These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#81 - 2015-10-11 12:42:22 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Yang Aurilen wrote:


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


You may think ogb killing off solo pvp is no big deal, but I can tell you that I used to have a blast doing solo pvp. And ccp shouldn't think killing it off is not going to have an effect on the numbers of people playing the game.


Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:

Why are off-grid boosters a problem?


1) Do you think dragging your alt everywhere you go is fun gameplay? Healthy people play computer games for the fun of it. Forcing players to do things that are not fun in a game is always a problem.

2) Also it is insulting to the player base to say "pay us an extra $15 every month and you will get a 35% boost to everything." How many suckers do they think are in the playerbase? I think they are finding there are fewer than they might have hoped.

And no people who fly ships risking expensive fittings/implants is not the same. If we could fit crews or something that gave the same bonuses as ogb I would not have as much of a problem with them. (assuming of course you could only get one or the other) The fact that the only way to get those bonuses is to pay an extra $15/month real money and the fact that you have to engage in lame game play by dragging your alt everywhere are 2 knocks against ogb that do not apply to any other bonuses in game.




How do you feel about Command Ships or Battlecruisers that fit warfare links?

Thank me later :D
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2015-10-12 03:56:49 UTC
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Yang Aurilen wrote:
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.


It's not even about solo. It's about a semi-AFK alt in a T3 being a required part of any mobile fleet doctrine. One that faces zero risk in highsec and limited risk in low and null.

Seriously, the fact that links give you fights against terrible blobbers who are too stupid to either dock up or bring their own links ×2 with a couple of drams or ceptors does not constitute an argument.

You are arguing that a mechanic creates content because it allows you to farm bad players for content. Well guess what? You will ALWAYS be able to farm bad players for content. Your dual damp garmur will only be marginally less good against e-uni and brave blobs when you have only HG Snakes to rely on.



I don't fly my ships AFK... semi- or otherwise.

What makes you think there's no risk in High-Sec?

Farming... right. I'm not involved with FW because it's only a bad cough away from the AIDS Null-Sec is dealing with. I'm talking about using a squad of alts to scout for a fleet in search of targets.

We use links as needed because it's also nice to know that our 5-6 man fleet will be set up for success. If our opponents are unprepared or unsuspecting - good, that means my job will be made that much easier.

I am arguing that if a group is unprepared they are unprepared and should look at themselves before blaming game mechanics that were in place before they undocked.

Also... a damping Garmur o.0 ... no no.... a damping Keres and jamming Kitsune to handle the Garmur with 70km tackle. Again, planning and preparation.


The risk to links in highsec is zero. An NPC corp brick tanked Damnation booster sitting at a safe may aswell be boosting from inside a station. That's assuming a wartarget entity can even identify your booster toon and other support alts.

Unprepared...as in doesn't pay CCP for a second account that's required to be competitive? Can we have a purchasable instant kill option too? It's the same principle taken to logical extremes. Conflict in EVE should be decided by ingame decisions not out of game bank accounts.

Dual damping garmurs are a thing. I've not used one but I know Crosi does, I imagine it's useful for shitting on things that would normally have the range to hit you at your 70k point range and scan res damps are probably useful against would be tacklers.

The nice thing about doing 10k m/s is that when you do see something like a keres that can force you offgrid, you can just leave and go find something that's not a keres. That's pretty much all you can do vs a linked, hg snaked garmur, is bring something specifically fit to make him leave. Instalock gatecamps are no threat because of the cloaky T3 booster that doubles as a scout.

You are not going to get info on links usage from CCP but anecdotally I can say that every entity in the cal/gal warzone larger than 2-3 guys, has links. Many solo'ers do also. If you have the capacity to run multiple accounts, links are by far the best investment in the game.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2015-10-12 04:05:21 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Heres just a typical engagement from my experience.

I have a catalyst alt running a timer. A nano kite astero decloaks and tackles it and two worms show up on scan. My alt warps away as it has stabs.

They cry foul as though stabs were unfair but their 2 worm/astero combo would have been an honourable fight.

I enter system with my boosts and warp directly to the plex where there is still 2 worms and possibly a cloaked astero. I activate gate, they are happy at that point to take a punt on scramming me on the warp in. They didnt manage it and i have one of the two worms tackled.

The astero, who was not in the plex enters and starts to close angles but i manage to evade. I get the worm to low shields and the astero bails. The second worm stays till his friend dies and also gets tackled and killed.

Now, in the initial engagement the astero and 2 worms may have been on grid, but they chose to try and gank a month old character at literally zero risk to themselves.

I chose to warp in to 2 worms who were waiting, presumably overheated tackle at zero on the warp in. Pretty sure during this whole engagement i was taking the majority of the risk, with the luxury of the OGB mitigating that somewhat.

This was just the last in a dozen or so engagements yesterday where i warped in to as many as 15-20 hostiles using the boosts as a means for that to not just be suicide. Did they enjoy it? im not really concerned with that. With some effort could they stop me thus fixing the problem of my boosted kite garmur? Easily.


And you will not get that engagement with those players again. What happens when you run out of people who don't understand the futility of fighting a 10k m/s damping garmur?

Do you still run dual damps by the way, or was that someone else's fit? And is it 10k or 11?
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#84 - 2015-10-12 09:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Dual damping garmurs are a thing. I've not used one but I know Crosi does, I imagine it's useful for shitting on things that would normally have the range to hit you at your 70k point range and scan res damps are probably useful against would be tacklers.


I have never flown a damp garmur, let alone a dual damp garmur in my life. I wonder what else you 'know'.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

The nice thing about doing 10k m/s is that when you do see something like a keres that can force you offgrid, you can just leave and go find something that's not a keres. That's pretty much all you can do vs a linked, hg snaked garmur, is bring something specifically fit to make him leave. Instalock gatecamps are no threat because of the cloaky T3 booster that doubles as a scout.


OMG, bringing a counter? Knowing how to play the game and putting some thought into it????? IN MY EVE? GOD FORBID!!!

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


And you will not get that engagement with those players again. What happens when you run out of people who don't understand the futility of fighting a 10k m/s damping garmur?

Do you still run dual damps by the way, or was that someone else's fit? And is it 10k or 11?


Again, never in my life flown a garmur with a damp on it. My garmur does 8.5km/s with quafe and a 1.2bill isk booster alt with faction mindlink, 300m isk ship and 3b isk head. It will overheat to just short of 12k, but im not a fan of dazzling people with OH numbers. Some ceptors and the dramiel and possibly the dd can be as fast or faster.

Fact is though when you get past 7km, it really does just come down to the attacking party timing an overheat cycle and getting lucky with the garmur having to wait some time for its prop to finish current cycle.

So thats 4.5 billion isk in space, some of which can be probed down if you have as good skills in proibing as my alt does in leadership, and the rest is on grid.
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#85 - 2015-10-12 10:32:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
I like your post and will take it apart piece by piece. Please consider the following points...

1 - We just murdered a link Damnation in High Sec earlier this week. They are at risk, especially in High Sec. I'm not allowed to link a killmail here but if you search our board you won't have to look too far into the past.

2 - Alt accounts are not required to be competitive within Eve. Flying with friends is good; flying with friends and all of your alts in a hunter killer team is best. CCP acknowledges this and has previously encouraged players to buy another account with their "Sidekick" marketing campaign. I like my alts... they allow me to specialize without compromising Jam's training path.

3 - Crosi denies using a damp-Garmur and I'm going to take his word for it over yours until you offer proof and even then... bring a counter. I understand that you might really like Faction Warfare and that's cool. If you're not in FW please forgive me. Personally, I'm in High Sec executing targets to satisfy contracts; that doesn't sit well with some and I'm okay with that. Similarly, if I choose to bring warfare links and a Virtue-prober to the fight I'm not sure how that makes me part of the problem. I think this practice actually makes me part of the solution.

4 - You are correct. I, along with many others, have chosen to fund multiple accounts and invested wisely by training links. Thank you for finally agreeing with us.

Sometimes really smart people make bad arguments. You're not bad. I'm not bad. Links are not bad.

Thank me later :D
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#86 - 2015-10-12 13:33:07 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

And you will not get that engagement with those players again.



As long as eve is around it will have the occasional new guy. And they will learn that to be competitive in what many consider the funnest part of eve, they will need to buy a second account to sit in a safe spot. Crosi claims he finds that fun. I am pretty sure the vast majority of people would disagree.

