|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
The whole idea is very nice but I think the overall bonuses of the combat links should be nerfed much more. In my perfect eve there are no combat links at all, but as this would cause a rage of epic proportions I understand it won't happen (or maybe...some day...), therefore, I'd say the maximum overall bonus of each link should never exceed 15%.
T3 boosters - these should have no link strength bonus at all, the fact that they can remain off grid, get there with virtually no risk, be nearly impossible to probe down and have multiple links running should be quite enough.
The suggestion that came up a couple of times in this thread that a booster ship should inherit timers from the ships it's boosting is also a very good one (however this should apply only once the links are running). Want to have a booster to help you suicide-gank in highsec? Say goodbye to the booster. Want to keep a CS on undock while boosting a fight on the gate? Sorry, can't dock until weapon aggro passes. Seems pretty fair to me - maybe indirectly, but the ship is taking a part in the fight.
As for the suggestions to introduce a distance from the POS shield where the links can be started - pointless - what will stop such a booster from staying aligned to a tower and warping in there at the first sign of threat?
Also - Fozzie - thank you for a healhy dose of leet-peeveepee tears, all of a sudden they feel threatened? Aren't their superior skills (...of getting the booster alt into the system) enough? Oh, and please hurry with the elimination of off-grid boosting (grids need to be fixed first, eh?). |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:It does pay off, doesn't it? all that time spent to train and max 4 different T3s and 4 different command ships, while two of each could have been enough. hooray for wasted SP that i'll (a) never recover and (b) will now be worth ditch when selling a character in the future.
Cry some more Rancer person, I absolutely hate the changes to the Astarte and the Sleipnir (having trained CS to 5 only to fly those two - I ain't much of a CS person) but the links nerf is making this much better, even though it's still nowhere near as big as it should be. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Very cruel idea...I like it! |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Blacksworth wrote:How about null sec claim war`s ? where da booster gonna be? i tell u where! in primary )))))
And you think nobody is aware of this? How about reading the thread thoroughly?...
This is precisely the point and please, learn to English. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sollis Vynneve wrote:ogb evening the gap between lower sp toons and higher sp toons.
Yes, or they make the gap much bigger if the other side has them. Apart from this, I don't think this was the main aim of boosters and - of course - on-grid boosters will do the exact same job.
Sollis Vynneve wrote:removing ogb would be stupid ccp would have to fix grids and completely rework t3s so they can have a tank and be ongrid. so remove the need for command processors and lower the fitting requirements for links
While you are correct about the grids needing to be fixed before removal of off-grid boosting, you are wrong about everything else: 1. It wouldn't be stupid. 2. They wouldn't have to do anything to the T3's. You can have a boosting T3 on grid, tanked and fully combat-capable, but you can only run one link. As with everything in eve, you want more than the default fitting? You need to sacrifice something. If you want to run 3 links - you need to sacrifice 2 mid-slots, it's your problem and nobody else's how you are going to fit other necessary modules - nobody's forcing you to fit more than one link, get it? The fact that T3's are better at boosting than dedicated command ships is ridiculous, this needs to be fixed and not made worse, and on the other hand, Command Processors are also a part of the problem (I'd remove them entirely, but that's my opinion...). |
|
|
|