in a pos when they land in a safe spot since they are virtually unprobable. Due to sig radius the mining ships would have to take a risk if they had to leave a pos.
Smyrk
Gradient
Electus Matari
#786 - 2013-08-17 03:48:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This will make the training path for gang boosting more of a slope and less of a cliff.

Along these lines, as Shahai alluded to somewhere in the midst of this thread, there is still a somewhat un-EVE-like cliff from the specialist IV-V progression even with these improvements: the skill multiplier goes from 1.8 to 2 (okay), plus it opens up t2 link modules (25% better), plus it opens up all the mind links (25%), for a total of 73% better from IV-V if I did my math right (50% chance). The obvious suggestion to fix it would be to make mind links and/or t2 link modules only require specialist IV, but I'm also in the camp that even with these changes, off-grid links are still too powerful and that would make it much easier to train up a competent off-grid alt, which would be bad. Maybe something to keep in mind if off-grid links are more thoroughly nerfed in the future.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#787 - 2013-08-18 10:34:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
There are a lot of pages here so I haven't read all CCP Fozzie's replies. I believe the price for the navy mindlinks has been increased from the initial price setting.
Is there are any chance that some thought can be put into increasing the price for the Mining Mindlink? The current price setting for these mindlinks is vastly different to the current price and to my mind is far too cheap. With on-grid use the combat orientated mindlinks are liable to be lost a lot during combat so it makes sense for them to be relatively cheap. But as a general rule the mining mindlink will rarely be destroyed so I feel the price should be set much higher. Maybe 500 million ISK plus some LP ??

The incredibly low price currently planned for Mining Mindlinks is also liable to increase mining yield across New Eden and drop mineral prices even further which is not good for business.

Can you also make a statement on the OP if mindlinks will still be available as a reward in storyline missions post the changes or if they will only be available at the LP stores please?

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Cabooze Skadoosh
Wilde Jagd
#788 - 2013-08-18 20:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Cabooze Skadoosh
You guys are too conservative with the nerfs here. I think the boosting ship should explode when it activates it's warfare links.

I wonder how many subscriptions CCP loses from dedicated link chars if they frak this up :D
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#789 - 2013-08-18 23:35:39 UTC
Fozzie, first off thanks for posting some fits. We have been doing a similar thing in the Command Ships discussion.

It's probably worth re-iterating that the gallente and minmatar ships are field command, and thus more oriented for close combat, whereas the caldari and amarr are fleet command - whether or not we agree with that decision ;-)

It seems logical then that the field command would be able to beat the fleet command ships in a hypothetical 1v1 since they are designed for the job, while the fleet command ships have been demonstrated to be able to be fitted with 400k alpha-resistance - beyond the capabilities of the minny and gallente ships.

If a nighthawk could solo an astarte, I'd feel somewhat short-changed if I opted for the field command option.

It's a case of pay your money and take your choice.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Yankunytjatjara
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#790 - 2013-08-19 07:23:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.

What's the feasibility of implementing the aggro inheritance a la remote rep instead?

You mentioned elsewhere performance issues, but that sounds strange:

1. every time a ship in a fleet gets an aggro flag, its fleet inherits the same flag (no checks)
2. every time 1. happens, the fleet active boosters inherit the same flags (no checks)

Meaning no additional cycles... Nor any aggro checks, it's all cascaded.

Note that as a result, the weapons flag is inherited whenever a boosted fleet member gets it, resolving the situation "waiting timers to jump out all together" described in the thread.

PS don't forget to add them on killmails - to troll the "soloers" Blink

My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#791 - 2013-08-19 08:47:31 UTC
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.

What's the feasibility of implementing the aggro inheritance a la remote rep instead?

You mentioned elsewhere performance issues, but that sounds strange:

1. every time a ship in a fleet gets an aggro flag, its fleet inherits the same flag (no checks)
2. every time 1. happens, the fleet active boosters inherit the same flags (no checks)

Meaning no additional cycles... Nor any aggro checks, it's all cascaded.

Note that as a result, the weapons flag is inherited whenever a boosted fleet member gets it, resolving the situation "waiting timers to jump out all together" described in the thread.

PS don't forget to add them on killmails - to troll the "soloers" Blink


THIS!!!

Please do it!

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Alsyth
#792 - 2013-08-19 11:03:49 UTC
Can't you notice how your good armor fits still have 2 links when the shield ones downgrade to 2 small neut?

And your dual 1600 astarte is easier to fit (with links) than a single XLASB Nighthawk? Same for dual MAR, triple MAR, or 1600+MAR Astarte/Eos: they are easier to fit than a bloody single XL-ASB Nighthawk (or Sleipnir).

Really... Thank you for these proofs that armor CS have good fittings and shield CS [with the exception of Vulture) lack PG and CPU, what some of us keep saying from the start.
Amantus
Drexciyan Sea Unit
SPACE DETROIT
#793 - 2013-08-19 11:11:30 UTC
here's a super important question:






when theorycrafting fits does ccp fozzie use EFT, pyfa ordoes he buy all modules on a test server and then use the in-game fitting screen

CCP PLS RESPOND
Henry Hackett
#794 - 2013-08-19 11:13:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Edit: Updates posted on August 7th :Edit:

....
And finally we're making some significant changes to the availability of mindlink implants:
  • Adding normal T2 mindlinks (including mining mindlinks) to the Concord LP store for 20,000 Concord LP and 20m isk (~60-80m final product sale price).
  • Adding Navy Mindlinks with the 25% bonus to two different disciplines at once (matching racial command ship bonuses) to the normal racial LP stores at 100,000 LP and 100m isk, as well as requiring you to provide one of each of the T2 mindlinks that it combines. (~350m isk final product sale price).

