These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A kind request for metrics on warfare link use
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-09-29 14:50:44 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet.
What astounds me is that those numbers (TL:DR - having the right OGB doubles your ships effectiveness, and teaming that with Logi makes you nearly invincible) actually surprised people. Nobody was tossing out the numbers behind link effectiveness and in my naivete I just assumed that's because everybody thought that 25% extra HP * 20% more resists * 30% more speed tank was perfectly acceptable.

His blog is a bit odd at the end though, as he lists these as the bad design of links:
Lack of Visibility
Lack of Interaction
Lack of Options
“It’s an alts Job”
“Very SP Intensive”

And even those almost all of those are tied to the idea that link ships are off under POS shields, he says that bringing them on-grid isn't the solution. Instead, nuke them from orbit.

I like the idea of having 'buff' ships as a part of combat, so I wouldn't go that far. But having a single ship capable of doubling the effectiveness of an entire fleet is dumb. Admittedly, removing them entirely is far easier but I'd love to see it start with changes to their functionality. On grid, not letting a single ship have so many link mods, toning down the "Fit X to multiply link effectiveness by 2", stuff like that.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#42 - 2015-09-29 19:43:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Cearain wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
As has been covered, yes, boosts need to;

- Be on killmails (along with logistics).
- Gain suspect and weapons timer from the last agressed fleet member. Sec hit too?

With optional;

- Make them easier to probe.

This opens up more avenues of gameplay for others and risk for the booster at the same time penalising KB warriors. They will still be viable, but they will also be at risk from someone with far less SP in probing than the booster has in leadership and a much cheaper ship.



I am not sure who is saying that but CCP Fozzie has made it clear they need to be on grid.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2512888#post2512888

If anyone from ccp has backed off that stance I would be interested in knowing.


Is that the same fozzue that thought entosis links are a good idea?

Aerasia wrote:

And even those almost all of those are tied to the idea that link ships are off under POS shields, he says that bringing them on-grid isn't the solution. Instead, nuke them from orbit.


Putting boosts on grid is the single worst thing that could be done for them. I understand the idea in principle is attractive, but in practice it simple favors the larger gang but encourages all sides to bring more logistics, regardless if they have boosts or not.

Removing boosts entirely would be a far less game breaking solution, though, imo boosts are fine subject to the few tweaks i listed above.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-09-29 20:25:13 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
imo boosts are fine subject to the few tweaks i listed above.
Aerasia wrote:
in my naivete I just assumed that's because everybody thought that 25% extra HP * 20% more resists * 30% more speed tank was perfectly acceptable.

Ok, maybe not completely naïve.

But seriously, links aren't fine. We might end up disagreeing over whether to put them on the grid vs. removing them entirely, but putting links on KMs and calling it good isn't a solution.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#44 - 2015-09-29 21:23:48 UTC
If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.

Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2015-09-29 22:19:19 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.
Possibly, but the general consensus seems to be that links either need to diaf, or be brought on grid.

And don't get me wrong, I like the idea of links. The idea of the decision making behind "Do I/Don't I?" for calling primary on a Command BC feels good. But you shouldn't be allowed to hide half your fleet's EHP in a safe 3 AU away. If you want to have enough link boosts to double your fleet, that's fine (well ok, links that powerful probably aren't fine no matter where they are). But either way you need to bring that half billion ISK worth of combat effectiveness on grid like everybody else.
Yang Aurilen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2015-09-29 22:20:27 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.

Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is.


It certainly is easier to whine on the forums about links that trying to kill your linkified garmur though.P So hard to scram you.What?

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Reah Darknorth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2015-09-30 00:13:50 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.

Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is.

The reason most players use links in fleet PvP is not because they are a good game feature, it's because links are insanely over-powered.

So no, we should probably not ignore all of the bad things about links, just because they turn some fits that would normally be terrible into actually usable.

I'm not sure if true-solo pilots are the minority, but links are possibly the most stupidly over powered feature in the game, so of course players are going to cash in on that action while it's here. That doesn't mean we should say "well, most players are using links, so I guess that means there's nothing broken here".
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#48 - 2015-09-30 01:45:37 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base..



Lots of people who use ogb freely admit they are broken and a horrible mechanic. Here is a case in point:
http://crossingzebras.com/links-and-other-bad-game-mechanics/

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-09-30 02:27:12 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet.


I read that some time ago. I've also read a bunch of posts on reddit by Chessur regarding the current OGB meta. Neither of them are fans.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-09-30 02:51:27 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good portion of the player base.

Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is.


I have never flown in a Gal Mil fleet with more than 10 people that didn't have at least one booster. My corp has linked solo'ers and
nano gangs come through our home system daily. Links are ubiquitous because they are so powerful that flying without them is tantamount to suicide.

It is a broken mechanic. Just because the majority of the player base has adapted by acquiring their own links, joining a group with links, blue-balling link users or some combination of those options, does not make them any less broken.

Players can recognize that a game element is broken while still making the eminently rational decision to take advantage of that element rather than be at a perpetual disadvantage while they wait for the issue to be addressed.

I take full advantage of the fact that my corp has a dozen or so booster alts while still recognizing the absurdity of a situation wherein an AFK T3/CC is a vital corp asset and the most important element of any fleet we run.

All that said, we have this discussion often and I'm in agreement with the killmail notation/suspect timer solution to make links gankable and lessen their appeal for "solo." However it sounds like CCP has their own plans for boosts.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#51 - 2015-09-30 13:32:08 UTC
Take away the option for T3s to use command links. Especially if they can be fitted so they are nigh-unprobeable.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-10-01 18:41:52 UTC
The best option and the easiest to implement is this:
Reduce the efficiency of links so that it falls something along the lines like this
1) Unbonused links (all Lvl 5) - 5% bonus
2) T3 Links (all Lvl 5) - 10%
3) Command Ship Links (all Lvl 5) - 15%

EvE is all about the 2% bonuses making the difference between winning and losing, so having 10%-15% increases still makes them extremely powerful, just not game breaking. It also means that not having links doesn't automatically mean you lose the fight 9/10 times. It also makes implants, drugs, and player skill (sling shot'ing, OH'ing, etc) that much more meaningful and relevant.

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#53 - 2015-10-07 23:06:39 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:
The best option and the easiest to implement is this:
Reduce the efficiency of links so that it falls something along the lines like this
1) Unbonused links (all Lvl 5) - 5% bonus
2) T3 Links (all Lvl 5) - 10%
3) Command Ship Links (all Lvl 5) - 15%

EvE is all about the 2% bonuses making the difference between winning and losing, so having 10%-15% increases still makes them extremely powerful, just not game breaking. It also means that not having links doesn't automatically mean you lose the fight 9/10 times. It also makes implants, drugs, and player skill (sling shot'ing, OH'ing, etc) that much more meaningful and relevant.



I think those would be good numbers assuming the booster pilot is on grid. Allowing off grid boosts from alts is a non-starter.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#54 - 2015-10-08 00:59:01 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
As has been covered, yes, boosts need to;

- Be on killmails (along with logistics).
- Gain suspect and weapons timer from the last agressed fleet member. Sec hit too?

With optional;

- Make them easier to probe.

This opens up more avenues of gameplay for others and risk for the booster at the same time penalising KB warriors. They will still be viable, but they will also be at risk from someone with far less SP in probing than the booster has in leadership and a much cheaper ship.



I am not sure who is saying that but CCP Fozzie has made it clear they need to be on grid.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2512888#post2512888

If anyone from ccp has backed off that stance I would be interested in knowing.


Is that the same fozzue that thought entosis links are a good idea?



I think null sec sounds better than ever.

It just demostrates how differently we view the game.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#55 - 2015-10-09 09:32:48 UTC
Cearain wrote:
I really think cancers like off grid boosting are why we are seeing numbers decline. Yes it will take some short term pain to get rid of the cancer but the long term decline will hopefully end, and even reverse.

BTW I listened to a podcast where ccp fozzie said they are making some headway on the technical issues of off grid boosters. He could not give us a date through.


Why are off-grid boosters a problem?

Thank me later :D
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#56 - 2015-10-09 09:39:03 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet.
What astounds me is that those numbers (TL:DR - having the right OGB doubles your ships effectiveness, and teaming that with Logi makes you nearly invincible) actually surprised people. Nobody was tossing out the numbers behind link effectiveness and in my naivete I just assumed that's because everybody thought that 25% extra HP * 20% more resists * 30% more speed tank was perfectly acceptable.

His blog is a bit odd at the end though, as he lists these as the bad design of links:
Lack of Visibility
Lack of Interaction
Lack of Options
“It’s an alts Job”
“Very SP Intensive”

And even those almost all of those are tied to the idea that link ships are off under POS shields, he says that bringing them on-grid isn't the solution. Instead, nuke them from orbit.

I like the idea of having 'buff' ships as a part of combat, so I wouldn't go that far. But having a single ship capable of doubling the effectiveness of an entire fleet is dumb. Admittedly, removing them entirely is far easier but I'd love to see it start with changes to their functionality. On grid, not letting a single ship have so many link mods, toning down the "Fit X to multiply link effectiveness by 2", stuff like that.


I think we should be able to declare war on NPC. If those groups were more vulnerable everything would be fine.

Thank me later :D
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#57 - 2015-10-09 09:52:51 UTC
If I feel like training a separate account for perfect Astrometrics, Leadership and Warfare Specialist skills just so I can have the privilege of one-shotting war targets with faction combat probes from the comfort of my +3bil internet spaceship setup... I should be able to do that (mindlinks and mid-grade Virtue clones are expensive, ya know) Unfortunately, I can't pull this off from the safety of a starbase forcefield. Looking at you Mr/Mrs Orca Pilot...

That's a lot of risk and a commensurate amount of reward.

I see some of the same types who drone on and on about "if you undock you're consenting to PVP" complaining about off-grid boosters like you don't own any or you're too proud to use them. Or better yet, hop in a garbage destroyer, probe them down and gank them. If you do it right you can catch the guy Alt-Tab'ed on his main while he's in the middle of a fight and get some juicy green and purple loot.

HTFU.

Thank me later :D
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#58 - 2015-10-09 09:59:26 UTC
Reah Darknorth wrote:
The fact that a player can just buy an alt account with a T3 and significantly boost his PvP ability with said alt is really a bit insulting.

If that wasn't bad enough, fleet assist links also give The Blob even bigger advantages than they already have. As if it wasn't hard enough to fight in 1vX situations, they also have an absurd force multiplier on their side in the form of a 6-link Tengu.

Putting fleet links on grid is not enough. They should simply be removed from this game.

I mean picture that for a second. An Eve Online without fleet links. No more dragging the Loki alt around with you everywhere you go. No more 70km warp disrupting Garmurs. It would be so much cleaner, so much simpler. It would be so much more fair.


What's wrong with a frigate being able to tackle from 70km away? Didn't you prepare for that situation when you organized your fleet comp? Bring a Keres and damp it out from +100km away and jam it to hell and back with a Kitsune. Notice how both of these ships are in the same class as the Garmur? There's a counter to everything.

CCP should buff pilot skill before they nerf T3 links.

Thank me later :D
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#59 - 2015-10-09 10:16:08 UTC
If this fit is OP ..

[GetRektFukBoi]
Brynn's Modified Co-Processor
Dread Guristas Co-Processor
Dread Guristas Co-Processor
Dread Guristas Co-Processor
Inertial Stabilizers II

Command Processor I
Command Processor I
Command Processor I
50MN Microwarpdrive II

Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Covert Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit II
Medium Low Friction Nozzle Joints I
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I

Proteus Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration
Proteus Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor
Proteus Defensive - Warfare Processor


Liquid Ozone x100
Nanite Repair Paste x167
Sisters Combat Scanner Probe x8

but this fit is not...

[Proteus, Proteus]
1600mm Steel Plates II
Centus C-Type Armor Explosive Hardener
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer
Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer

50MN Microwarpdrive II
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
Small Capacitor Booster II
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier

Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

Proteus Engineering - Power Core Multiplier
Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor
Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature
Proteus Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor
Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating

Hammerhead II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5

Mjolnir Heavy Missile x26
Inferno Heavy Missile x30
Null M x5010
Void M x1466
Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile x314
Navy Cap Booster 400 x9

... I mean c'mon. If the other side shows up with T3 cruisers and you don't know how to beat it... the solution is not bleating in the night like a calf separated from it's mother. The solution is GTFO.

rabble rabble Sun Tzu rabble rabble

Thank me later :D
Yang Aurilen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#60 - 2015-10-09 10:18:20 UTC
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:
Reah Darknorth wrote:
The fact that a player can just buy an alt account with a T3 and significantly boost his PvP ability with said alt is really a bit insulting.

If that wasn't bad enough, fleet assist links also give The Blob even bigger advantages than they already have. As if it wasn't hard enough to fight in 1vX situations, they also have an absurd force multiplier on their side in the form of a 6-link Tengu.

Putting fleet links on grid is not enough. They should simply be removed from this game.

I mean picture that for a second. An Eve Online without fleet links. No more dragging the Loki alt around with you everywhere you go. No more 70km warp disrupting Garmurs. It would be so much cleaner, so much simpler. It would be so much more fair.


What's wrong with a frigate being able to tackle from 70km away? Didn't you prepare for that situation when you organized your fleet comp? Bring a Keres and damp it out from +100km away and jam it to hell and back with a Kitsune. Notice how both of these ships are in the same class as the Garmur? There's a counter to everything.

CCP should buff pilot skill before they nerf T3 links.


B-but muh true solo! That's really the gist of all those who whine about links being bad.

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!