Notice Crosi and Jamwara never answered the questions I put to them. Of course that is because they know ogb is driving down numbers, but they are so attached to their crutch they can't admit it.

And a few people will continue wondering why eve is losing numbers.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#87 - 2015-10-12 13:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Most people play this game to fly in groups. The notion of solo play is pretty much emergent and not the games intended purpose.

You have suggested that numbers are going down because of OGB, i know not one player that has quit the game because of them, or any operation this year that ended with 'yeah but, we cant push x home system because they have boosts'.

I have given you the reasons why larger scale meat-grinders have been few this year in our space which is far more responsible for the lower numbers than you not pvping anymore.

Your interpretation of data is always intuition driven to support your pet idea rather than from experience of actual events. As a minor / non-figure on either side of the warzone its understandable that you have no idea whats going on but this tiresome witch hunt to blame almost everything in EVE on OGB because its effecting a very small proportion of the player-base who choose to tru-solo is ludicrous.

Though keep saying your questions are not answered even though they are time and time again. Its just your questions that change and get stupider and stupider.

The real reason EVE is losing numbers is because its player base is getting older, and as people get old they change priorities and have real life commitments. The reason EVE cannot replace those players is because EVE is a very odd game (which may not be compatible with the insta-gratification that the majority younger gamers seem to want). with a huge investments required as well as an outdated monthly subscription model, and now more than ever a great divide between the new and the old characters, perceived and real.

Couple that with a lot of players (far more than a few angsty soloers in low sec) being disgruntled about changes which have drastically effected the way they have played the game for many years in terms of a botched SOV change and jump range nerf (for good and bad), and you have a pretty clear image of what has lead to the lower number of people logging on.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#88 - 2015-10-12 14:18:43 UTC
Crosi


Of course, as per your mo you make those odd statements to try to muddy things. I asked specific questions to you. Go ahead and copy the questions I asked and put your answer under them. Because what you have been doing is not called answering the questions. It's called dancing around the questions.

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
#89 - 2015-10-12 14:21:34 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

And you will not get that engagement with those players again.



As long as eve is around it will have the occasional new guy. And they will learn that to be competitive in what many consider the funnest part of eve, they will need to buy a second account to sit in a safe spot. Crosi claims he finds that fun. I am pretty sure the vast majority of people would disagree.

Notice Crosi and Jamwara never answered the questions I put to them. Of course that is because they know ogb is driving down numbers, but they are so attached to their crutch they can't admit it.

And a few people will continue wondering why eve is losing numbers.



What questions did I leave unanswered and where is the data that shows OGB are driving players out of the game?

Thank me later :D
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#90 - 2015-10-12 14:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

And you will not get that engagement with those players again.



As long as eve is around it will have the occasional new guy. And they will learn that to be competitive in what many consider the funnest part of eve, they will need to buy a second account to sit in a safe spot. Crosi claims he finds that fun. I am pretty sure the vast majority of people would disagree.

Notice Crosi and Jamwara never answered the questions I put to them. Of course that is because they know ogb is driving down numbers, but they are so attached to their crutch they can't admit it.

And a few people will continue wondering why eve is losing numbers.



What questions did I leave unanswered and where is the data that shows OGB are driving players out of the game?


You probably didnt, This has always been his posting style. Its the way he can completely disregard anything anyone else ever says.

He will literally obfuscate thread after thread with the same 'stop avoiding this' and 'you didnt answer that' even though all his points are addressed. the only way around it would be to bring the entire thread into a single post in summary because it seems if you answered the question 3 pages ago, he wants you to answer it again every few posts or its like you never did.

On the occasion that you manage to sum up all points and topics in a single post, he will either stop posting for a few days then come back like it didnt happen or just change the subject.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#91 - 2015-10-12 14:34:32 UTC
Sorry trolls I am not going to keep reposting the questions.

The evidence that players are dissatisfied is pretty clear from reading the forums and blogs on eve. For example one of the most upvoted proposals that has yet to be addressed by ccp is to put boosts on grid. But hey, keep ignoring the evidence and pretending you didn't know players think this is broken.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#92 - 2015-10-12 14:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Cearain wrote:
Sorry trolls I am not going to keep reposting the questions.

The evidence that players are dissatisfied is pretty clear from reading the forums and blogs on eve. For example one of the most upvoted proposals that has yet to be addressed by ccp is to put boosts on grid. But hey, keep ignoring the evidence and pretending you didn't know players think this is broken.


You not liking an answer is not the same as not answering the question.

Up-votes are not a great metric. Show me where to down-vote this post and we will see how it turns out.

Removing boosts completely would be vastly preferable to putting them on grid. But i and many others think that just putting them on killmails while giving them weapon and suspect timers would be a great place for OGB to be. I agree with the complaint that boosts are too safe atm. Removing expensive ships from space would be regrettable imo, but putting boosts in the hands of only those in the more powerful blobs by putting them on grid is a terrible proposition.

I can understand that it wouldnt bother you to see gang warfare balance be further pushed to favor the larger entities since all you want to do is fly around ganking newbs in your t1 frig and complain about everything.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#93 - 2015-10-12 15:02:58 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Sorry trolls I am not going to keep reposting the questions.

The evidence that players are dissatisfied is pretty clear from reading the forums and blogs on eve. For example one of the most upvoted proposals that has yet to be addressed by ccp is to put boosts on grid. But hey, keep ignoring the evidence and pretending you didn't know players think this is broken.

Crosi Wesdo wrote:

You not liking an answer is not the same as not answering the question.


You dancing around a question is not the same as answering it. Again feel free to quote the question you are supposedly answering and put your answer under it.

Crosi Wesdo wrote:

Up-votes are not a great metric. Show me where to down-vote this post and we will see how it turns out.


While I agree upvotes are not a good metric, the fact that this is one of the most upvoted proposals should mean something. As far as down votes a person can always say "no" in a post below or say "it's a bad idea" and upvoting that is effectively downvoting the proposal.

But regardless of upvotes there has been lots of well thought out arguments presented by plenty players and even devs that the current mechanic is bad. Only a few players who have learned to rely on the crutch argue the absurd position that it is actually healthy for the game.

[quote=Crosi Wesdo]
Removing boosts completely would be vastly preferable to putting them on grid. But i and many others think that just putting them on killmails while giving them weapon and suspect timers would be a great place for OGB to be. I agree with the complaint that boosts are too safe atm. Removing expensive ships from space would be regrettable imo, but putting boosts in the hands of only those in the more powerful blobs by putting them on grid is a terrible proposition.

I can understand that it wouldnt bother you to see gang warfare balance be further pushed to favor the larger entities since all you want to do is fly around ganking newbs in your t1 frig and complain about everything.


It seems you like "group" play when it is defined as one guy flying a bunch of his own alts, but when the "group" is actual human beings playing together you are all for nerfing that style of play. I suggest you are the one trying to defend a much more niche style of gameplay than I am.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#94 - 2015-10-12 15:03:49 UTC
When did i want to nerf any type of group play?
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2015-10-12 15:07:56 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:


And i didnt say people dont complain about how eve is unfair. I just said that i dont personally know of anyone who has actually cited boosts as any sort of reason for them quitting.



I am saddened to say than I know of 1 player who has took an extended break from Ever due to the Links meta. Sard Cade (think that's how you spell his name.) And 2 more that are slowly losing the will to play due to links being needed just to compete let alone win a fight with skill instead of links. One of them is Finture. I have seen that he is slowly playing less and less. And the other is Sir Scweebles. The word I hear from a friend of a friend of a friend is that he has been away and not playing Eve due to general burn out after the AT13 Torny plus the need to have links all the time.

I Too have been playing less and less due to Links. The fact that I need them now just to even fight a so called solo Atron that has links in a novice FW site is just plain wrong to me.

Lets also talk about how unfulfilling it is to fly a t3 as a link ship in a fleet? I did this a few weeks ago for somebody and it is the most lame role in the game. This is why it a alt job. There is no fun too it. Now flying a command ship on grid as a link ship is more than doable and is fun. My Fleet support Eos is great fun to fly in a fleet. Is it the optimum way to fly links? No. Having a alt do it is better for the fleet. When that has changed. I may come back to more PvP in Eve.

But I digress. I still hope that somebody in CCP can come up with some nice stats with graph porn for us about how I did in the last 12 months.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#96 - 2015-10-12 16:05:21 UTC
So because 2-3 guys dont have as much fun dunking scrubs because they keep running into better prepared foes that have boosts and dunk them, we have to steamroll over all gang and fleet warfare?

I would guess that the effect that OGB is having on a few people who for some reason think solo is a good thing would pale into insignificance when faced with every fleet member coming to the realisation that overnight they will need twice the number of logi to tank what they did the day before. Even then they will get alphad a lot easier.

Or they will have to cart a commandship around with them which they will lose in every single engagement because suddenly bored hotdroppers / 3rd parties or just bigger fleets will get a nice killmail out of even a silly cruiser fleet.

Pretty sure that will annoy more than just a few random dudes.
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2015-10-12 17:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Oddsodz
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
So because 2-3 guys dont have as much fun dunking scrubs because they keep running into better prepared foes that have boosts and dunk them, we have to steamroll over all gang and fleet warfare?



lol, Alas, I feel that you are a little behind here. The above stated pilots constantly dunked all the things links or not. Just go watch some of their past streams on twitch. But they like myself are sick of the fact that they HAVE to have links or they can not compete at all. In the case of Fintrue. He does not use links that much. But he choses to deadspace/faction snake fit all his ships (he has a rich sugar daddy that gives him lots of ISK to PvP with) just so he can even compete/engaged with a simple t2 fit gang. If it was not for all the ISK he has at hand., He, I think would have stopped playing long ago as he like me knows that if the target has links and you don't, Then no matter how good a pilot you are. You will not win a fight ever. And all because they have links. This is wrong.

Also, With no way to bait a t3 booster, Nobody is willing to spend the time needed to try and catch one. And the fact that they just sit on a gate/station and are completely safe 99.99999 of the time is just plain bad. To find a t3 booster in a safe spot takes 3 pilots and a set of virtues implants in a perfect maxed skilled prober and a lot of luck that the t3 does not cloak/warp when he sees your probes on D-scan when you go to tackle it. So much work/effort that is not fun.

Links on grid means that they are at risk. Risk is good. I myself would love to see warfare links get a buff so long as they are on grid and at risk.

My wish list for command ships with links is


  1. Make them only work on gird/range 100km -whatever the DEVs think is best
  2. Let them fit target spectrum breakers.
  3. Let them have a spin up bonus to Micro Jump Drive to get out of harm's way faster
  4. Remove t3 links altogether
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#98 - 2015-10-12 18:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Well, those suggestions would have a massive impact on small/medium gang and many fleet doctrines and just about all of the pvping playerbase while also making nano gangs far weaker to the point of non-viability in some cases.

Just so a vocal minority can move on to complaining about how implants are too low-risk for their benefits.

If these people feel forced to use boosts i would ask why?

Theres not THAT many boosts around. I suspect they use boosts for the same reason as most people do. They want the advantage. Turning round later and saying they dont want to use boosts any more but are unwilling to suffer the inevitable drop in success rate? So everyone else has to stop using boosts too, even those in logi fleets or those fighting alpha fleets, or those in cruisers, those that cant afford a new commandship every time someone 3rd parties or hot drops their fleet and so on...

Just because this small handful of scrubs want some meaningless and inconsequential solo to be fairer.
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#99 - 2015-10-12 20:28:42 UTC
This thread is garbage.

Thank me later :D
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2015-10-13 00:52:36 UTC
Nobody is complaining about implants. Implants are at risk, Just ask Santo.....

I am sorry Crosi, But you are wrong about it just being a "Just so a vocal minority". in fact I don't know a single pilot that would want to keep links off grid.

But I guess we move in different groups.

Anyway,. I will ask you kindly to move along from this thread. It is clear to all that you don't wish to see links moved to on grid only. And that is your right to think that way. I think your point of view is very clear. And this is not a thread discuss the pros and cons of links on or off grid. That has been done to death already. This is a thread about how links have been used in the last 12 months in regards to my combat performance (or lack of performance).

So again I will ask very kindly if CCP would be so kind to come up with my requested info.

Thanks for reading.

Oddsodz