    • ....


    I really like to see Mindlinks in LP Stores but Concord??? Put em all in the normal racial LP Stores.
    Mournful Conciousness
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #795 - 2013-08-19 14:05:35 UTC
    Alsyth wrote:
    Can't you notice how your good armor fits still have 2 links when the shield ones downgrade to 2 small neut?

    And your dual 1600 astarte is easier to fit (with links) than a single XLASB Nighthawk? Same for dual MAR, triple MAR, or 1600+MAR Astarte/Eos: they are easier to fit than a bloody single XL-ASB Nighthawk (or Sleipnir).

    Really... Thank you for these proofs that armor CS have good fittings and shield CS [with the exception of Vulture) lack PG and CPU, what some of us keep saying from the start.


    The XLASB is a battleship-sized module. You can't even get a LAR on an astarte.

    Try fitting it with appropriately sized modules.

    Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.

    If you want to skirmish in a shield self-tanked command ship, the recommended option is the minmatar hulls.

    I know, I know, we all agree that all races should have 1 skirmish and 1 fleet hull, but that's not the way it's going to be so we just have to adapt.

    C'est la vie!

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
    Alsyth
    #796 - 2013-08-19 18:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsyth
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    Alsyth wrote:
    Can't you notice how your good armor fits still have 2 links when the shield ones downgrade to 2 small neut?

    And your dual 1600 astarte is easier to fit (with links) than a single XLASB Nighthawk? Same for dual MAR, triple MAR, or 1600+MAR Astarte/Eos: they are easier to fit than a bloody single XL-ASB Nighthawk (or Sleipnir).

    Really... Thank you for these proofs that armor CS have good fittings and shield CS [with the exception of Vulture) lack PG and CPU, what some of us keep saying from the start.


    The XLASB is a battleship-sized module. You can't even get a LAR on an astarte.

    Try fitting it with appropriately sized modules.

    Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.

    If you want to skirmish in a shield self-tanked command ship, the recommended option is the minmatar hulls.

    I know, I know, we all agree that all races should have 1 skirmish and 1 fleet hull, but that's not the way it's going to be so we just have to adapt.

    C'est la vie!


    Stopped reading at "XLASB is a battleship-sized module".

    Just to help you realize: 1600mm plate is as much of a BS-sized module as XL-ASB is, and as Fozzie showed, Astarte can fit 2 with 700+dps and 2 links.
    Chris Winter
    Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
    The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
    #797 - 2013-08-19 20:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Winter
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.

    First off, the Fleet/Field command ship distinction no longer exists.

    Second, the Nighthawk was the FIELD command ship, while the Vulture was the FLEET command ship, so even if the distinction existed anymore, you'd still be wrong.

    The Nighthawk is terrible next to the Claymore. Giving it six mids would be a start towards evening the balance--it could have a stiffer tank, but would still be much slower and have a larger sig.

    Currently, the Claymore can field a stronger tank than the Nighthawk, with not much less DPS, with a smaller sig and ~300m/s faster under MWD, and with easier fittings so you don't even come close to needing implants.
    Jerick Ludhowe
    Internet Tuff Guys
    #798 - 2013-08-19 21:55:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
    Chris Winter wrote:
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.

    First off, the Fleet/Field command ship distinction no longer exists.



    His remark about it being a "Fleet" ship has nothing to do with the old names and everything to do with the overall role of the ship. It's quite obvious to anyone who did not grow up eating paint chips that a slower ship with a resistance bonus is generally geared towards fleet work compared to faster ships with rep/boost bonuses.

    Overall, you're straw man post that ignores the actual definition of "fleet" needs a dislike button.
    Mournful Conciousness
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #799 - 2013-08-19 22:17:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
    Chris Winter wrote:
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.

    First off, the Fleet/Field command ship distinction no longer exists.

    Second, the Nighthawk was the FIELD command ship, while the Vulture was the FLEET command ship, so even if the distinction existed anymore, you'd still be wrong.

    The Nighthawk is terrible next to the Claymore. Giving it six mids would be a start towards evening the balance--it could have a stiffer tank, but would still be much slower and have a larger sig.

    Currently, the Claymore can field a stronger tank than the Nighthawk, with not much less DPS, with a smaller sig and ~300m/s faster under MWD, and with easier fittings so you don't even come close to needing implants.


    Yes the claymore has a stronger tank than the nighthawk. It is designed to. The claymore is designed to sit in the front line and skirmish with the rest of the fleet.

    The nighthawk is designed to be well back from the front line and provide fleet boosts with a buffer tank and incoming reps.

    To compare the two ships' performance in a role for which one has been designed and the other not does not serve any useful purpose.

    If you want to boost a fleet, use the nighthawk. If you want a combat skirmish tanking dps booster, use a claymore. The training conversion time is negligible.

    The same argument holds for the amarr and gallente command ships.

    CCP has decided that Caldari and Amarr command ships shall be suited for fleet boosting, while Gallent and Minmatar ships shall be skirmish boosters. I think we have to live with that. It's something I disagreed with to begin with, but have come to terms with.

    I have already altered my training plans accordingly.

    Adapt and survive...

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
    Nevyn Auscent
    Broke Sauce
    #800 - 2013-08-19 22:57:47 UTC
    And those of us who took full advantage of the great BC & CS skill changes.... :P
    Have all four.