Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:12:00 -
[61] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.
The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef.
Because EVERY SHIP should need to be on grid and be in the danger of combat to affect the combat! |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:12:00 -
[62] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.
The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef.
I think the main problem is that T3s are better boosters than command ships and they are fairly safe in SS and basically invincible in a POS. This makes it so that the defenders of a system can perma-run a CS or a T3 in a POS forever and have that permanent edge over anybody that comes in. If it is in a SS, then it can be scanned down and killed. (And yes this does happen alot more often than you think.)
This is why I say remove the ability to boost from a POS.
Limit the T3 to less pilots so small gangs who use these aren't crippled/nerfed. But huge fleets would require a CS to get bonuses as the T3 cannot provide to everybody.
Every ship has it's role, and there are no blatantly overpowered tactics available to some groups. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:12:00 -
[63] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Umm... Why it's so difficult to just train CS5? Why is it difficult to read a thread and understand every viewpoint on the matter? Sorry if I'm being harsh, but you really should take a look around the thread and find out why the problem can't just be solved with training one skill.
Yeah, "buff T3s and nerf T2!"...
Diesel47 wrote:Limit the T3 to less pilots so small gangs who use these aren't crippled/nerfed. But huge fleets would require a CS to get bonuses as the T3 cannot provide to everybody.
What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus? |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:15:00 -
[64] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote:I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.
The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef. Because EVERY SHIP should need to be on grid and be in the danger of combat to affect the combat!
Not everybody agrees with you. I don't.
This simplifies the game to derp mode IMO.
I think probers being a valuable part of a fleet fight is a good thing. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:30:00 -
[65] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?
Did this really need asking?
Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad.
Why it's so difficult to see the problem? |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:35:00 -
[66] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?
Did this really need asking? Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad. Why it's so difficult to see the problem?
Maybe because to do something like that you would require 120 months of total training on all the pilots and about 10bil worth of tengus?
If they nerf the falcon so that if you want to get the same effectiveness you'd have to bring 20 falcons, does that make the falcon OP?
If they nerf Scimitars so that you need 20 scimis instead of one to do the same rep, are scimis still OP?
I don't think you are being serious. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
53
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:37:00 -
[67] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?
Did this really need asking? Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad. Why it's so difficult to see the problem?
So In fleets to 256 your going to have 25 off grid boosting tengues? Good luck with that Idea. What the OP is saying about limiting boosting T3's to squad mmand only is an option that would limit them. The problem that someone else has mentioned was that boosting T3's are damn hard to probe out. If you made it so that Gang links or better yet the Command Processors so that the more links you fit onto a T3 after 1 makes it easier to scan would be a great idea. My 2 cents |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: What would prevent big fleets from using... let's say... 20 Tengus?
Did this really need asking? Yeah, limit T3s to squad only. Ok, we have enough Tengu pilots with perfect leadership so we put one into every squad. Why it's so difficult to see the problem? So In fleets to 256 your going to have 25 off grid boosting tengues? Good luck with that Idea. What the OP is saying about limiting boosting T3's to squad mmand only is an option that would limit them. The problem that someone else has mentioned was that boosting T3's are damn hard to probe out. If you made it so that Gang links or better yet the Command Processors so that the more links you fit onto a T3 after 1 makes it easier to scan would be a great idea. My 2 cents
They are hard to probe out if the person fitting the T3 is smart and knows how to make it hard-to-probe.
Otherwise they are just like any other ship.
And since the T3 user took counter measures against probing, it is only fair for the prober to have something extra of his own to be able to probe the T3. Which are things like probing implants and faction probes/launcher.
One might say that the prober is investing more money to find the T3 while the T3 only has to fit some ECCM modules.
But the fact of the mater is, the counter measures aren't 100% effective so the increased cost is okay for the prober, seeing as he can always find the T3. Albeit it takes a bit longer, he still always will get a lock if fast or skilled enough.
On top of that a cov ops is a very safe vessel, so the cost of the modules and implants will work for a very very long time if the pilot isn't dunce. Ontop of that, a T3 is a very expensive loss.. The skill point reduction also hurts. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:48:00 -
[69] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:If they nerf the falcon so that if you want to get the same effectiveness you'd have to bring 20 falcons, does that make the falcon OP?
If they nerf Scimitars so that you need 20 scimis instead of one to do the same rep, are scimis still OP?
Is Tengu T2? No. Is Falcon T2? Yes. Is Scimitar T2? Yes.
Any reason why T3s should remain better at boosting compared to command ships? T2 battlecruisers (aka command ships) should be best at boosting. |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:51:00 -
[70] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Diesel47 wrote:If they nerf the falcon so that if you want to get the same effectiveness you'd have to bring 20 falcons, does that make the falcon OP?
If they nerf Scimitars so that you need 20 scimis instead of one to do the same rep, are scimis still OP? Is Tengu T2? No. Is Falcon T2? Yes. Is Scimitar T2? Yes. Any reason why T3s should remain better at boosting compared to command ships? T2 battlecruisers (aka command ships) should be best at boosting.
Good luck with your life.
Also, post with main. |
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Ushra'Khan
468
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 14:57:00 -
[71] - Quote
Quote:Why do you think falcons are still viable and not just removed from the game? People pay subs for these alts, and this creates more revenue. They are not short-term alt subs either, I've been running my alt for more than 2 years.
Yes, but Falcon alts are of sharply limited use since they have to be close enough that you have to pay attention to them. Just like boosting characters will still be useful, but boosting alts will be terrible because you'll actually have to pay attention to them.
Quote:CCP needs money bad since they are working on two games now instead of one, did you forget that dust 514 existed? Oh wait, theres also world of darkness. Why do you assume CCP doesn't want $?
I don't recall saying CCP doesn't want money, I recall saying that they make more money by fixing their game.
Quote: And long term balance is more important than subs? LoL. Do you not remember how long hybrids were horrible for? I for one didn't even expect them to ever balance that weapon system. And It isn't "balance is good" It is "greed is good
" They were mediocre, but not really bad. You're aware that the buff they got was relatively minor, yes? |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:03:00 -
[72] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Seishi Maru wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote:I'm sure someone has already said this: both sides can have OGB's. What is the big deal? It's fair by it's very nature. Anybody can train the skills, buy the hulls and mods. I'm not seeing what the problem is.
The OP points out the issues between T3 versus Command ships boosting, but that's a different issue of fairness based upon training times and functionality. I mean, if you are one of the people who trained command ships, I can see your beef. Because EVERY SHIP should need to be on grid and be in the danger of combat to affect the combat! Not everybody agrees with you. I personally don't. This simplifies the game to derp mode IMO. I think probers being a valuable part of a fleet fight is a good thing. If you want to find that OGB, then get yourself a decent prober. Stop trying to simplify the game :P
Luckly is not your opnion that matters but of the main game designers.
And I can return your statement.. if you want to kjeep your booster safe PILOT IT! Stop tryign to dumb down the game to the point where you don even need to be on keyboard!
|
Whisperen
That's Not A Knife Flatline.
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:06:00 -
[73] - Quote
Yeah CCP remove off grid booster because my fictional ten man gang cant pos bash. We dont have dreads you see. Also none of us know how to use probes or have the money for virtues and its bad for the game because we are being dictated to by hundreds of people how dare they play differently or one person and his alt how dare he play that way! And we all know no other gameplay is more important then my fictional lowsec roaming gang! |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
237
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:I agree with you on this, you are right.. I don't think this is possible though. I'll explain...SNIP...EvE Online, In general ... Is just easier / maybe more fun when you have multiple accounts. It's just how the entire game is, and changing it would change the game drastically IMO, so it will never happen.
While I agree that the game is definitely easier and perhaps more fun when you have multiple accounts, that's PRECISELY what the problem is! Those should not be alt accounts. All those falcons and haulers and so on should be PEOPLE, not multiboxed alts. What EVE is right now is an ILLUSION of a universe. What it is in reality is a handful of people (relatively speaking) with borderline split personality disorder creating a microcosm of sorts. Instead of depending and playing with other people, they depend and play with their own alts. In a way, EVE is a lot like The Sims.
And a fix for it is quite easy - one client per computer, and if that doesn't work, one login per IP address. But this is where I 100% agree with you that this will never happen. Two reasons. One is that CCP simply cannot afford, financially, mechanically and prestige-wise, to lose 2/3rds or more of its accounts. And the second reason I don't believe they have the guts to make changes to the game that are that drastic, they're walking a fine edge as it is right now, what with Dust (which the popular opinion holds will flop) and WoD in the works. At this stage, it would just kill the game. Too many vets think that their main + 3 alts = "solo". Take that away, and they'll all have massive coronaries. Death toll would be horrific.
And even if they did this, they would have to do it in stages as well. For example, they can't just kill botting/AFK harvesting for miners. Miners would no longer be alts, they would be dedicated players who only mine. This means mining would have to be interesting and as profitable in ISK/hr as other professions, otherwise nobody would do it. Currently it's done AFK by alts and bots, which sort of works.
Sometimes I feel EVE is flawed at the very core by design. There's too many terrible, stupid, boring mechanics in this game (mining, missions, etc.) that no sane human being would dedicate their time to as a "main". Hence the alts. Hence anything that threatens "alt-itis" will not happen or be ineffective. Because they can't afford to do it any other way. Sad but true.
Bottom line - my wishful thinking aside - I think you're right. It's not going to happen, or at least not the way people think. Too many of the game's mechanics depend on alts for the game as a whole to continue to function. Though I still maintain it is very risky for CCP to continue to ignore it. One good solid slip, like Inarnageddon last year, and it could easily see this game off. It's happened before. Nobody quite knows what the critical mass for a collapse of a game is, but once it is reached, that's it. The next step to trying to save it is full blown F2P item shop (see Age of Conan, SWTOR, etc.) Alts are good, but they make for a much too fragile game population. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:08:00 -
[75] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Good luck with your life.
Also, post with main.
Because T3s are more expensive or is the fact that you need less SPs to be better? |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:19:00 -
[76] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:
I don't recall saying CCP doesn't want money, I recall saying that they make more money by fixing their game.
What is the reasoning behind that?
Alot of people don't think the game is currently broken. Me included. |
Lugia3
Shydow Imperium
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:58:00 -
[77] - Quote
As of right now, the OGB is out of harms way for the most part, and open to be found by enemy scouts. If OGBs were to be removed, it would bring some heavy changes, some positive and some negative.
Shield fleets would have a harder time keeping their booster alive, as he would have to give up tank for command modules. Armor fleet boosters wouldn't have to sacrifice any tank for command modules, due to his tank being in low slots.
For example, with Incursions, we park our fleets OGB in the trailer park while he provides boosts next to the refitting orca. Shields would lose there edge over armor, due to the on-grid booster being fragile. Armor wouldn't be affected as much, due to the booster being much easier to keep alive.
Personally, I don't want on-grid boosters. I see no problem with the off-grid boosters if you know what to do about them. Will sell wallet space for ISK. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
1711
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:06:00 -
[78] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Why not just put a limitation on the boosters themselves that prevents warp for a short period of time and prevents use inside a POS?
While in a POS you cannot boost, fleet boosters do not work while in warp and you cannot initiate warp for 5 seconds after disengaging fleet booster.
This will require the booster to be in system and provides ample time for anybody trying to scan for him to scan him down and kill him. No more invulnerable fleet boosters but still off grid. This guy got it right. He is a genius! EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
333
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:31:00 -
[79] - Quote
Quote:1. No boosting inside a POS bubble (this is just downright unfair) your idea would be the death of the rorq. many people pay for accounts just to use a rorq to support their mining operations. but since the beast is very expensive, has no defense of it's own, and must be in siege mode to do it's job, your idea would guarentee that no one could use the ship again. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:34:00 -
[80] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote:1. No boosting inside a POS bubble (this is just downright unfair) your idea would be the death of the rorq. many people pay for accounts just to use a rorq to support their mining operations. but since the beast is very expensive, has no defense of it's own, and must be in siege mode to do it's job, your idea would guarentee that no one could use the ship again.
I didn't even consider that ship when I made the thread. Lets see what CCP does... or doesn't.
But any other type of boosting inside a POS should be not allowed. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1829
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:08:00 -
[81] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote: Luckly is not your opnion that matters but of the main game designers.
