Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
375
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 11:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:removing offgrid boost is the only way to fix the situation. That's a statement, not a reason. Why can't the situation be fixed without them being removed completely?
because its a rtarded concept, a ship sitting somewhere on safespot providing 50% armor for all other ships in fleet.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
230
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 11:51:00 -
[32] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:removing offgrid boost is the only way to fix the situation. That's a statement, not a reason. Why can't the situation be fixed without them being removed completely? because its a rtarded concept, a ship sitting somewhere on safespot providing 50% armor for all other ships in fleet.
Its a good thing it doesnt provide 50% armor then |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
160
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 07:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
Viribus wrote:People who want to leave boosting in its current state but make it on-grid only haven't really thought it through.
Boosting is an absurdly powerful force multiplier that scales from 256-man fleets all the way down to solo, and people want to make that available to some gangs and not others by forcing it to be on grid?
Station huggers and gatecamps would, like they already do, park a big fat CS on a gate/station and making them on-grid only would remove the ability for a fast roaming gang to compete with off-grid links. The "rational thing" is to nerf it into the ground so it only becomes worthwhile in fleets large enough to take advantage of a small force multiplier. Having a single ship able to more than double the effectiveness of reps or increase point range by 50% for an entire fleet is unfathomably bad game design and forcing it to be on grid would make it even worse. Nerf that **** down to a quarter of its current effectiveness and it wouldn't be a total game-changer that's basically requisite for any serious fleet, as it is currently. Off-grid boosts wouldn't even be worth the trouble dualboxing, and they'd keep their role as large fleet buffs.
First of all, "solo" PvP by definition means that you dont have an alt boosting you from off grid.
Second, this is only because you're thinking of them in their current setting. Right now there is literally no opportunity cost to having a gang booster because theyre never in any danger, they can just log in 2 guys, and leave them in a broadcasted fleet orbiting a POS providing gang boost to the whole system from complete safety even when their actual user is at work etc.
This is what is terrible game design because any thinking person would never give up this opportunity. However, if the person was required to be in a semi expensive ship and in harms way, now it becomes an interesting decision instead of an obvious choice.
The thing about fleet command ships is that they add basically nothing to your DPS (the claymore not withstanding) so your fleet may be tanking harder, or jamming better, but you're so far behind where you would be DPS wise if that person was in a field command ship.
You can even tell by the bonuses that the ships get, that they were supposed to be a brick tank ship used by actual fleet commanders to oversee the battle. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
375
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:12:00 -
[34] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote: Its a good thing it doesnt provide 50% armor then
im all for removal of it completely, as I said its just a obscure concept IMO. Put it away. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
81
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 02:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
First of all, "solo" PvP by definition means that you dont have an alt boosting you from off grid.
Second, this is only because you're thinking of them in their current setting. Right now there is literally no opportunity cost to having a gang booster because theyre never in any danger, they can just log in 2 guys, and leave them in a broadcasted fleet orbiting a POS providing gang boost to the whole system from complete safety even when their actual user is at work etc.
This is what is terrible game design because any thinking person would never give up this opportunity. However, if the person was required to be in a semi expensive ship and in harms way, now it becomes an interesting decision instead of an obvious choice.
The thing about fleet command ships is that they add basically nothing to your DPS (the claymore not withstanding) so your fleet may be tanking harder, or jamming better, but you're so far behind where you would be DPS wise if that person was in a field command ship.
You can even tell by the bonuses that the ships get, that they were supposed to be a brick tank ship used by actual fleet commanders to oversee the battle.
None of this actually counters what was my main point (which was completely ignored) which is that boosts are insanely overpowered. The opportunity cost is already negligible since a vulture/tengu more than doubles the effectiveness of reps (as well as increases EHP) and is thus better than a second scimitar or basilisk.
I'm gonna lay it out super simply because otherwise people aren't going to get it: why is leaving them as a huge force multiplier at all scales of pvp but making them on-grid only and thus making them only practical for certain fleet comps in any way a reasonable solution? It's like everyone is collectively going "HEY WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LINKS ARE STUPIDLY OVERPOWERED, LET'S MAKE IT SO ONLY SOME PEOPLE CAN USE THEM". ******* stupid. Either nerf them into the ground and leave them as they are, or nerf them into the ground and make them on-grid only, but leaving them in their current state but making them on-grid only is idiotic. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |