These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

offgrid boosts

Author
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-12-01 08:35:37 UTC
Yeah, though honestly they might need to nerf boosts further than just moving them on grid. They make too big a difference and so as people say they will be primary #1 without fail, on every occasion. It's not really offering much in the way of meaningful choices or decision making. I realise that sounds stupid, but with them off grid in the main right now, you can't headshot them so other tactical decisions are forced.

Still, it's all up in the air I suppose, but I really hope it's a comprehensive balance over them and not just "now they are on grid, bye!"

My gut feel says this shouldn't happen before next summer as there is too much in the way of super (pun intended) important stuff between now and then to allow a proper balance pass, although I suppose we could live for a short time with them being moved on grid to help low sec and a proper pass later.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#42 - 2015-12-01 08:37:03 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
...very valid stuff, everyone should read... If you really need to sig tank, pop that pill that reduces sig radius :)


You really have good X-Tinct's Big smile

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Black Pedro
Mine.
#43 - 2015-12-01 08:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Madd Adda wrote:
i don't mind the removal of ogb used for pvp, but only on two conditions:
1.the passive effect of skills that impact fleet members while they are in fleet, such as leadership, continue to be offgrid
2. links that don't improve defensive/offensive/pvp support capability remain offgrid.

Why should invulnerable mining boosts from behind POS shields remain a thing?

Risk vs. reward remember? If you want a boost in yield, you should have to put something at risk. As it is, there is no game decisions to be made - a mining booster is 100% safe so it is mandatory for any competitive miner. This just adds an un-engaging cost to the profession and hurts new/casual players (kinda like PvP boosts).

There should be some risk in using a mining booster. I bet by the time the Drilling Platform structures are released, 100% safe boosts will no longer be a thing.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#44 - 2015-12-01 08:48:30 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Yeah, though honestly they might need to nerf boosts further than just moving them on grid. They make too big a difference and so as people say they will be primary #1 without fail, on every occasion.


That's what justifies their ludicrous tank, after all.

It might be construed as taking away tactical choices, but what tactical choice is there in a cloaked booster alt? The whole problem with them right now is just how binary they are. You either bring one and hide it deep, or you're gimping yourself, and fleet combat has no place for such a "choice".

There's no more or less choice in the matter of whether you want boosts, but there are additional tactical considerations now, like whether you bring a spare booster in case your primary one dies, or whether you spread the boosts around between several ships so they can't nuke it all by killing one ship, etc.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#45 - 2015-12-01 10:39:54 UTC
Your sub all three of your boosting accounts?

Mine ate all just on one account
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2015-12-01 10:41:09 UTC
I get what you're saying and I know it sounds oxymoronic but the situation today is assume boosts and make various tactical choices anyway. Tomorrow it'll be primary all the CS to death. Then resume existing tactical choices.

Also, as others have mentioned setting the fat turkey aside, the CS tanks really aren't all that. You've basically got the damnation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vulture/NH>>>>>>>Everything else. You get a bigger tank on a proteus than the Eos you'd want to boost it. That's not cool. Yes, yes, T3s broken but you take my point.

They need to look long and hard at these. The active tankers are hopeless in a fleet fight, they just can't get up there. They're holdovers from the old design scheme of the fleet and field command ships. "Field boosters" pretty much died a death with the warp speed changes and the speed creep in the cruiser and below meta. Some exceptions exist, but are exceptions.

Which is why I say maybe their impact needs a big nerf too, otherwise there is no choice - kill the command ship, or lose. Which means you bring a damnation, or lose.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#47 - 2015-12-01 10:44:55 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I get what you're saying and I know it sounds oxymoronic but the situation today is assume boosts and make various tactical choices anyway. Tomorrow it'll be primary all the CS to death. Then resume existing tactical choices.

Also, as others have mentioned setting the fat turkey aside, the CS tanks really aren't all that. You've basically got the damnation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vulture/NH>>>>>>>Everything else. You get a bigger tank on a proteus than the Eos you'd want to boost it. That's not cool. Yes, yes, T3s broken but you take my point.

They need to look long and hard at these. The active tankers are hopeless in a fleet fight, they just can't get up there. They're holdovers from the old design scheme of the fleet and field command ships. "Field boosters" pretty much died a death with the warp speed changes and the speed creep in the cruiser and below meta. Some exceptions exist, but are exceptions.

Which is why I say maybe their impact needs a big nerf too, otherwise there is no choice - kill the command ship, or lose. Which means you bring a damnation, or lose.


In sure they will adjust then when they move them on grid.

Also it won't be being a command ship or lose it will be being n+1 or lose and just have someone dedicated to updating the fleet booster when one goes down

However even this isn't true add currently a non boated fleet can still beat a boated one
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#48 - 2015-12-01 10:47:46 UTC
And bringing up yet another issue with the BC and BS classes.

The warp speed changes just cripple most larger ship doctrines from the outset. Unless the intent behind those changes was to make this game into Cruisers Online, I cannot figure out why they haven't been scrapped yet. Well, CCP's longstanding tendency towards sunken cost fallacies notwithstanding, anyway.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#49 - 2015-12-01 11:13:05 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Removing off grid boosts will be bad for ccp's income.
personaly i run 3 off grid boost toons, which is 3 accounts paid for each month.

remove the offgrid functionalty, and why would i need them anymore?
it restricts where i will want to fight, so i wont bother fighting else where.
i dont even see any point to keeping them subbed if i have to move them every where to benefit from them.
so that would make it 3 less paid for accounts per month, from me alone.

now if every corporation in null runs a similar setup, thats 1500 corps no longer using 3 accounts per system each.

so 4500 unsubbed accounts, just from removing off grid boosts.

plus less people will be willing to fight without boosts, so less content, less happy pvper's, more people unsub.

way to kill the game with such a simple change.

so please reconcider the removal of offgrid boosts. we have had them for many years, with few issues, why change them now?


I don't think many people have that many OGB accounts. I myself have 3 off grid boosters on 2 accounts so that's only 2 accounts I no longer need, not 3. You may need to redo that math.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#50 - 2015-12-01 11:20:46 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link.



This disadvantage is the ONLY command ship you'll actually see boosting is the damnnation. Everything else will be alpha'd off grid in a heartbeat.

Seriously, they're going to be headshot the minute grid loads because the difference links makes is so substantial to do otherwise would be simply stupid.


And this calls for another serious look at Command Ships. I'd say to strip their firepower in favor of ultra tank and sustaining ability.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#51 - 2015-12-01 12:44:55 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link.



This disadvantage is the ONLY command ship you'll actually see boosting is the damnnation. Everything else will be alpha'd off grid in a heartbeat.

Seriously, they're going to be headshot the minute grid loads because the difference links makes is so substantial to do otherwise would be simply stupid.


And this calls for another serious look at Command Ships. I'd say to strip their firepower in favor of ultra tank and sustaining ability.


Honestly, I disagree. They already are suffering in comparison to regular battlecruisers thanks to the application buffs those received.

I like how versatile of a ship they are, especially with the frankly absurd training requirements.

I think, as far as just being ships goes, they are in a decent place right now in many ways(buff medium autocannons for crying out loud), but that we really need to wait and see how on grid boosts develop before we talk about needing to alter the ship class that drastically.

I mean, if you really truly want max tank on a link boat, fit up a Proteus, it will tank more than adequately.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-12-01 13:09:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Removing off grid boosts will be bad for ccp's income.
personaly i run 3 off grid boost toons, which is 3 accounts paid for each month.

remove the offgrid functionalty, and why would i need them anymore?
it restricts where i will want to fight, so i wont bother fighting else where.
i dont even see any point to keeping them subbed if i have to move them every where to benefit from them.
so that would make it 3 less paid for accounts per month, from me alone.

now if every corporation in null runs a similar setup, thats 1500 corps no longer using 3 accounts per system each.

so 4500 unsubbed accounts, just from removing off grid boosts.

plus less people will be willing to fight without boosts, so less content, less happy pvper's, more people unsub.

Oh grow a pair and bring your boosting ships on-grid. Alternatively, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

1.) Just because you can't see a use for on-grid boosters doesn't mean everyone else who runs boosts will just stop immediately.
2.) Every corp in null does not run a similar setup. We members of DROWI proudly run head first into danger. We do not leave boosting ships sitting in a far corner of the system. We do not play those sort of games, we play for fun.
3.) Your figures also fail to account for all the people who will come to EVE from the change. Improve the gameplay and people who don't like fun will run away, and be replaced by often even larger numbers of fun-lovers.



I'd ask for your stuff but I don't really want that many Command Processors with no Hardeners. Please just put it in the trash for me.







Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
And this calls for another serious look at Command Ships. I'd say to strip their firepower in favor of ultra tank and sustaining ability.


Honestly, I disagree. They already are suffering in comparison to regular battlecruisers thanks to the application buffs those received.

I like how versatile of a ship they are, especially with the frankly absurd training requirements.

I feel they already have the defense to warrant having less offensive output, but they don't have reduced offensive output really. It's already a little overpowered, just to make it feel like less of a DPS hole. It needs no more than that, and really the defenses are fine.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#53 - 2015-12-01 13:28:25 UTC
I always liked the idea of making t3's still work off grid, but only be able to boost a squad, along with a small nerf to their bonus maybe. You could have wing command and fc add one slot per level, so at fc 5 you could boost a full squad of 10.
While commands can only boost on grid but can do the whole wing/fleet, and I guess get a role bonus for fleet numbers.

That way small gang and solo people can still use them, but big fleets cant abuse the mechanic.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#54 - 2015-12-01 13:29:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
And this calls for another serious look at Command Ships. I'd say to strip their firepower in favor of ultra tank and sustaining ability.


Honestly, I disagree. They already are suffering in comparison to regular battlecruisers thanks to the application buffs those received.

I like how versatile of a ship they are, especially with the frankly absurd training requirements.

I feel they already have the defense to warrant having less offensive output, but they don't have reduced offensive output really. It's already a little overpowered, just to make it feel like less of a DPS hole. It needs no more than that, and really the defenses are fine.



Can you fit me a workable eos, astarte, claymore or sleipnir which has even 75% of a comparable damnations levels of survivability, please?

Because god knows, I've tried and it isn't happening for me.

Now these are four fantastic ships for smashing a small gang on a roam, but as mentioned....no-one roams with these any more.

Whilst it's an admitted shift from gallente master race, it's still not healthy.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2015-12-01 13:38:54 UTC
Oooh. The, "its a command ship" primary it and toss in fleet composition to spies is a valid concern. From my experience, it makes being an on grig a purely defensive position in both fit and grid positioning. Smaller fleets, so like a hundred or so, is not too bad for supertanks to survive.

This goes back to ccp only saying changes, not what those changes are. They did say in their stream however that will be easier for backup commands or something but doesnt change primary xyz. Will need to keep an eye on it I guess. It should be a thing, spend time taking out command ship, or worry about other targets. Biggest reason that doesnt happen is alpha play pointing back to logi issues.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#56 - 2015-12-01 13:53:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
I really cannot find anything disadvantageous from a gameplay perspective. Most people forget that a battlecruiser can fit a warfare link.



This disadvantage is the ONLY command ship you'll actually see boosting is the damnnation. Everything else will be alpha'd off grid in a heartbeat.

Seriously, they're going to be headshot the minute grid loads because the difference links makes is so substantial to do otherwise would be simply stupid.


And this calls for another serious look at Command Ships. I'd say to strip their firepower in favor of ultra tank and sustaining ability.


Honestly, I disagree. They already are suffering in comparison to regular battlecruisers thanks to the application buffs those received.

I like how versatile of a ship they are, especially with the frankly absurd training requirements.

I think, as far as just being ships goes, they are in a decent place right now in many ways(buff medium autocannons for crying out loud), but that we really need to wait and see how on grid boosts develop before we talk about needing to alter the ship class that drastically.

I mean, if you really truly want max tank on a link boat, fit up a Proteus, it will tank more than adequately.


I believe CCP is gonna broaden the T2 BC class into multiple variants like T2 Cruisers (HACs,HICs, Recons, etc). With the removal of OGB, I see no reason for Command Ships to be use as combatant ships anymore. I rather for them to become true Command Ships with focus on on grid boosting, High EHP with very strong tanks. Then around that time CCP can release a new line of T2 BCs designed for pure combat.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-12-01 13:57:48 UTC
That is the way it used to be. For amarr example, absolution was insane damage dealer, one link. Damnation was triple link, all tank. Now you can pick.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Viyaja
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2015-12-01 14:04:44 UTC
Dont forget that CCP is experementig with large Grids. So the new OnGrid Booster can stil be 1000km of the figiht
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2015-12-01 14:20:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Another potential that I wouldnt mind if press F1 play got remediated would be command battleships and needing bastion mode to activate more than one command module. TacRecon is quite fun. I love flying the new T3Ds. Been a long time sinve I had as much fun as them.

Do command ships have mjd cooldown bonus? Cannot remember. Large grid and mid could help if you are good for sure. I used to on grid tactical warp to keep at edge of field. Sometimes a close offgrid bounce bm. On grid is same deal

EDIT: That might be a good way to spice up the command ships. The former tanky versions become a sort of bastion command ship and the other a high mobility version with mjd bonuses. Ignore the bastion for links. I for one welcome the new transforming overlords.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#60 - 2015-12-01 15:12:17 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

I believe CCP is gonna broaden the T2 BC class into multiple variants like T2 Cruisers (HACs,HICs, Recons, etc). With the removal of OGB, I see no reason for Command Ships to be use as combatant ships anymore. I rather for them to become true Command Ships with focus on on grid boosting, High EHP with very strong tanks. Then around that time CCP can release a new line of T2 BCs designed for pure combat.


Wait, what? On grid boosting is precisely why they have the combat abilities that they do.

You do realize that loading up on nothing but command links in the highslots was the unintended behavior, right? You're supposed to stick a couple in the spares and spread the load out among numerous ships. That's their original design intent.

I mean, let's be real here, flying an otherwise useless buff stick is not much fun. Whatever else it might have turned into now with Game of Alts, the intent is that these be acceptable options for someone to fly solo with and assist his fleet, while not being relegated to an inactive role.

There really is no reason to split them into two ship classes, when you have one class that can perform both roles, but not both at the same time.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.