Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
363
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 15:29:00 -
[31] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:For whatever reason CCP seem to be huge fans of AFK gameplay.
IsBox friendly.
Just like in EQII you can literally goto sleep and 8hrs later come back to the game and your ship can still be in space where you left it (have done just that).
So bump a gate camper to see if he's even awake. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
518
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 15:34:00 -
[32] - Quote
Logical Chaos wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Varesk wrote:Aiwha wrote:Just nerf offgrid boosting and CS's are fine. They tank like a brick wall already. Make em a little more nimble to keep up with cruisers maybe but otherwise leave them. The problem isn't that Boost ships are bad, its that cloaky/stabbed offgrid T3's do the same job with a thousand times less risk. T3s do a better job than Command ships due to the sub system bonus. They also have no tank and can be probed out. Saying they are at less risk than a Command Ship is not true. They also tend to be parked behind POS shields. So on any small gang roam you will need a prober ship to probe down the OGB, and a cyno to bring in your POS bashing fleet, or a spy in the target corp to change the POS password. The POS argument is only true for some alliance battles RFing **** etc. If you engage typical stationcampers in their home system it is your own fault... Everybody else does not have a POS in every system. If someone would make a habit of using this the way it is meant T3s would have a hard time providing boosts: [Buzzard, byebye T3] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Co-Processor II Scan Pinpointing Array II Scan Rangefinding Array II Scan Acquisition Array II Scan Pinpointing Array II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe [empty high slot] Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I But people here want the following: Someone with 2 Accounts has no advantage over someone with 1 Account (since all people want is to completely remove OGB therefore making it disappear since no one will bother with CSes on site in their current state). Newsflash for you: People will go Falcon since Tengu is trained on that char anyway. Will be loads of fun for you. Its EVE! Adapt aka Give CCP that juicy income from a second account and probe that damned T3.
And the second ships start dropping ongrid (ships that could be actually helping engage the fleet) the T3 will instawarp (having WCS's fitted because we're not retards) untackled and setup in another of the half dozen safespots we'd have at that point. Or, maybe just setup at a celestial. Mix it up.
Any offgrid T3 pilot that manages to get caught (not counting getting gangbanged on a gate somehow) needs to find a game more suited to their mental handicap. Lock up your staions and hide your daughters.
Nulli incoming |
Six Six Six
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 15:36:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:For whatever reason CCP seem to be huge fans of AFK gameplay. IsBox friendly. Just like in EQII you can literally goto sleep and 8hrs later come back to the game and your ship can still be in space where you left it (have done just that). So bump a gate camper to see if he's even awake.
Last time I flew through a low-sec gate camp (a few years back) they were definitely asleep, only one even bothered to target me and he was slow off the mark. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5402
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 15:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Roime wrote:There's a really simple fix to boosting, that favours small gangs over large fleets, and turns the alt-role into an interesting player role:
Make links targeted modules, with the usual cycle times, overheat mechanics, and stacking penalties. Increase the number of highslot links a CS can run, and give the links EWAR-like range.
Suddenly you have a new combat role that is challenging and fun to play, and where advantage is created by player skill, tactics and gang coordination instead of "safe up, alt-tab and forget".
I don't understand why this isn't the default suggestion. Perhaps people are just too used to click and forget boosting. This solution fits much better with how the rest of the game works and might even require some skill to apply optimally. Propably because it's a totally different role to what it currently plays in the game and is therefore the equivelent of removing the current boosting entirely from the game and making many of the current leadership skills obsolete. You could propably add such a buffing role to the game with little complaints, but it in no way compensates for the removal of an existing mechanic. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3080
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 15:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Zappity wrote:Roime wrote:There's a really simple fix to boosting, that favours small gangs over large fleets, and turns the alt-role into an interesting player role:
Make links targeted modules, with the usual cycle times, overheat mechanics, and stacking penalties. Increase the number of highslot links a CS can run, and give the links EWAR-like range.
Suddenly you have a new combat role that is challenging and fun to play, and where advantage is created by player skill, tactics and gang coordination instead of "safe up, alt-tab and forget".
I don't understand why this isn't the default suggestion. Perhaps people are just too used to click and forget boosting. This solution fits much better with how the rest of the game works and might even require some skill to apply optimally. Propably because it's a totally different role to what it currently plays in the game and is therefore the equivelent of removing the current boosting entirely from the game and making many of the current leadership skills obsolete. You could propably add such a buffing role to the game with little complaints, but it in no way compensate for the removal of an existing mechanic.
I think you'll find that many people would love to see the current mechanics removed entirely. No need to compensate for the loss of a bad mechanic.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Troezar
V I R I I Ineluctable.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 17:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
The hard part to this is making on grid boosting worthwhile. Command ships need to be resilient enough to discourage people just melting it straight off but not being overpowered. Maybe small sig, high resist and agile enough to keep up with cruiser sized gangs. You could also reduce the build cost to make them less of an isk target and encourage people to risk them.
I can't see a way you can do all that without reducing or removing their damage capability. Maybe no turrets or launchers but give them good all round ewar support abilities, remot boost tracking or locking times (not jamming) and the ability to use nos or neuts well.
I'm not suggesting all these would be used just alternatives to direct damage, more a support/utility role. |
SpoonRECKLESS
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 18:19:00 -
[37] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Command ships pulling over 500K EHP and still managing to apply nice amounts of dps or simply having a nasty tank on top of huge dps is already enough to make them interesting.
If those are underused it's only because of the silliness that is T3's command subs on top of providing Boosts totally safe at the pos or almost impossible to probe
OGB really needs to be removed for a better pvp environment, commit to the fight like every other ship does and players will find new ways to succeed again vs larger groups. At equal characters skills it's the player behind it that SHOULD make the difference, not a stupid invulnerable alt running links and requiring no attention.
You know how people will counter bigger groups? They will bring more Ecm then everyone will be like nerf them! It will never stop people will cry unfair due to someone else being skilled and good at this game. No one really adapts only the skill players who used OGB will adapt to this. While the others will cry again and again about it being unfair.
Eve where the good and skilled get punish for the weak and unskilled players.either way I will have fun. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2407
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 00:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
I'm not sure how you guys switched to bashing offgrid boosters, but at least it's entertaining. Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - lowsec FW operation, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2133
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 00:52:00 -
[39] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: ships using warfare links are huge boons to [...] solo [...]
That is mutualy exclusive
Quote:Why not give command ships a warp core strength bonus? It preserves the current mechanic of needing skill and preparation to catch a boosting ship and provides room for a lot more dynamic play with command ships as part of small gangs. I know I, for one, have always wanted more reason and incentive to fly my Claymore, and this would definitely provide that. Discuss.
Not a bad idea - I'd prefer mandatory on grid and out of pos boosting, but 'command destroyers' instead. You know... morons. |
ArchDevils
Melnie Vanagi The Fourth District
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 06:58:00 -
[40] - Quote
Not sure why it didnot post the message, but here it goes again :/
o/ CCP should only make sure that if a player, at any time during combat, receives any fleet boosts - these fleet booster(s) are on killmails. implementation should not allow boosters manipulation by creating/closing/joining/leaving fleet during combat.
Fly not too safe o/ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |