Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
436
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've heard a lot of arguments for and against Fleet Boosting.
Fleet boosting, in general gives enormous boosts to fleet operations. No one can deny the advantages they provide. So, here's the pro's and cons to offgrid vs ongrid boosting:
Reasons for On grid boosting only:
- Your opponents have the ability to directly kill the booster. Since the booster is giving enormous advantages, it should be at risk.
- T3 Boosting becomes much more inline with Command ship boosting. T3's give better boosts than command ships, but it's very hard to fit several links to a t3 and still have it field viable. This would certainly eliminate the 6-link paper thin t3 setups... and make fleet command ships the most viable multi-link platform.
- It would give Fleet command ships their role back!
Reasons to keep Off grid
- Boosting characters are often highly trained alts, in feeble ships. This change would eliminate much of the time and training that went into making the alt.
- Offgrid boosters are often still engageable. You can scan them down and kill them. And if they are in a POS, you can destroy the POS.
- Offgrid boosters are often in capital ships... It's not pragmatic to risk a carrier, rorqual, or titan for the benefit of a home defense fleet.
- Offgrid boosters are widely used in group PvE, Home defense, and fleet warfare. Removing them will be a huge blow to leadership oriented characters, which are under-appreciated enough as is!
Please post with any other points I missed..... and I'll post them here...
P.S. Something we really need, whether we eliminate Offgrid or Ongrid Boosting, is an additional tab to the Fleet Management Interface.
Go Support it: Please Provide a Fleet Bonus Information Tab to the Fleet Management Interface
-- Something that shows what fleet bonuses we are currently receiving, and from whom. -- Anyone that has tried to ensure their warfare links are properly working knows how hokey and buggy the current fleet bonus system is.... |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
513
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think it should be on-grid only...I know people have time invested, but I don't think that was the initial purpose. You should have to choose to be a booster and that is what you are stuck with, unless you train elsewhere ofc. Simply opinion, even though I don't think it would change. |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
120
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Give them all .25M EHP, remove offgrid, nerf T3's. |
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
439
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Give them all .25M EHP, remove offgrid, nerf T3's.
You haven't fought a damnation haven't you?
"This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro" |
Othran
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
222
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
T3 wasn't supposed to be "better" than T2 for specialised roles.
T3 off-grid boosters clearly are better in terms of boost percentages. They are also significantly faster/easier to train for than Command Ships.
So what does "on-grid" boosting give you? Nothing as far as I can see, Command Ships can survive on-grid where T3 can't but why go on-grid in the first place? The Command Ships do bugger all damage anyway.
The arguments I hear is that a Command Ship booster makes it easier for fleet movement, especially for small gangs. Bollox it does, its no great problem using paper-thin T3 boosters.
What it boils down to is that T3 can boost the fleet more than the specialised T2 Command Ships but they're paper thin so they stay off-grid.
Command Ships can survive on-grid but why go on grid in the first place? You're not going to do anything other than KM *****.
The game design is simply broken for fleet boosters.
Personally I think the simplest solution is to nerf the T3 boost percentages so its significantly worse than a Command Ship. That's the way it was supposed to be anyway.
/me shrugs, nothing is going to happen anytime soon anyway - if this is fixed by the end of 2013 I'll be amazed. |
Lilliana Stelles
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
369
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Give them all .25M EHP, remove offgrid, nerf T3's.
That's not enough EHP.
Proteus and Damnation can break 1 mil. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
529
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
Against keeping them offline:
Keeping them off grid means you are required to dual box an alt. This is turning eve-online into alts-online. If you don't want to buy and dual box a second account don't bother with eve. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
818
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
1) Switch TIII and CS bonuses. If you want a cloaky nullified booster, you'll have to do with less bonuses. 2) Disable warfare link activation within a POS forcefield. However keep the system-wide effect. 3) Make active warfare links give huge signature radius increase. This meas that safespotted boosters are easy to probe. 4) Fix assigned boosters who are not in the fleet/wing/squad leader positions. 5) Make it so that fleet warping is an assignable role independent of who the FC is. 6) Show which bonuses and from which characters a particular member is getting. |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:1) Switch TIII and CS bonuses. If you want a cloaky nullified booster, you'll have to do with less bonuses. 2) Disable warfare link activation within a POS forcefield. However keep the system-wide effect. 3) Make active warfare links give huge signature radius increase. This meas that safespotted boosters are easy to probe. 4) Fix assigned boosters who are not in the fleet/wing/squad leader positions. 5) Make it so that fleet warping is an assignable role independent of who the FC is. 6) Show which bonuses and from which characters a particular member is getting.
1) Not a fan of a direct switch around on these due to various issues none the least a T3 running 3 links takes a much bigger gimp to its fitting running more than 1 link compared to command ships (tho some of the command ships need to be able to run 3 links with less overall impact). Not to mention the cost differences. Some tweaks to command ships and T3 bonuses wouldn't go amiss tho but only with careful consideration.
2) If someones boosting from a POS move to the next system or whatever and retake the tactical high ground, if your trying to siege someones system don't be suprised if they have entrenched defensive options.
3) I kind of agree on this one it makes sense from many perspectives including the technical detail - a ship transmitting and recieving the kind of telemetry, etc. data to be able to apply the kind of boosts of a command ship would have a huge energy signature that would be impossible to mask - I think there should be a trade off there somewhere tho i.e. a passive boost thats in the region of 12-15% that doesn't have blow your sig up on scan or full links which do. Infact I'm of the opinion that the ganglink modules should always give a passive boost even when in warp, etc. tho only in the region of the affore mention 12-15% type range.
One thing I thought could have potential tho its quite complicated - and a lot of people already struggle with things as simple as moving the fleet booster to wing, etc. - is that you could designate a limited number of people in the fleet as "link coordinators" i.e. the eyes and ears on grid and off-grid boosts only apply to ships that are in the same grid as the coordinator ship (which doesn't have to be a specific ship, just an assigned fleet position) and that hostile fleets can see who is the "link coordinator" - killing the link coordinator ship would mean that any ships on grid with it would lose links but also means that you can have a fractured fleet i.e. camping 2 different gates in the same system and still get boosts without having to have a specific ongrid command ship present. Obviously there would have to be some restrictions in place so people don't just keep re-assigning a new "link coordinator" position in fleet to keep boosts going. All in all a bit complicated and doesn't address on its own all the issues but does put the tactical aspect back in and makes the advantage of links possible to neutralise by the opposing force without making all those leadership trained chars redundant, boring someone to death having to fly a ship on grid that does nothing interesting from the perspective of the player flying it, etc. etc. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
136
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Against keeping them off grid:
Keeping them off grid means you are required to dual box an alt. This is turning eve-online into alts-online. If you don't want to buy and dual box a second account don't bother with eve.
I see what you did there. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
252
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:Give them all .25M EHP, remove offgrid, nerf T3's. That's not enough EHP. Proteus and Damnation can break 1 mil.
Another idiotic post with no basis in fact.
Damnation: 2 1600mm plates, 2 faction EANM, Full set HG slaves, perfect skills, 2 T1 trimarks = 605K.