And I can return your statement.. if you want to kjeep your booster safe PILOT IT! Stop tryign to dumb down the game to the point where you don even need to be on keyboard!
Frankly, if you aren't at the keyboard you WILL lose the booster alt. And frankly it might happen if you are at the keyboard. I don't think you realize how easy they are to probe out if you've got good skills and implants.
-Liang
Ed: Oh, you've been gone for a while. Just in case you missed it, there's no such thing as unprobeable anymore. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
915
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:31:00 -
[82] - Quote
T3s seriously need to not be able to fleet boost better than a dedicated command ship, its ridiculous, so yeah limiting their ability to boost large gangs AND be offgrid AND be almost unprobable needs to go.
For the people whining that command ships cant be used in main fleets, really? 200k ehp not enough? Command ships are fine and fully usable but should be limited to on grid. T3s being better at almost everythign than dedicated ships is whats wrong. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
James 315
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2357
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:34:00 -
[83] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:T3s being better at almost everythign than dedicated ships is whats wrong. I agree that it's best to keep things in roles rather than having solopwnmobiles. Recons, HACS, Battleships, and Command Ships all have unique roles and are not automatically superior to each other. T3s can potentially muddy the waters if not handled properly.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MinerBumping.com -½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½The daily saga of one man's quest to bring civilization to highsec by bumping miners out of range. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
647
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:38:00 -
[84] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Alot of people don't think the game is currently broken. Me included.
No, very few actually. The fact you argue "a lot" doesn't mean whatever truth you believe yourself. Truth is majority of players think combat boosting should be on gridd, just because you make yourself a little vocal in this thread doesn't mean you're right, not more than me by the way but since this is a social pvp gaming experience, the use of alts is already bad, the use of boosting alts is really really bad when you could do the same thing with other players instead.
So what in the end? -a few rage quitting nerds will leave (for a couple months) but in the end this game will become better so, CCP and Eve has everything to win with the change and very few, if not "nothing at all" except a couple replaceable nerds to loose. brb |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1829
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:40:00 -
[85] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:T3s seriously need to not be able to fleet boost better than a dedicated command ship, its ridiculous, so yeah limiting their ability to boost large gangs AND be offgrid AND be almost unprobable needs to go.
For the people whining that command ships cant be used in main fleets, really? 200k ehp not enough? Command ships are fine and fully usable but should be limited to on grid. T3s being better at almost everythign than dedicated ships is whats wrong.
See, there you go thinking only in terms of blob vs blob. But that's not the only place that command links are used. Another use for them is for a small gang to harass a big blob. Previously the situation would normally be that the small gang had 1-2 sets of links and the blob had a full set, but then it would be that the blob had a full set of links and the small gang none.
The core problem here is that command ships simply do not fit into the structure of small gangs. You can't afford to bring along a Vulture because it doesn't fit into the shield gank doctrine. You can't afford to bring along a Claymore because it isn't fast enough to keep up with a solid kiting gang. You can't afford to bring along an Eos because it doesn't fill a role in a typical ewar heavy fleet.
Basically what I'm suggesting is that bringing command links on grid requires a fundamental change to the Field Command Ships themselves. They're just not engaging to fly and they don't fit into the gang types they're meant to boost. There's tons of options to fix it, but the simple removal of off grid boosting just isn't one of them.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
647
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:54:00 -
[86] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Basically what I'm suggesting is that bringing command links on grid requires a fundamental change to the Field Command Ships themselves.
Maybe this is what is needed and included in those BC T1/T2 rebalance, since those WILL be rebalanced soon. Of Grid boosting harms more the game than it's good. People never stop arguing "get friends" "L2P with friends" "omg miner = bot" but then when something is about to change like OGB some players always talk about "small gang" and very little about the solo/tandem dudes with the obvious OGB.
There's a noticeable difference in between being good at the game and being good at exploiting game failures or bad mechanics in need of changes, to take advantage over other players. OGB is one of those bad mechanics that need severe changes, the only thing I can hope it's properly done and not like giving ASB's to shield tanks and throw a RAH bone to the underdogs. brb |
Yahrr
The Tuskers
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 17:59:00 -
[87] - Quote
I'm all for having boosting ships on the field. Let it be CS, T3 or BCs with a link. Yes BC's can fit links and before the introduction of T3 cruisers this was the way the roaming gangs used to do it.
Diesel47 wrote:Stop trying to simplify the game Have the boosting ships on the field AND have them to target the boost-receivers like Logistic ships do. If any change would make running fleets more complex and interesting, then this would be it. It won't be an alt-job anymore, so you'll have to train that one into a Retriever pilot...
*edit: Also the argument of having boosters forced to be on grid as a nerf to small gangs is complete bull excrement. Where were you before the T3 cruiser?! Ohwait... Retriever pilot.... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1830
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:11:00 -
[88] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Basically what I'm suggesting is that bringing command links on grid requires a fundamental change to the Field Command Ships themselves. Maybe this is what is needed and included in those BC T1/T2 rebalance, since those WILL be rebalanced soon. Of Grid boosting harms more the game than it's good. People never stop arguing "get friends" "L2P with friends" "omg miner = bot" but then when something is about to change like OGB some players always talk about "small gang" and very little about the solo/tandem dudes with the obvious OGB. There's a noticeable difference in between being good at the game and being good at exploiting game failures or bad mechanics in need of changes, to take advantage over other players. OGB is one of those bad mechanics that need severe changes, the only thing I can hope it's properly done and not like giving ASB's to shield tanks and throw a RAH bone to the underdogs.
I think it's extremely revealing that you say this: "some players always talk about "small gang" and very little about the solo/tandem dudes with the obvious OGB." That is small gang warfare. It is, whether you like it or not. Furthermore, I am having trouble accepting your assertion that this is somehow more despicable than bringing 30 guys with their own OGBs to swat at the "solo/tandem dudes with the obvious OGB".
Basically: it's a valid play style and I don't think that you should be allowed to say it isn't.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1830
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:15:00 -
[89] - Quote
Yahrr wrote:I'm all for having boosting ships on the field. Let it be CS, T3 or BCs with a link. Yes BC's can fit links and before the introduction of T3 cruisers this was the way the roaming gangs used to do it. Diesel47 wrote:Stop trying to simplify the game Have the boosting ships on the field AND have them to target the boost-receivers like Logistic ships do. If any change would make running fleets more complex and interesting, then this would be it. It won't be an alt-job anymore, so you'll have to train that one into a Retriever pilot... *edit: Also the argument of having boosters forced to be on grid as a nerf to small gangs is complete bull excrement. Where were you before the T3 cruiser?! Ohwait... Retriever pilot....
I've been pirating longer than you've been playing Eve.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 18:20:00 -
[90] - Quote
Effortpost incoming
Firstly everyone complaining that their ehonourable 1v1 fights are ruined by offgrid boosters is a moron. If you find yourself in a fair fight in Eve you ****** up, simple as. Eve PvP is 90% preparation and its likely to stay that way for the forseable future.
I'd like to see booster ships on grid but putting them there with the game as it is right now is a terrible idea. Boosting ships are going to be primaried to the point where it just isn't fun to fly one and games are supposed to be fun. Sure you could fly a brick tanked command ship but at that point your role in the fight has been reduced to sitting still and receiving reps (again not fun). Secondly with the way the boosting system is set up its almost impossible to reconfigure who is giving boosts mid combat. Lose a booster and good luck juggling your fleet layout to fix things in a reasonable amount of time. It takes long enough setting that stuff up outside of combat. Boosting ships are just too exposed and too obvious (theres no real reason to fly a command ship in pvp if you aren't boosting) but the pain of reorganising the fleet tree means theres no real benefit to bringing spares either.
If boosters are forced to be on grid I'd like to see the top down requirement of boosts removed so that you always recieve the best possible bonuses chosen from all the boosters on grid with you (in fleet obviously). You'd probably have to compensate fleet command ships somehow to make it more worthwhile to bring one over 3-6 field command ships.
Unfortunately if my (somewhat spotty) memory serves me right we used to have a flat fleet structure for bonuses but CCP had to move to the current system because of the lag caused by constantly having to recompute bonuses. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |