These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Fixing Off-Grid Links (Nerf Passives and implement Targeted Buffs)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#21 - 2015-07-15 07:53:46 UTC
TL:DR all the above bull shiz.

For those of you who don't follow the "developer" subgroup

CCP is working on a system called brain in a box.
The reason why boost have reminded system wide and not on grid is do to the way the game called data. If CCP was to take their current system and go to on grid boost - it would have to check for the booster, ship getting boost and like 400 other things. Makes a lot of work for the server.

Brain in the Box is going to change how the system calls for info -
My understanding is that it will be a type of sub-server
It will(suspose to) reduced massive fleet TIDI when jumping into a system. As the current system has to recall every skill a player has and how those skills effect the ship they are in each time they jump.
Under BiaB, if the player hasn't changed ships or w/e the system will just pull from the sub-server reducing its load.
There is a lot more to it. I would advise you all to jump over to the developer forums (third party tools) and check it out. Post sometime last year I think.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#22 - 2015-07-15 09:34:03 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
Problem with this whole idea is it is pushing hard at a 'fly abso's and slieps and nothing else' environment. Squads have 10 peeps in them, wings have 50. So you'd likely need 3 commandships per squad at least for optimal links coverage, doing nothing but f1-f8 on friendlies then not much else til the end of the fight. This doesn't really solve the 'make boosting engaging' and meaningful problem. Any boosting command ship is still gonna go full links and maybe smart bombs with an eccm package so their links don't drop then tank and more tank. Grid fu aside, a method of making grid being the defining factor would be ideal.


How is this different than flying a Logistics ship? No one ever complains that flying a Logistics ship is boring.



they do all the time. logi is boring and the added fact we aren't on kills is just dalt in the wounds. The only time logi isn't boring is when there is actually a close fight between the 2 sides which doesn't always happen.


The only time being DPS is not boring is when there is actually a close fight between the two sides, which does not always happen.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-07-15 13:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
Amarisen Gream wrote:
TL:DR all the above bull shiz.

For those of you who don't follow the "developer" subgroup

CCP is working on a system called brain in a box.
The reason why boost have reminded system wide and not on grid is do to the way the game called data. If CCP was to take their current system and go to on grid boost - it would have to check for the booster, ship getting boost and like 400 other things. Makes a lot of work for the server.


I understand that this is in the pipeline and having them on grid is definitely an improvement, but I still feel like even that improvement doesn't very dynamic role in the fleets.

I have said this way too much over the last day, but enjoyment & satisfaction of fleet fights really comes down to allowing pilots being required to meaningful decisions.

The command ship lands on grid, turning on their command links and tank, and anchor up job done. Sit back drink a beer and watch for the overview to see if the enemy ships lock you up and then broadcast.
Tykonderoga
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#24 - 2015-07-15 14:06:13 UTC
Wow, what a horrible idea this op has.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-07-15 14:08:49 UTC
That's lazy fitting. You can fit ewar, some damage, neuts, drones, many things to utilize those commandship slots

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-07-15 14:09:03 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:
Wow, what a horrible idea this op has.


Care to elaborate?
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-07-15 14:23:47 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
That's lazy fitting. You can fit ewar, some damage, neuts, drones, many things to utilise those commandship slots


I agree armour command ships might have 1 or 2 slot available to fit some unbonused ewar and smartbombs and neuts are interesting but situational especially in larger engagements.

What I am trying to theorise is a unique active role which allows to influence a fight based on their actions. I think we can agree that logistics/triage is probably one of the more engaging roles to take in a fleet, you have to watch your watch lists and broadcast and at times decide which target you are going to prioritise for repairs.

What would be great would be more roles in EVE that are similar to the engagement level of logistics.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-07-15 14:32:12 UTC
Strata Maslav wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
That's lazy fitting. You can fit ewar, some damage, neuts, drones, many things to utilise those commandship slots


I agree armour command ships might have 1 or 2 slot available to fit some unbonused ewar and smartbombs and neuts are interesting but situational especially in larger engagements.

What I am trying to theorise is a unique active role which allows to influence a fight based on their actions. I think we can agree that logistics/triage is probably one of the more engaging roles to take in a fleet, you have to watch your watch lists and broadcast and at times decide which target you are going to prioritise for repairs.

What would be great would be more roles in EVE that are similar to the engagement level of logistics.

But this idea doesn't. All it does is say 'okay bring more commandships and activate then forget'

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2015-07-15 14:51:49 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:

But this idea doesn't. All it does is say 'okay bring more commandships and activate then forget'


Its is definitely a possibility but is probably a less effective use of pilots.

Capacitor is the first resource you could use to limit this and probably the most simple. You can run maybe 2 out of your 4 link permanently but would have to pulse the other two when they are needed.

Another alternative would be charges with a short reload. You could easily keep a single target buffed with two modules but it would require management.

I did not want to over complicate the system and make it more tedious but you could possibly add a degradation of the bonus of consecutive cycles (similar to how the Reactive Armor Hardener works).

I dislike that idea because it sounds tedious if the cycles are too short and yet if the module cycle is too long module is clumsy to use.

So there are already examples of ways to limit AFK links.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-07-15 14:56:34 UTC
Strata Maslav wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:

But this idea doesn't. All it does is say 'okay bring more commandships and activate then forget'


Its is definitely a possibility but is probably a less effective use of pilots.

Capacitor is the first resource you could use to limit this and probably the most simple. You can run maybe 2 out of your 4 link permanently but would have to pulse the other two when they are needed.

Another alternative would be charges with a short reload. You could easily keep a single target buffed with two modules but it would require management.

I did not want to over complicate the system and make it more tedious but you could possibly add a degradation of the bonus of consecutive cycles (similar to how the Reactive Armor Hardener works).

I dislike that idea because it sounds tedious if the cycles are too short and yet if the module cycle is too long module is clumsy to use.

So there are already examples of ways to limit AFK links.

No. -1 now you're just tossing more and more bad onto an already not good idea

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-07-15 15:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
Kenrailae wrote:


No. -1 now you're just tossing more and more bad onto an already not good idea


So fleet boosting should be a purely passive role? I'd love to hear what you think is wrong by limiting a ship ability to permanently run multiple a link via cap usage.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-07-15 15:13:21 UTC
Logi can perma run, dps can perma run, ewar can perma run. It is not my job to fix your idea.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#33 - 2015-07-15 15:21:17 UTC
would break far more then it fixxes, if you got blowed up by soemones booster, bring more friends, bring probes, bring less **** fits or dont engage if you cant win versus a boosted setup with your boostless one...

AKA HTFU
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-07-15 15:24:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
Kenrailae wrote:
Logi can perma run, dps can perma run, ewar can perma run. It is not my job to fix your idea.


Cap unstable = Bad?

The ability for a ship to permanently run all is modules is dependant on its fit, but this not always optimal. Having a MWD that you can turn on for short burst of speed or an additional repairer to deal with a short term increase in damage is common. Certain fits with especially unstable cap usage can fit a cap booster.

In my experience ships with low cap stability can be some of the most fun to fly because they are more involving and are dependant on your decisions for success.

Even if a ship is cap stable, you can overheat modules which is not sustainable over long fights, but doing so at the right time can give you an advantage.

Its not your or my job to fix the game either, but I like the game so I don't mind trying.
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-07-15 15:28:52 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
would break far more then it fixxes, if you got blowed up by soemones booster, bring more friends, bring probes, bring less **** fits or dont engage if you cant win versus a boosted setup with your boostless one...

AKA HTFU


I have an alt account solely committed to off grid boosting, with all specialists to 5.

Is it necessary? Yes
Is it fun? No
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#36 - 2015-07-15 15:41:54 UTC
Not that I like the idea, but for the sake of argument perhaps a system where the on-grid links affected *all* locked targets in fleet simultaneously?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#37 - 2015-07-15 16:28:20 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Not that I like the idea, but for the sake of argument perhaps a system where the on-grid links affected *all* locked targets in fleet simultaneously?


The OP's idea is way better than that.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-07-15 16:52:57 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Not that I like the idea, but for the sake of argument perhaps a system where the on-grid links affected *all* locked targets in fleet simultaneously?


Its a way to fix the off-grid issue and locking broadcasting targets for links would work, but as Kenrailae mentioned you might just have people bringing alt command ships to the fleet and just locking up their squad.

I feel like it wouldn't solve the issue of command ship links being used passively.
Iain Cariaba
#39 - 2015-07-15 17:01:36 UTC
Strata Maslav wrote:
FireFrenzy wrote:
would break far more then it fixxes, if you got blowed up by soemones booster, bring more friends, bring probes, bring less **** fits or dont engage if you cant win versus a boosted setup with your boostless one...

AKA HTFU


I have an alt account solely committed to off grid boosting, with all specialists to 5.

Is it necessary? Yes
Is it fun? No

Congratulations, you get added to my list of 'People to not fight," along with all the other people I encounter who used OGB.

Is it fun? Meh, fun is arbitrary.
Is it necessary? No. Many, many people operate just find without boosts. The only reason to use them is because you're afraid of losing, and are so bad at the game that you cannot win without help. Just because you're bad at it doesn't mean the game needs to be nerfed down to your level. Either fly cheaper ships or stop caring what your KB looks like.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2015-07-15 17:01:47 UTC
Welcome to f and i. Burden of proof is on you. You say to cripple links with duration penalties. I say every other role doesn't get penalized for being on line for extended time periods. It wasn't about cap stability. Your links alt is not necessary. It just helps. But since you bring it up, yes cap stability, or rather cap sustainability is a factor as well. Your ideas severely cripple links and don't create any solutions except to make a links ship be on grid, at too high a price for all the other problems you are creating. See its not just 'fun to fly.' Dual rep incursus fighting a bunch of frigs is fun but not a good idea. It's about balanced and engaging gameplay as well. Your idea lacks both of these. It just makes for more alts. And more problems. Do triage and Bastion get changed to allow this kind of remote assistance or are they up the creek without a paddle? What about viability in large scale fights? Do we add new broadcasts? Need links? Or just bring a links alt for every three ships in fleets? Too many problems or poorly thought out ideas for too little gain.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Previous page123Next page