Proteus with 3 links: I am not even going to bother pointing out how stupid your post is regarding 1 million HP.
If you are going to talk about this intelligently, post up some actual numbers, instead of puling numbers out of thin air. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jim Era wrote:I think it should be on-grid only...I know people have time invested, but I don't think that was the initial purpose. You should have to choose to be a booster and that is what you are stuck with, unless you train elsewhere ofc. Simply opinion, even though I don't think it would change.
Should I add that this is a social gaming experience and whatever your "ultra specialised alt" can do so can another real person behind the computer or a highly skilled multiboxing dude.
I'm strongly against off grid boosting for several reasons but you just mentioned one that really irritates me at highest level. Choices must have consequences, there are far too many old mechanics (or some lacking of real mechanics) to make it so alts are necessary or the easiest replaceable element for whatever combat type.
Yes having a cyno alt is a plus, yes having an industrial almost afk mining alt should BE a plus (however being strongly reduced in income ability compared with someone doing this activity "full time"), but if people feel the necessity of boosting alts then there's a real problem of gaming concept. It's at first a social experience witch means you are supposed to play with other people and not with your army of alts witch is plain wrong and bad for the game at the bottom line.
Yes, people who have those specialised alts will complain but whatever, if it's not for this reason it will be for another one, thing is that things need CHANGES to make out of our favourite game a much better game than it was a few years ago. Be it at small scale gang pvp or fleet pvp, boosting characters should be on grid but CCP also needs to realise those ships are in deep need of a serious take a look at, witch seems is about to come.
Just a fecking point of view brb |
Lilliana Stelles
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
369
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Lilliana Stelles wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:Give them all .25M EHP, remove offgrid, nerf T3's. That's not enough EHP. Proteus and Damnation can break 1 mil. Another idiotic post with no basis in fact. Damnation: 2 1600mm plates, 2 faction EANM, Full set HG slaves, perfect skills, 2 T1 trimarks = 605K. Proteus with 3 links: I am not even going to bother pointing out how stupid your post is regarding 1 million HP. If you are going to talk about this intelligently, post up some actual numbers, instead of puling numbers out of thin air.
They're both on battleclinic. It requires use of A-type hardeners instead of EANMs, and I believe a single T2 trimark, along with the new, buffed t2 plates as of the last patch.
I'm not going to google numbers that you can find yourself. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
459
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Cearain wrote:Against keeping them off grid:
Keeping them off grid means you are required to dual box an alt. This is turning eve-online into alts-online. If you don't want to buy and dual box a second account don't bother with eve. I see what you did there. Yes they should be on-grid, and EvE needs LoS, like now, so you can't shoot through 50 ships and insta pop the juicy buffer in the back. So would you prefer devs stopped work on everything else while they underwent the massive overhaul of the entire game that would be required to implement LOS? Or just deal with things as they are now? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
If they are required to be on grid people simply won't fly them anymore as they will be a primary target and they lack the ability to survive. The command-T3 booster ships would need to be completely reworked before putting them on grid. |
Pilna Vcelka
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:14:00 -
[16] - Quote
Having an off-grid boosting alt has become almost a neccessity. It requires you to upgrade-to-full and pay an additional account and training / buying a special character to do that.
Its essentialy a pay2win feature a should be removed.
I am shocked there are people threatening to unsub because of hypotetical off-grid boosting fix (as if it mattered). This is EVE, the most cruel MMO out there. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is and will cost you in the end. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
440
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:If they are required to be on grid people simply won't fly them anymore as they will be a primary target and they lack the ability to survive. The command-T3 booster ships would need to be completely reworked before putting them on grid.
Most Fleet Command Ships easily have enormous EHP... and most command t3s can still wield a 100k EHP tank while fitting a single Warfare Link...
Also, the damnation can have an obnoxious tank (make sure you include mindlink armor warfare bonuses to it too)... whether it can hit 1+m EHP or not is moreless irrelevant, as any subcapital tank above 200k EHP is more than battle ready.... |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:If they are required to be on grid people simply won't fly them anymore as they will be a primary target and they lack the ability to survive. The command-T3 booster ships would need to be completely reworked before putting them on grid.
Command T3 boosting should never be the "stupidity" that is right now, but thing is that IT'S players that have done of it what it is.
Command ships on the field is not that bad as people might think with fake arguments "we'll shoot it first" yadayada, that's a fake argument TBH !!! Why in hell would you spend alpha volleys on a fast uber tanked brick providing boosts when you can use 1/3 of that energy and stuff to kill other important ships mike tackle and dps ships??? -if some FC's are dumb then let them be.
Thing is that actual command ships are a little bit too fragile from my point of view but lets not forget some command ships are "tank" strong enough and have enough fire power. All command ships need a real take a look at and make them different, make them so you have to choose in between strong tank-strong boost-weak dps or T2 tank-weak boost-high dps but nothing in between. Also: get rid of those T3 command subs plz, this is horrible and should not even exist. brb |
Aurelius Valentius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
165
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:31:00 -
[19] - Quote
Roqual Pilot would love on-grid boosting only...
No need to sit in a POS, just put that Roqual right out in that belt.. oh, hot-drop by a carrier? oh no real defenses while in that compression mode... there goes the null sec mining... but I am all for it, being a high sec miner, I will make a Bazillion ISKies... so by all means - On-Grid only!!! To mine or not to mine... that is the quesiton. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
459
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
Aurelius Valentius wrote:Roqual Pilot would love on-grid boosting only... No need to sit in a POS, just put that Roqual right out in that belt.. oh, hot-drop by a carrier? oh no real defenses while in that compression mode... there goes the null sec mining... but I am all for it, being a high sec miner, I will make a Bazillion ISKies... so by all means - On-Grid only!!! Fix: Combat boosting must be on-grid, industrial boosting has system-wide range. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
adopt
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
411
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:If they are required to be on grid people simply won't fly them anymore as they will be a primary target and they lack the ability to survive. The command-T3 booster ships would need to be completely reworked before putting them on grid. Most Fleet Command Ships easily have enormous EHP... and most command t3s can still wield a 100k EHP tank while fitting a single Warfare Link... Also, the damnation can have an obnoxious tank (make sure you include mindlink armor warfare bonuses to it too)... whether it can hit 1+m EHP or not is moreless irrelevant, as any subcapital tank above 200k EHP is more than battle ready....
All Command ships and T3s can break 200k EHP, with god damn ease. The Eos/Astarte need some Love.
Regarding the off-grid T3s, switch the bonus of the Command Ship and the T3 Warfare Link Subsystem around, so CSs get 5% and T3s get 3%, keep the system wide effects though. Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled.
FREE XOLVE ~ THE HERO TEST NEEDS |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
780
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
The bonus of the T3 was never "intended" to have multiple co-processors. That's a player invention and you are gimping your setups.
This nonsense about "MY T3 CAN"T LIVE ON GRID" is bullshit because you are the one making it not-viable because you want to exploit the bonuses by having 6 command links on it, with ECCM boosters that make it unscannable (impossible to scan, done it many times with max skill faction fitted covert ops and they're not scannable.)
