These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Are Links Too Much?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#181 - 2014-03-27 00:32:44 UTC
Bad Messenger wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:
Princess Nexxala wrote:
One question to the link haters, say I have HG snakes in my head...and get more speed out of that, is that game breaking as well? Or is that okay because it cost me 3b isk? Or because there is more risk involved? Just curious what everyone thinks.


Snakes were nerfed not terribly long ago as they provided over twice the boost they do now. What that tells the class is that CCP recognized the difference between advantaged and overpowered in regards to implant sets (the price of which should never justify effectiveness). And to reap the rewards of using those implants, you have to put them in harms way. Not so with links, there is no downside to using them until killboards can downscore you for using them, which is unlikely to happen.

Your comparison is garbage.


So all you think about eve is killboards :(

makes me bit sad,

anyway there is lot of different thingies that can help you to get kills and those does not show up on mail at all, example remote repping and remote sensor/tracking boosting.


I actually hate killboards, I've said more than once that killmails only serve to kill off 'gudfights'.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#182 - 2014-03-27 01:16:49 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:

I actually hate killboards, I've said more than once that killmails only serve to kill off 'gudfights'.


I have heard people say this and seen it posted on the forums numerous times.

But not once has anyone but forward a valid reason as to why/how killboards effect fights.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#183 - 2014-03-27 01:18:58 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:

I actually hate killboards, I've said more than once that killmails only serve to kill off 'gudfights'.


I have heard people say this and seen it posted on the forums numerous times.

But not once has anyone but forward a valid reason as to why/how killboards effect fights.


Also, only posted by people with terrible killboards. Not that killboards matter to people who have good killboards.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#184 - 2014-03-27 01:24:54 UTC
Santo Trafficante wrote:

'' will be avoided in future''


Its true, ill just warp to a safe or get pointed on field :p

Either way im happy :)
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#185 - 2014-03-27 05:24:08 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:

I actually hate killboards, I've said more than once that killmails only serve to kill off 'gudfights'.


I have heard people say this and seen it posted on the forums numerous times.

But not once has anyone but forward a valid reason as to why/how killboards effect fights.


Killboards cause me to hide from my corpmates so I get more BC points.

So they affect fights by reducing blobbing. Not that I consider this a bad thing.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#186 - 2014-03-27 06:03:36 UTC
Killboards are a simple way to measure one's effectiveness in combat.

I'm not saying that they are the 'best' measurement but they give some players a tool to measure their performance.

For me personally I don't care about my overall killboard 'score' as such but I do keep tabs on my solo kill record on my personal KB.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Princess Nexxala
Zero Syndicate
#187 - 2014-03-27 19:10:59 UTC
This wasn't a comparison , simply wanting to know what link haters thought about snakes doesn't make my statement "garbage". But hey, douches gonna douche...

Oh and the snake nerf was ages ago you twit.

Val'Dore wrote:
Princess Nexxala wrote:
One question to the link haters, say I have HG snakes in my head...and get more speed out of that, is that game breaking as well? Or is that okay because it cost me 3b isk? Or because there is more risk involved? Just curious what everyone thinks.


Snakes were nerfed not terribly long ago as they provided over twice the boost they do now. What that tells the class is that CCP recognized the difference between advantaged and overpowered in regards to implant sets (the price of which should never justify effectiveness). And to reap the rewards of using those implants, you have to put them in harms way. Not so with links, there is no downside to using them until killboards can downscore you for using them, which is unlikely to happen.

Your comparison is garbage.

nom nom
Princess Nexxala
Zero Syndicate
#188 - 2014-03-27 19:12:29 UTC
What?! You actually logged on and played Eve? LIES!

chatgris wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:

I actually hate killboards, I've said more than once that killmails only serve to kill off 'gudfights'.


I have heard people say this and seen it posted on the forums numerous times.

But not once has anyone but forward a valid reason as to why/how killboards effect fights.


Killboards cause me to hide from my corpmates so I get more BC points.

So they affect fights by reducing blobbing. Not that I consider this a bad thing.

nom nom
Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#189 - 2014-03-28 04:16:24 UTC
The only thing I don't like about killboards is the ability to see the fits that your enemy is using
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#190 - 2014-03-28 09:51:11 UTC
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#191 - 2014-03-28 11:13:42 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.


lol ok, please link a tengu or prot fit that has a respectable tank, mobility and at least some dps as well as 3 links.
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#192 - 2014-03-28 11:30:53 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.


warfare sub on t3 ships is defensive subsystem so try to tank those properly without that.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#193 - 2014-03-28 11:32:05 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.


lol ok, please link a tengu or prot fit that has a respectable tank, mobility and at least some dps as well as 3 links.


What was the original design intent? 'This ship can only have a tank and one link so we'll give it a huge bonus to that one link!' How do Eve players actually use it? Another case of the rubber hitting the road in a fashion that CCP didn't anticipate.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#194 - 2014-03-28 12:01:41 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.


lol ok, please link a tengu or prot fit that has a respectable tank, mobility and at least some dps as well as 3 links.



LOL, please explain to me why a ship should be really good at 4 things (links, tank, mobility and damage). If you get that I want a megathron with 12 high slots, 8 mid slots, and 16 low slots - that way one of my ships could also be good at everything (I'll take bandwith and 2 extra drones/level of gallente BS too)
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#195 - 2014-03-28 13:12:11 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.


lol ok, please link a tengu or prot fit that has a respectable tank, mobility and at least some dps as well as 3 links.



LOL, please explain to me why a ship should be really good at 4 things (links, tank, mobility and damage). If you get that I want a megathron with 12 high slots, 8 mid slots, and 16 low slots - that way one of my ships could also be good at everything (I'll take bandwith and 2 extra drones/level of gallente BS too)


Because command ships does that already
Starbuck05
Abiding Ormolus
#196 - 2014-03-28 13:32:56 UTC
Links are good..

Its the people that use them in 1vs1 situations then brag how leet they are... Is bad.

Ccp nerf leet pvp'ers !!

Just because i am blond does not make me stoopid !
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#197 - 2014-03-28 13:41:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Not quite sure why people say 'T3s need to be rebalanced if they are required to boost on grid'. You can already tank them up quite effectively. If you want to do better, get a command ship. T3s shouldn't outperform CS really.


lol ok, please link a tengu or prot fit that has a respectable tank, mobility and at least some dps as well as 3 links.


What was the original design intent? 'This ship can only have a tank and one link so we'll give it a huge bonus to that one link!' How do Eve players actually use it? Another case of the rubber hitting the road in a fashion that CCP didn't anticipate.


I think looking at associated mechanics such as tripple complementary links per class, command processors, the way that bonuses are passed down a hierarchy, not to mention that they used to only bonus a single class of link now they all bonus 3 classes, should outright debunk your take on the original premise of single link t3 command.

Unless you really think CCP expected to have one link in FC, one link in WC and one link in each squad leader position.

Ive seen some bad posts but this one shows how desperate anti boost advocates are to put a spin on this debate.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#198 - 2014-03-28 14:40:31 UTC
T3 used to boost 5% to CS 3% per lvl. I don't think CCP believing that T3 would field less links then a CS and thus needing a stronger bonus to compensate is a real big ******* stretch. Recent ad hoc changes may reflect reality but not original design intent. The fact that CCP ignores ship balancing from 2009 to 2011 is just icing on the cake.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#199 - 2014-03-28 16:29:26 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
T3 used to boost 5% to CS 3% per lvl. I don't think CCP believing that T3 would field less links then a CS and thus needing a stronger bonus to compensate is a real big ******* stretch. Recent ad hoc changes may reflect reality but not original design intent. The fact that CCP ignores ship balancing from 2009 to 2011 is just icing on the cake.


Its a stretch. Quite a big one.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#200 - 2014-03-28 17:05:23 UTC
Let's just put them on grid and then everyone will be happy.