So, remove the ability to min-max the setups by denying the Command Processors to T3s and then people can go cry in the corner.
The T3s with full ECCM are pretty much unscannable, and hiding them behind a POS and saying "Destroy the POS" is the biggest troll of a joke I've ever heard.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
88
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:49:00 -
[23] - Quote
I see no reason to force on-grid boosting.
Command Ships are not meant to be a combat ship. Off-grid is especially needed for W-Space, because you lack the intel acquired from local and system jump-gate pipelines. You're just a flimsy, defenseless target waiting to be popped.
The idea is that you're sacrificing a man, or a "slot" in the fleet in order have boosts. What difference does it make if the Command Ship flies around and does nothing, or if it sits off-grid and does "nothing".
Scan it down, pop it. In a POS? Pop that then, because your enemy will retreat to that POS, where you have to either bring the fight to them anyway, or bugger off.
Bloodpetal wrote:The T3s with full ECCM are pretty much unscannable, and hiding them behind a POS and saying "Destroy the POS" is the biggest troll of a joke I've ever heard. It's not a joke. The Booster has to be in the same system, so if you're fighting there, then you are fighting in the system where your enemy keeps a POS. Whether you win or lose the battles, the fight is going to end up at the POS. I agree with your T3 assessment however, it shouldn't be stealing the role of BC Command Ships. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
459
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:51:00 -
[24] - Quote
Actually, I have an even better idea.
Keep fleet boosting off grid, but change ganglinks so that they bloom signature radius by a really huge amount while they're online while also reducing signature resolution and sensor strength, and disallow activation within pos shields (not applicable to mining ganglinks). EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Actually, I have an even better idea.
Keep fleet boosting off grid, but change ganglinks so that they bloom signature radius by a really huge amount while they're online while also reducing signature resolution and sensor strength, and disallow activation within pos shields (not applicable to mining ganglinks).
Welp this is not actually a real solution, I got your sarcastic comment and actually enjoy it
However in all the myriad of proposed solutions yours it's actually not the worst at all. brb |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
462
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 20:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Actually, I have an even better idea.
Keep fleet boosting off grid, but change ganglinks so that they bloom signature radius by a really huge amount while they're online while also reducing signature resolution and sensor strength, and disallow activation within pos shields (not applicable to mining ganglinks). Welp this is not actually a real solution, I got your sarcastic comment and actually enjoy it However in all the myriad of proposed solutions yours it's actually not the worst at all. What sarcastic comment are you referring to? As far as the post you were quoting goes, I was actually entirely serious. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
529
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote:
...Command Ships are not meant to be a combat ship. ..
Thats a new one.
If they were not meant to be in combat, why do they get bonuses for gank and tank? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
373
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
What if their were different boost amounts for on grid vs off grid. On grid being the best of course, then off grid being say half of any link bonuses/gang skills.
Just throwing it out there.
All on grid boosting means that any inty that needs to chase a target from the main gang wont get the benefits etc Theres alot of reasons off grid is good. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1260
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:17:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Command ships on the field is not that bad as people might think with fake arguments "we'll shoot it first" yadayada, that's a fake argument TBH !!! Why in hell would you spend alpha volleys on a fast uber tanked brick providing boosts when you can use 1/3 of that energy and stuff to kill other important ships mike tackle and dps ships??? -if some FC's are dumb then let them be. Actually flying a bait "command ship" would be hilarious.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Theres alot of reasons off grid is good.
Do you mean there's a lot of reasons making afk off grid boosting something easy to replace another player? -that's not a good thing, it's bad, it's worst than afk mining and harms a lot more the game than the afk guy reading his book or working while mining.
If you can't bring an off grid boost so doesn't someone else witch brings everyone at the same level if you have to bring them on grid. Just make more friends. brb |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Command ships on the field is not that bad as people might think with fake arguments "we'll shoot it first" yadayada, that's a fake argument TBH !!! Why in hell would you spend alpha volleys on a fast uber tanked brick providing boosts when you can use 1/3 of that energy and stuff to kill other important ships mike tackle and dps ships??? -if some FC's are dumb then let them be. Actually flying a bait "command ship" would be hilarious.
Well all you need actually it's a bait Keres it seems but this only proves how some FC's are plain awful, even I can't be that bad. And trust me I'm awful at pvp. brb |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1260
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:29:00 -
[32] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:If you can't bring an off grid boost so doesn't someone else witch brings everyone at the same level if you have to bring them on grid. Just make more friends. B-blobbing ?! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1260
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Command ships on the field is not that bad as people might think with fake arguments "we'll shoot it first" yadayada, that's a fake argument TBH !!! Why in hell would you spend alpha volleys on a fast uber tanked brick providing boosts when you can use 1/3 of that energy and stuff to kill other important ships mike tackle and dps ships??? -if some FC's are dumb then let them be. Actually flying a bait "command ship" would be hilarious. Well all you need actually it's a bait Keres it seems but this only proves how some FC's are plain awful, even I can't be that bad. And trust me I'm awful at pvp. Oh my. I actually remember Boat or someone else being primaried in their bricked out command ship.
Makalu <3, enemy FC of our hearts. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Klown Walk
Knysna Grim Reapers Absolute Darkness
133
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:30:00 -
[34] - Quote
Just nerf the amount they give you, it-¦s to much. On grid will not help, there is already ways around it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
442
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Command ships on the field is not that bad as people might think with fake arguments "we'll shoot it first" yadayada, that's a fake argument TBH !!! Why in hell would you spend alpha volleys on a fast uber tanked brick providing boosts when you can use 1/3 of that energy and stuff to kill other important ships mike tackle and dps ships??? -if some FC's are dumb then let them be. Actually flying a bait "command ship" would be hilarious.
I'm really, really confused....
Bait & Fleet Command Ship are pretty much synonymous.... Every single one of them can field 3x Links, a MWD, and 135k + Tank.... And that's t2 fit without pimp.... They do poor dps, but typically have 80-90% resists across the board, making them a very tough nuts to crack... Sure, they might be called primary in a large fleet batttle, but in small to medium sized gangs, shooting them first is typically ********... That's like primarying a moa over a rupture... |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2200
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:32:00 -
[36] - Quote
Boosting from inside a POS shield should be impossible. Invulnerable boosters are a bad thing.
Yes yes, I know you want to be able to deploy your rorq AND run your gang links AND have zero risk. Maybe it's time you had to make a choice. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
630
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 21:33:00 -
[37] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:If you can't bring an off grid boost so doesn't someone else witch brings everyone at the same level if you have to bring them on grid. Just make more friends. B-blobbing ?!
Blobbing is a players behaviour, not the game's fault. In whatever pvp game numbers matter and you know it as well or better than I do. Off grid boosting is bad for the game, is bad for everyone starting by CCP. Fake accounts were not, are not and will never be good for them neither on the long run. brb |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1260
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:11:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:If you can't bring an off grid boost so doesn't someone else witch brings everyone at the same level if you have to bring them on grid. Just make more friends. B-blobbing ?! Blobbing is a players behaviour, not the game's fault. In whatever pvp game numbers matter and you know it as well or better than I do. Off grid boosting is bad for the game, is bad for everyone starting by CCP. Fake accounts were not, are not and will never be good for them neither on the long run. Meh, the fake accounts pay for sub too. But if fleets needed more boosting characters because of (Command ship made better than T3) and (on grid boosting only) there's be a bunch of accounts that would also need months-long training and so on, so it might help. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
374
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
A link ship is less fun to fly on the battle field than a mining barge in a belt doing its thing.
Give it something fun, not just insanely horrible dps and range, mids for tackle or tank are pwned by co-pros links and if you want an extra link a command module too.
Why not combine some roles for the CS/T3 like logistic rep bonuses, other remote module bonuses tracking links, sensor boosters etc
A logi ship makes a difference by actively repping everyone and its chain and stuff, a link ships job is done if your side wins. not exactly much inspiration for pilots to aim for. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
BearJews
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:20:00 -
[40] - Quote
Why not just change it to be on grid boost only. |
|
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Immortals of New Eden Rebel Alliance of New Eden
80
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:30:00 -
[41] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Boosting characters are often highly trained alts, in feeble ships. This change would eliminate much of the time and training that went into making the alt.
Because this game just needs more alts, right? There's no reason to promote this behavior, except from a business standpoint, which oftentimes does not equate good game design policy.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Offgrid boosters are often still engageable. You can scan them down and kill them. And if they are in a POS, you can destroy the POS. And how many hours are you planning to spend destroying the POS to get rid of the booster(s)?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Offgrid boosters are often in capital ships... It's not pragmatic to risk a carrier, rorqual, or titan for the benefit of a home defense fleet. Too many capitals in-game anyway. The more of them get blown up, the better.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Offgrid boosters are widely used in group PvE, Home defense, and fleet warfare. Removing them will be a huge blow to leadership oriented characters, which are under-appreciated enough as is!
I thought you said these were all alts anyway?
Honestly, off-grid boosting simply promotes risk aversion, the proliferation of alts, and allows people to do "solo" PvP without being really solo.
If a fleet wants the bonuses of fleet boosting, then they'd better be willing to risk the termination of those assets. Just like if you want logistics ships, you have to risk losing them.
And yes, most of the command ships are a little too easily destroyed. Just make it so that the command ships can tank very well and be able to do a decent amount of damage, but not so much that they overwhelm other ships. |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
Cadfael Maelgwyn wrote: Honestly, off-grid boosting simply promotes risk aversion, the proliferation of alts, and allows people to do "solo" PvP without being really solo.
Very few people actually do "solo" PVP booster + single combat ship V single combat ship, not to say that no one does it but most people who run links in solo or very small gang configuration do it so they can take on bigger numbers and stand a chance i.e. the popular active tanked gate camping maelstrom which will typically be looking to engage hideously outnumbered, kiting setups like garmon runs, etc. |
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Immortals of New Eden Rebel Alliance of New Eden
80
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 22:58:00 -
[43] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Cadfael Maelgwyn wrote: Honestly, off-grid boosting simply promotes risk aversion, the proliferation of alts, and allows people to do "solo" PvP without being really solo.
Very few people actually do "solo" PVP booster + single combat ship V single combat ship, not to say that no one does it but most people who run links in solo or very small gang configuration do it so they can take on bigger numbers and stand a chance i.e. the popular active tanked gate camping maelstrom which will typically be looking to engage hideously outnumbered, kiting setups like garmon runs, etc. It's still stupid, no matter how many or how few people do it. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
632
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 23:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:If you can't bring an off grid boost so doesn't someone else witch brings everyone at the same level if you have to bring them on grid. Just make more friends. B-blobbing ?! Blobbing is a players behaviour, not the game's fault. In whatever pvp game numbers matter and you know it as well or better than I do. Off grid boosting is bad for the game, is bad for everyone starting by CCP. Fake accounts were not, are not and will never be good for them neither on the long run. Meh, the fake accounts pay for sub too.
Indeed, this was a bad statement from meh, but at the same time I can't think about this without asking why the hell shouldn't people play with other people instead of alts in a fecking MULTIPLAYER game? The fac old and bad mechanics aloud this doesn't prove it's healthy for the game by any means specially in such important roles like Command ships/logisitcs/dictors or even caps/supers/titans. You should be able to do those with your main character without being so heavily penalised (pods cost/docking with supers/titans) and having alts for this should just be a little plus but not a requirement as it is now witch brings metagaming that is no good for the game in the end.
Quote:But if fleets needed more boosting characters because of (Command ship made better than T3) and (on grid boosting only) there's be a bunch of accounts that would also need months-long training and so on, so it might help.
Completely agree with your statement, for a while it can be a problem for some teams the time they get enough characters with command skills however, it's not like if CCP didn't announced for a while now the tiericide chances so people could train ASAP at least primary required kills for at least lvl1 command ships. (new players it's another thread)
I do not liek the feeling I have to buy an alt account because if I don't have one I'm 50% efficient for most activities in game, this is not a free choice but a penalising consequence "must have because" the neighbour does etc. I think it's much better to strongly promote first the team play with real people behind their computer and then multiboxing or alts but with heavy consequences meaning if you have to choose in between looking for friends or just pick an alt, you'd rather take some time to find new friends because this should be at first of everything else a social experience. brb |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1261
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 23:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Completely agree with your statement, for a while it can be a problem for some teams the time they get enough characters with command skills however, it's not like if CCP didn't announced for a while now the tiericide chances so people could train ASAP at least primary required kills for at least lvl1 command ships. (new players it's another thread) New players I don't really think would be looking at fleet boosting *just yet*.
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:I do not liek the feeling I have to buy an alt account because if I don't have one I'm 50% efficient for most activities in game, this is not a free choice but a penalising consequence "must have because" the neighbour does etc. I think it's much better to strongly promote first the team play with real people behind their computer and then multiboxing or alts but with heavy consequences meaning if you have to choose in between looking for friends or just pick an alt, you'd rather take some time to find new friends because this should be at first of everything else a social experience. Yes, but also no. Sometimes small scale coordination (boosting alt, your cynos) is better done by yourself.
Now if you're thinking of the famous and totally true "CFC bot fleets" ... yeah that's just silly. Even if PVP is just "blobbing and F1" I don't think people go out and multibox 3 Drakes for a fleet, it's just not worth it. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Kalla Vera Quiroga
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 00:12:00 -
[46] - Quote
Isn't it ironic that miners are demanded to fit tanks for ganks but if you demand a fleet booster Tech3 to fit tank then they would collapse to tears because their cookie cutter boosting fit crumbles and would no be longer viable? Like, you could fit two different T3s with different links and get their full bonus, why is considered having one ship exclusively for boosting every link balanced? |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 00:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
Weren't T3's meant to boost one link really well? Not rainbow it?
Really boosting as a whole needs to be looked at. Not just the proximity. Allow the fleet to have multiple boosters so long as they're not the same link. Furthermore general hud info should only display the class and race of ship not the specific ship its self without a specialized mod. Command ships with this could broadcast this info to the rest of their fleet/squad, and provide other useful info. Adds another layer of gameplay/fitting. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 00:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
I agree with OP pros and cons especially the "not fun" part.
Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.
By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.
Remove boosting from POS, and keep the fact that a booster can be scanned. Eventually, do something like disabling warp ability for X minuts after activating links, so that an ennemy scan ship has a chance to find the booster.
If the booster is well prepaired (aka sig radius / sensor strength thing + implants, fittings and months to skill properly), a well prepaired ennemy scanship will be required (skill and scan implants to get a 100%). Here is your balance.
And anyway, this is a situation where the two sides can have same bonuses in same conditions, I see no point at changing it.
That's not because a ship is receiving heals and damages that the game becomes fun. Death to trees !!! *Axe* *Chop, chop, chop...* You may understand what I'm talking about ;) |
MadMuppet
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
516
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 01:22:00 -
[49] - Quote
I've said it in the other weakly threads on the issue. On-grid boosting is like asking the pilots of an AWACS aircraft to engage in a dogfight with other fighter aircraft. http://www.opinion-maker.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nato_AWACS_and_USAF_F16_fighter_aircraft.jpg They should only need to be in the system. If a booster pilot is just sitting AFK and throwing bonuses then he is not doing his job (counter scanning, directional scan checks, alternate safe spot positioning, etc...).
The off-grid ship can be scanned down and hunted, but after a lot of thought I think that being able to hide inside a POS shield and still throw a bonus is a bit unfair. It would be like saying an AWACS aircraft can hide in an reinforced aircraft shelter and still be able to do its job. Sure it could sit 'just outside' of the shield and work, but if trouble shows up and it runs inside and hides.... no more bonus.
The one part of the 'kill the off-grid bonus' crowd that always seems to get ignored by the haters.... they could always bring their own, but that would require training time or recruiting talent. If I tried to make a type of coffee that made all of you happy, and you rated it, the group score for it would be about 60 out of 100. Break into 3 or 4 coffee clusters, and made coffee just for each cluster, the scores would go from 60 to 78. The difference between coffee at 60 and coffee at 78 is a difference between coffee that makes you wince or makes you happy. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
446
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 16:46:00 -
[50] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:I've said it in the other weakly threads on the issue. On-grid boosting is like asking the pilots of an AWACS aircraft to engage in a dogfight with other fighter aircraft. http://www.opinion-maker.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nato_AWACS_and_USAF_F16_fighter_aircraft.jpg They should only need to be in the system. If a booster pilot is just sitting AFK and throwing bonuses then he is not doing his job (counter scanning, directional scan checks, alternate safe spot positioning, etc...). The off-grid ship can be scanned down and hunted, but after a lot of thought I think that being able to hide inside a POS shield and still throw a bonus is a bit unfair. It would be like saying an AWACS aircraft can hide in an reinforced aircraft shelter and still be able to do its job. Sure it could sit 'just outside' of the shield and work, but if trouble shows up and it runs inside and hides.... no more bonus. The one part of the 'kill the off-grid bonus' crowd that always seems to get ignored by the haters.... they could always bring their own, but that would require training time or recruiting talent.
When you fit a 6 link t3 ship with no tank... I can accept this... But I don't rarely are people actually playing a role with these ships... they are far more often just moving them into system and parking them in a safe-ish place... |
|
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
89
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 16:51:00 -
[51] - Quote
Whats with the group-think on the forums.
Someone makes a topic, then everyone else has to make a thread on the same topic.
It's like you're all robots getting your robot directives at the start of a week.
"This week you'll complain about miners."
"This week you'll complain about boosting"
You could at least consolidate into a single thread on the same subject. |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 17:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote: The one part of the 'kill the off-grid bonus' crowd that always seems to get ignored by the haters.... they could always bring their own, but that would require training time or recruiting talent.
There are other ways to deal with it to i.e. if they bother you that badly and your regularly fighting a corp/alliance that makes good use of gang boosters you could do things like infiltrate that corp and give intel on things like which pilots are in squad leader positions (kill them, break bonuses) or less subtly give a warp in on the gang booster. Or move the fight to another system where they don't have their POS'd booster alt, etc. etc. while difficult its also possible to catch a nullified, hard to scan link ship at gates, etc. with a bit of luck, effort and skill.
If you want a fair fight, or wanting to fight without having to be creative, think outside the box, etc. your definitely playing the wrong game. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
636
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 17:19:00 -
[53] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Completely agree with your statement, for a while it can be a problem for some teams the time they get enough characters with command skills however, it's not like if CCP didn't announced for a while now the tiericide chances so people could train ASAP at least primary required kills for at least lvl1 command ships. (new players it's another thread) New players I don't really think would be looking at fleet boosting *just yet*. Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:I do not liek the feeling I have to buy an alt account because if I don't have one I'm 50% efficient for most activities in game, this is not a free choice but a penalising consequence "must have because" the neighbour does etc. I think it's much better to strongly promote first the team play with real people behind their computer and then multiboxing or alts but with heavy consequences meaning if you have to choose in between looking for friends or just pick an alt, you'd rather take some time to find new friends because this should be at first of everything else a social experience. Yes, but also no. Sometimes small scale coordination (boosting alt, your cynos) is better done by yourself. Now if you're thinking of the famous and totally true "CFC bot fleets" ... yeah that's just silly. Even if PVP is just "blobbing and F1" I don't think people go out and multibox 3 Drakes for a fleet, it's just not worth it.
I know a guy doing it frequently with 5 Drakes not meh of course. brb |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
446
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 21:15:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kattshiro wrote:Weren't T3's meant to boost one link really well? Not rainbow it?
Really boosting as a whole needs to be looked at. Not just the proximity. Allow the fleet to have multiple boosters so long as they're not the same link. Furthermore general hud info should only display the class and race of ship not the specific ship its self without a specialized mod. Command ships with this could broadcast this info to the rest of their fleet/squad, and provide other useful info. Adds another layer of gameplay/fitting.
This is a good idea... |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 22:01:00 -
[55] - Quote
Altrue wrote:
Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.
By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role.
I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1263
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 22:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:Altrue wrote:Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.
By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role. I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ? Plus, the chances you'll be primary are very high!
It's exciting ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
446
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:04:00 -
[57] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sheynan wrote:Altrue wrote:Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.
By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role. I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ? Plus, the chances you'll be primary are very high! It's exciting !
I think this depends on the size of the fleet battle.... In small to medium gangs (<20), CS's are rarely called primary.... |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
852
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:26:00 -
[58] - Quote
1. Keep off-grid boosting 2. Change each racial command ship to have two bonuses, their main racial at 5% and a secondary at 3% 3. Change t3 to allow only a 3% bonus to any booster type. 4. Using links balloons sig radius, making it easier to scan down. 5. Cant boost in POS shields. (shields could possibly vanish in POS update anyway from CSM minutes)
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4295
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:49:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kalla Vera Quiroga wrote:Isn't it ironic that miners are demanded to fit tanks for ganks but if you demand a fleet booster Tech3 to fit tank then they would collapse to tears because their cookie cutter boosting fit crumbles and would no be longer viable? Like, you could fit two different T3s with different links and get their full bonus, why is considered having one ship exclusively for boosting every link balanced?
the difference is that boosting in a paper-thin T3 isn't really an income activity "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Nicholas Tong
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:51:00 -
[60] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sheynan wrote:Altrue wrote:Fleet boosting in itself is designed to be something you don't like to play as there is nothing to do. Something for alts obviously.
By forcing boosters to show up on grid, you will simply force someone to play an extremely boring role. I don't understand how you can consider a ship that does what every other ship in the fleet does but with just less dps extremely more boring than a standard ship in that fleet ? Plus, the chances you'll be primary are very high! It's exciting !
Then you'd want to bring a lot of **** that gets primary, arazus, falcons, vagabonds, tornados, logis, SBs right? But nobody is going to hit any of these but the 100k+ EHP sitting away from the fight. And here I though goondrones knew any better. |
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1866
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 02:40:00 -
[61] - Quote
I agree with all the points in the against off grid, so no comment on that.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Reasons to keep Off grid Boosting characters are often highly trained alts, in feeble ships. This change would eliminate much of the time and training that went into making the alt.
- Offgrid boosters are widely used in group PvE, Home defense, and fleet warfare. Removing them will be a huge blow to leadership oriented characters, which are under-appreciated enough as is!
Summed these two point up due to forums quote limitations and them being quite similar.
- They should either train them into something useful or unsub them.
See point 1. Furthermore, I often felt the fact my higher SP pvp characters having nearly all V leadership skills (no information warfare links) was appreciated quite well nost of the time. Of course I can see the point if it's just some dirt-cheap 'twink' (I almost threw up typing that word).
Quote: Offgrid boosters are often still engageable. You can scan them down and kill them. And if they are in a POS, you can destroy the POS.
If the pilot flying the alt is remotely competent, he will know what distance to set his D-scan to, hit that every now and then and as soon as he sees probes in a certain range, he warps to another safe. People losing their offgrid T3 boosters are either incompentent, multiboxing on one screen, lazy, dumb, drunk or asleep - most likely a combination of all. Concerning destroying the POS - yeah - just quickly take it out in your T1 frig and cross fingers it's not stronted .
Quote:Offgrid boosters are often in capital ships... It's not pragmatic to risk a carrier, rorqual, or titan for the benefit of a home defense fleet.
Titan bonuses should probably work off-grid, but not from within POS shields. Carriers are actually a viable solution to field on-grid once off grid boosting is removed. Currently anything is better than them due to their unbonused boost - T3 offgrids or even CS on grid.
Rorquals should probably be used in cyno jammed systems, proper intel channels and a defense fleet in vicinity - not sure never did any large-scale nullsec mining ops.
Quote:Muad dib Added that flying a low dps brick in combat just isn't fun!
How the heck is flying an offgrid alt any more fun? If you can dualbox on and off grid, get some practice and fly both on grid.
Quote:Please post with any other points I missed..... and I'll post them here...
A few more points:
- T3s have a better bonus to links because they were supposed to fit just 1-2 of them - if people wouldn't gimp their fits by fitting tons of command links on them to abuse them, they'd be perfectly viable on grid in a proper gang. - Off grid bonuses as a mechanic are just as stupid as having off grid RR. You think the latter is completely dumb idea? Congrats, but then you can't advocate for the former, because it's basically the same thing. - After the initial investment, they only offer benefits for absolutely no drawback, making them a necessity sooner or later. We already have people flying T1 frigs with their own private T3 offgrid booster just to appear ~elite~. Great for real noobs trying to get their feet wet solo... - People keep mentioning it helps small gang warfare, but basically, they're a force multiplier, which by definition benefits the larger number more than it does the smaller. Also, they (especially POS boosters) are easier to use for the defending party than the aggressors - hence, they discourage roams into hostile territory.
- To avoid Grid-Fu after they were made to be on grid only, they should only work withn an invisible 200 km radius bubble and shouln't be able to be activated from within POS shields. You know... morons. |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
913
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 03:54:00 -
[62] - Quote
Off grid boosting should be removed.
Command ships should give higher bonuses to fleets (since that is after all their role)
T3s should be viable fleet boosters but not as good as command ships. (because at the moment T3 cruisers are the swiss army knife of Eve, able to do all things and generally better than their dedicated counterpart.) Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1763
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:16:00 -
[63] - Quote
Aurelius Valentius wrote:Roqual Pilot would love on-grid boosting only... No need to sit in a POS, just put that Roqual right out in that belt.. oh, hot-drop by a carrier? oh no real defenses while in that compression mode... there goes the null sec mining... but I am all for it, being a high sec miner, I will make a Bazillion ISKies... so by all means - On-Grid only!!!
Fix: don't do compression in the belt. Leave that for the Rorqual to do back at the POS. Use the in-belt Rorqual for buffing, tractoring, and as a convenient one-stop location for the hauling Orcas to warp to. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4295
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:25:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Fix: don't do compression in the belt. Leave that for the Rorqual to do back at the POS. Use the in-belt Rorqual for buffing, tractoring, and as a convenient one-stop location for the hauling Orcas to warp to.
Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1763
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:39:00 -
[65] - Quote
Andski wrote:Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses?
That would make them unique amongst command ships and carriers. I haven't used a Rorqual myself, but the documentation states that siege mode is required for the compression facility to work. The leadership modifiers are hull bonuses.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4295
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 05:01:00 -
[66] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Andski wrote:Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses? That would make them unique amongst command ships and carriers. I haven't used a Rorqual myself, but the documentation states that siege mode is required for the compression facility to work. The leadership modifiers are hull bonuses.
"10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode"
Yeah, the Rorqual is the only ship that needs to siege for its hull bonuses to apply to ganglinks. Unsieged, it's just like giving them from any other ship bonused for ganglinks. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1263
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 05:49:00 -
[67] - Quote
Andski wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Andski wrote:Don't Rorquals need to be in siege to give effective bonuses? That would make them unique amongst command ships and carriers. I haven't used a Rorqual myself, but the documentation states that siege mode is required for the compression facility to work. The leadership modifiers are hull bonuses. "10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode" Yeah, the Rorqual is the only ship that needs to siege for its hull bonuses to apply to ganglinks. Unsieged, it's just like giving them from any other ship bonused for ganglinks. Yeah, you'd probably have an on-grid and aligned orca instead. Or you could just tackle yourself in the "belt" and hope no one comes in... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Astor Lentari
ReWired Engineering Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 07:30:00 -
[68] - Quote
While I really appreciate the versatility and awesomeness of t3 strategic cruisers, it seems ridiculous to me that they are better boosters than command ships, regardless of ship fit abuse, I am talking only about the fact that t3 cruiser subsystems offer 5% per level bonus vs 3% per level on command ships.
Contrary to some calls, I would not suggest nerfing the t3 cruiser bonus. I would, however, strongly recommend increasing the command ship bonus per level to 5%. Why? Because with the introduction of t3 cruisers to the marketplace, surely developers like Ishukone would reverse engineer the t3 tech in order to increase the capabilities of their command ships and to stop ships like the vulture becoming obselete?
It makes corporate business sense, and Empire economic sense, for command ships to maintain their purpose and not be pushed aside by a 'jack-of-all-trades' cruiser that is better at boosting a fleet than a fleet command ship! |
svenska flicka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 07:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
Should be on-grid only, the end.
How to go about that to be exact? Not sure, but off-grid boosting needs to go away. |
pussnheels
The Fiction Factory
673
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:08:00 -
[70] - Quote
There is no problem with boosting ongrid and offgrid the op made a good point there , offgrid boosters can be scanned down and destroyed
Since training for a booster pilot is a pretty long training que and comandships/ T3 cruisers are pretty pricey, if people want to risk them why not, and if your enemy can use them your side can awell I ve seen pretty smart pvp gangs with boosters, i usely was on the wrong losing side , but i can only admire their skil and cunning It is working as intended in my opinion no discusion needed I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
|
pussnheels
The Fiction Factory
673
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:13:00 -
[71] - Quote
svenska flicka wrote:Should be on-grid only, the end.
How to go about that to be exact? Not sure, but off-grid boosting needs to go away. No , what about rorquals in nullsec or wh you will just make them obsolete and pretty much give high sec miners a buff , nobody is going to risk a 3b ship that is slow as hell in a belt, not something you though on is it
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
svenska flicka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:svenska flicka wrote:Should be on-grid only, the end.
How to go about that to be exact? Not sure, but off-grid boosting needs to go away. No , what about rorquals in nullsec or wh you will just make them obsolete and pretty much give high sec miners a buff , nobody is going to risk a 3b ship that is slow as hell in a belt, not something you though on is it
I am serious, it needs to go away and having a rorqual in a belt is not as bad as you make it out to be as I actually have thought about it and I would still use mine in a belt even. |
Grumpymunky
Super Monkey Tribe of Danger
685
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 10:25:00 -
[73] - Quote
Where does this magical bonus come from anyway? I say completely overhaul the whole system. Being in massive fleets should cause sub-optimal performance, penalties which could then be negated through the use of command links. Post with your monkey.
CCP Gargant: Thread locked due to lack of pants. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
867
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:00:00 -
[74] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Aurelius Valentius wrote:Roqual Pilot would love on-grid boosting only... No need to sit in a POS, just put that Roqual right out in that belt.. oh, hot-drop by a carrier? oh no real defenses while in that compression mode... there goes the null sec mining... but I am all for it, being a high sec miner, I will make a Bazillion ISKies... so by all means - On-Grid only!!! Fix: Combat boosting must be on-grid, industrial boosting has system-wide range.
This brb |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:06:00 -
[75] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2075497#post2075497
Also: I find it funny that people are so hard up on the miners about maxing ore retrieval at the expense of tank, yet for some reason noone is harping on these people with 5000 HP boosting T3s. It seems to me that now that the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't fit right. Right. |
Dracan02
I N E X T R E M I S Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:07:00 -
[76] - Quote
i agree that something needs to be done about boosting, as a small gang ongrid booster i can say command ships can be very potent in small fights, unfortunately big fleets make them useless as you will get targeted early on.
so go for 2 bonuses, on grid give a bigger then off grid so that taking a risk give more performance. Fix the e-war links as only one of them is useful. make t3 lesser boosters then command ships by eather buff command bonuses, nurfing t3 bonuses or a combinations of both.
|
Typhado3
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:51:00 -
[77] - Quote
While moving fleet boosts to on grid would fix some problems there are still dozens of other problems that wouldn't be fixed by this with the leadership system which I say is call for a slightly larger rework. Current problems that wouldn't be fixed by simple move them on grid change:
1. Limit of one leadership type per fleet, a 2nd one of the same type only allows better fiddling with wings etc. 2. Limit of number of available slots for booster to fit into fleet 3. Fleet max size is fixed at 256 changes to this would affect leadership dramatically
I think we need a rework of the way the leadership mechanic works that fixes a few of these issues and I've thought up a possible solution:
1. Fiddle numbers to compensate for other changes (massive decrease for starters) 2. Allow multiple command ships of the same type to stack (using the same formula as module stacking) 3. Fleet bonuses from anywhere in system are pooled together (do not need to be on grid to give bonuses) 4. Command ships do not need to be in bonus giving roles to give out their bonus 5. Base bonuses of anywhere in system are weak but are applied as long as your are in fleet regardless of any command structure or skills of command structure or location of command structure. 6. Having a squad commander on grid uncloaked will apply a 'fleet bonus multiplier' to all his squad members on grid. The 'fleet bonus multiplier' increases per level of basic leadership (eg. 10% per level as apposed to old +2 squad members per level). 7. Command ships (t2 or t3) on grid in a squad commander position apply a 'fleet bonus multiplier' based on command ship skill (eg. 20% per level). This is calculated in a separate stack from the base leadership skill but multiplied by each other in the end. 8. Leadership skills or command ships skills of those in wing command or higher positions apply a 'fleet bonus multiplier' to all squad below but it is halved for each level higher in the command structure they are, bonuses from multiple command levels are also added together and are capped at the bonus you could receive from having a max skilled command ship as squad commander.
The idea here is to let off grid boosting still work or boosting when you fleet is in multiple areas in a system still work or even things like a claymore leading a frig gang doesn't have to stay right with the frigs. However having a command ship on grid doubles the bonus meaning a ship that can do both without exploding has it's place. Also as you always need more command ships to fill the squad/wing commander roles as well as letting multiple command bonuses of the same type stack it lets you bring as many command ships as you want they just start curving off in usefulness quickly after a certain point rather than being outright useless to have more than 1.
This solution would also allow you to increase fleet size by another level to 1281 and it would make a nice role for a command frigate that fits none of the command modules but has the command 'fleet bonus multiplier' and make a good frigate squad commander. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:36:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kalla Vera Quiroga wrote:Isn't it ironic that miners are demanded to fit tanks for ganks but if you demand a fleet booster Tech3 to fit tank then they would collapse to tears because their cookie cutter boosting fit crumbles and would no be longer viable? Like, you could fit two different T3s with different links and get their full bonus, why is considered having one ship exclusively for boosting every link balanced?
^This exactly Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
1977
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Fix: Combat boosting must be on-grid, industrial boosting has system-wide range.
Or allow Rorquals to boost with bonuses without having to enter siege, just like every other ship with command bonuses. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Zimmy Zeta
Paramount Commerce
2517
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
So we have those greedy carebear afk miners on the one side. They do not tank their hulks, because they fit them for maximum yield. They mine mostly afk. An outrage. They need to be hunted down and killed.
On the other hand we have those afk offf grid boosters. They do not tank their ships, because they fit for a maximum amount of links. They boost off grid and afk. That's ok, they need to be offgrid because they have no way to defend themselves.
I hope that I am not the only one who finds this absolutely moronic....
For best results and enhanced forum experience, please read my posts in Snooki's voice |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1602
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:14:00 -
[81] - Quote
Switch the bonus on command ships and T3s for this upcoming patch. Not saying it is the perfect fix, but it is a step in the right direction and can be implemented with ease.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
700
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:57:00 -
[82] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Switch the bonus on command ships and T3s for this upcoming patch. Not saying it is the perfect fix, but it is a step in the right direction and can be implemented with ease.
I disagree... I think a much more reasonable solution is to just prevent Command Processors from being fit to t3's.... |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:42:00 -
[83] - Quote
I am all for keeping the option of off grid boost. Removing this option of play styles therefore dumbing Down the game
Besides a ship has the decloak to boost In the future boosting from inside a Pos shields will be gone with the new Pos system comes out, which will no longer have shields In the future we will have the fleet boost of T3s dropped to 3% and the Command ship increased to 5% in the future, so the slippery nigh detectable boosting ship will become less awsome
Personally I think the signature radius of a ship grows, when the fleet boosters are active, or decrease their sensor strength to make them supper easy to scan down
This should keep the possibility of having to location battle open
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5351
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 02:37:00 -
[84] - Quote
Perhaps the issue isn't with off-grid boosting but with the bonuses themselves?
Let's face it, your MWD's speed bonus being 35% higher while your signature radius is reduced by 35% and your tackle mods gain +50% optimal all while gaining 15% agility just because some guy in your gang is running 3 modules and has a special implant in his head is sort of ridiculous! This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Federation posting cabal, the foremost authority on EVE Online forum posting.
fofofo |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
876
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 02:52:00 -
[85] - Quote
The whole thing where it's trivial to make it practically impossible to scan down fleet boosting ships is kind of an issue too. As is the fact that actually putting fleet boosters on grid with you is super suboptimal because of how fragile they are.
The whole thing is just dumb. There are a huge number of factors that make off-grid boosting the absolute best course of action for fleet boosts in every possible situation. But I severely doubt CCP will try and do anything to address those problems and instead will just make it so fleet boosters only give bonuses when on grid without changing anything else to support on-grid boosting.
Because that's just how they roll. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1616
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 03:03:00 -
[86] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:There are a huge number of factors that make off-grid boosting the absolute best course of action for fleet boosts in every possible situation. But I severely doubt CCP will try and do anything to address those problems and instead will just make it so fleet boosters only give bonuses when on grid without changing anything else to support on-grid boosting.
Because that's just how they roll. We see them rollin' ...
we trollin' Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Shederov Blood
Wrecketeers
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 04:26:00 -
[87] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:So we have those greedy carebear afk miners on the one side. They do not tank their hulks, because they fit them for maximum yield. They mine mostly afk. An outrage. They need to be hunted down and killed.On the other hand we have those afk offf grid boosters. They do not tank their ships, because they fit for a maximum amount of links. They boost off grid and afk. That's ok, they need to be offgrid because they have no other way to defend themselves.
I hope that I am not the only one who finds this absolutely moronic.... Slight difference. One group refused to protect themselves. The other group is to a certain extent protecting themselves, and doesn't want that protection removed. "Save me, CCP!" vs. "Don't nerf me, CCP!" |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 04:34:00 -
[88] - Quote
Andski wrote:Perhaps the issue isn't with off-grid boosting but with the bonuses themselves?
Let's face it, your MWD's speed bonus being 35% higher while your signature radius is reduced by 35% and your tackle mods gain +50% optimal all while gaining 15% agility just because some guy in your gang is running 3 modules and has a special implant in his head is sort of ridiculous! And if they are on grid then they are in more danger of getting shut off. I feel the bonuses themselves are fine, it's the implementation of said boosts that are out of wack.
Move boosts on grid. Remove the ability for T3 to fit command processors. Remove the booster role from fleet and automatically assign highest booster attributes to fleet. That is how you fix it. |
Skydell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
328
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 05:45:00 -
[89] - Quote
In a perfect EVE I wouldn't be AFK behind a POS shield. I'd have everyone on a watch list and would be calling Logi targets but it's hard to know when that kind of fleet management will be available to us. |
Michael1995
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 06:02:00 -
[90] - Quote
Offgrid boosters: Reduced effect, say 50-75% less. Ongrid boosters: Full effect.
Or just remove offgrid boosting entirely and do a few balances here and there. T3s do need to have their boost amount reduced to make command ships more viable though, it's a bit crazy that they have been left this long.
One does not simply buy their way into Goonswarm. |
|
Bobo Cindekela
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 10:49:00 -
[91] - Quote
offgrid boosting is awesome, get your dual-boxing gloves on and HTFU
besides, everytime someone makes a remove offgrid boosting thread the accountants point out that people WILL cancel subs that they have been paying for and training for months/years just to have their own boosters, and cancelled subs makes the ceo cry You are about to engage in an arguement with a forum alt,-á this is your final warning. |
Solj RichPopolous
Mentally Assured Destruction
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 13:25:00 -
[92] - Quote
I use a booster lots. Gives us an edge when we fight 30 vs 5 fleets. I dont think this is relevant to my associates and I though since we are in high sec (not on a station). I have a clay alt for high and a loki for low sec runs. I guess low being on grid could become an issue but i suppose id put him at some obnoxious range or just rig some ludacris 100mn fit for it to make it untouchable for the most part.
Now that i think about it that would make for a wonderful distraction to the population of eve who dont understand sig radius and would try to pursue it while being killed. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
869
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 16:53:00 -
[93] - Quote
Gevlin wrote:I am all for keeping the option of off grid boost. Removing this option of play styles therefore dumbing Down the game
Dumbing down the game is when "alts" are all you need to play whatever game, it's when you need hacks to play for you or broken mechanics to exploit because without those you couldn't do anything by yourself.
Combat OGB is terrible and should simply be removed from the game. brb |
half of eve
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 21:24:00 -
[94] - Quote
The problem with removing OGBs is that t3 link users will become useless. The problem with CSs as they are now is that they're really not that useful beyond their ability to boost.
Leave OGBs as they are, buff field CSs to be on the same level as the eos pre-nerf (Or give them the ability to field links and put out ~700 DPS at least) the idea being that because of how boring pvp is if your only job is to be the booster, you'd ideally want to be able to actually contribute to the fight in a CS. Off-grid links wouldn't be as big a problem if on-grid boosting wasn't so pointless and boring. |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Cult of Escobar
103
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 00:44:00 -
[95] - Quote
What bothers me the most with off-grid boosting is the lack of indicators. If I see a T3 on D-scan, I assume everyone in that system is receiving boosting and I usually just leave.
I don't really care all that much if off-grid boosting is removed, but I hope CCP add some visual effect to indictate which ships are receiving boosting if they don't. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1606
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 03:33:00 -
[96] - Quote
Another idea is that perhaps the position in fleet affects the amount of the boost. Best boost coming from the squad commander, then wing commander and the least effective boost coming from fleet commander. So squad command give 100% of the current boost, wing say 75% and fleet 50%.
Just tossing that out there.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1630
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 05:35:00 -
[97] - Quote
Bobo Cindekela wrote:offgrid boosting is awesome, get your dual-boxing gloves on and HTFU
besides, everytime someone makes a remove offgrid boosting thread the accountants point out that people WILL cancel subs that they have been paying for and training for months/years just to have their own boosters, and cancelled subs makes the ceo cry Aww, we even collect ceo and accountant tears? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |