Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2916
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 17:19:23 -
[31] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:#1: This necessitates a complete and total rework of both T3 defensive subsystems and command ships. Why would this be the case? Command Ships as they currently stand have already been reworked once and are a fairly viable ship type in their own right. Plus it would be *far* easier to balance the rework around what already exists than to rework both links and Command Ships *and* T3s all at once. (T3s still need their big balance pass but unless CCP are scheduling that at the same time as this links change I see to need to rebalance one to suit the other specifically) Because barring a damnation they're far too easy to be blapped off field.
Delete command processor and hard-limit the number of links each ship can run. Then they will all magically have the fitting to fit their links and a tank. Weapon might be a bit problematic but just like recons, their presence is not for their offensive firepower. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
432
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 18:01:36 -
[32] - Quote
Rawmeat Mary wrote:By that reasoning, CCP should remove multiboxing.
That's pretty much a thing that's already happened in most meaningful contexts (no more input broadcasting) and for the remaining ones you're being overly broad and hyperbolic. A change that makes boosting with alts significantly less viable does not mean that all multi-boxing is now dead and worthless.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Because barring a damnation they're far too easy to be blapped off field.
If I get a big enough fleet I can easily blap a Damnation. There is no magic point at which Command Ships will stop being massive targets unless they are either so tanky they barely need tank mods for non-massive-fleet-uses or they're so near to worthless no one brings any.
The idea that they need more HP may be valid, but that's hardly into "total rework" territory, and the further up you push the bar to effectively kill a Command Ship the harder it becomes for a smaller force to remove the Command Ships belonging to a larger one, which would further enforce "N+1 wins" and generally, I feel, cause more problems than it solved. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
432
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 18:22:33 -
[33] - Quote
For the purposes of this post I'm going to refer to someone using links as a Command Player, since the Booster role is apparently going away and I want to avoid conflating terms.
Some thoughts/concerns, in no particular order:
- Everything about the current boost modules should be looked at, especially fittings, cap use, and cycle time. As things stand, with OGBs, it makes a fair amount of sense for links to be fitting prohibitive because dropping tank for more links is about the closest the whole system comes to a meaningful trade-off, but with the links moving on grid that seems like a trade almost no one will want to make.
- The duration of links should be long enough that a Command Player can activate links, a fleet can warp a moderate distance, and the boosts still be active when the fleet lands on grid. What a "moderate distance" means is something for CCP to determine, and will obviously vary some with warp speed, but I would say that the base distance should revolve around the 3 AU/s base speed many T1 ships use.
- Links should respect Suspect/Criminal/Station Timer mechanics. More on this below, because this got a bit big for a bullet point...
- The question of whether or not these new AOE links will affect the Command Ship itself should be answered, as should whether or not they affect the ship when it is not in a fleet. In effect can I now mount a high-slot tank module on solo ships?
- In my opinion the bonuses on the links themselves shouldn't be changed, at least on the first iteration. I foresee a lot of calls for the links to be buffed to make up for bringing them on grid but I don't think this is really necessary. The links being off-grid is a broken state of affairs as it's basically all bonus and very very little risk in most cases. Buffing links in response to fixing this broken state of affairs both helps defeat the point of the change and moves the baseline making it harder to determine the actual effect of bringing Links on-grid compared to before.
Suspect/Criminal/Station Timer thoughts and mechanics:
If you activate links you should get a gate/station timer and any criminal flags possessed by someone affected should be passed to the activating player. This both solves one of the few remaining consequence-free methods of remote assistance (in high and low-sec) and increases risk to Command Linkers by preventing them from playing station games with Warfare Links. That said, this still leaves a few holes in the mechanics which would need to be plugged.
To avoid griefing or avoiding penalty mechanics I would suggest that someone who commits an aggressive act against another player lose Link Bonuses passed by someone who is not currently aggressable by that person/a criminal. Basically you have to activate your links *after* (if only just) someone else starts shooting that freighter/rookie ship/carrier trying to jump into High Sec.
To prevent griefing in public fleets Link Bonuses respect the safety in who they pass to, so someone with a green safety can still activate their Warfare Links but can't give Link Bonuses to someone who is currently in a state that would violate the green safety, the Links affect everyone else normally. Otherwise you're going to have people joining things like Incursion Fleets, waiting until the links are about to activate, and going suspect or criminal to either A: prevent the Command Linker from activating his links *or* B. get him killed, either by Concord or by the ganker's friends.
Some may say that Link-griefing should be allowed but this harkens back to the days when anyone in fleet could shoot anyone else in a fleet and this was pretty much *only* used for griefing and limited the utility of fleets and pushed players away from working together casually. This is both bad for the game generally and actually makes it harder for a dedicated or experienced troll/griefer/saboteur to ingratiate himself to a group by discouraging casual and temporary cooperation that might transition into a more long lasting relationship.
Thanks for making this thread FuzzySteve, I look forward to seeing what CCP comes up with here! :) |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1431
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 18:26:54 -
[34] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:#1: This necessitates a complete and total rework of both T3 defensive subsystems and command ships. Why would this be the case? Command Ships as they currently stand have already been reworked once and are a fairly viable ship type in their own right. Plus it would be *far* easier to balance the rework around what already exists than to rework both links and Command Ships *and* T3s all at once. (T3s still need their big balance pass but unless CCP are scheduling that at the same time as this links change I see to need to rebalance one to suit the other specifically) Because barring a damnation they're far too easy to be blapped off field. Delete command processor and hard-limit the number of links each ship can run. Then they will all magically have the fitting to fit their links and a tank. Weapon might be a bit problematic but just like recons, their presence is not for their offensive firepower.
Nothing can matched a damnation though. Nothing subcapital, anyway. Vulture is close but still short. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3427
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 22:22:32 -
[35] - Quote
Ion Nizer wrote:Anyway, to the point. I've seen mention of making links into something you need to target and apply to ships.
This I like, as it makes links into something like logistics which is fun to fly.
Servo Libertas wrote:As someone else mentioned, I think that targeted boosts would be much more interesting/rewarding for that role. Booster alts need to be a thing of the past; combat boosting needs to be a fun, active role.
Yeah, making links into a targeted module is a much more interesting approach than the buff bubble, by turning fleet bonuses into an active role akin to remote-rep logistics you create a much more engaging gameplay style and much more room for individual pilot decisions and input to make the difference.
Here's how the version of fleet bonuses works in my head:
========= 1: Ganglinks are an active module and require a target lock to apply. 2: To use a ganglink the linking ship must lock and activate the module on a member of their fleet in any command position. 3: Once activated as above, the link bonus provided by that module applies to the targeted fleet member and any fleet member below them in the chain of command. 4: The higher up the chain of command the targeted fleet member is, the more diluted the ganglink effect becomes. =========
So if I'm in a ganglink ship in a full fleet of 256, I can target the FC, activate my link module(s), and (assuming their Leadership skills are up to it) all fleet members including myself will receive a small bonus from my ganglink. Or, I can target one of the Wing commanders, which would mean that the Wing Commander and all pilots in that wing receive a more powerful ganglink effect. Or, I can use my link on one of the Squad leaders. The ganglink will only affect the 10 members of the squad, but the effect of the ganglink on those 10 will be much more powerful than spreading it out across the whole fleet.
Alternatively I guess we could have a boring AoE bubble which doesn't give any of those interesting gameplay choices, encourages the whole fleet to huddle together in a big stupid blob, and can be performed completely passively by the FC's alt character just like today.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
16
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 02:11:45 -
[36] - Quote
Making links a targetted module is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You might as well bring another dps or logi/support. Offgrid links work because it's a boring arse role to play unless you are a fleet commander, and then, you are only begging to be primaried by flying one in a fleet while obviously boosting.
If CCP wants to make links fun to fly then give them new slots on commandships, battlecruisers, T3s, Command destroyers where only links can be fitted and the ship can still use the majority of its resources in fitting a tank and guns. The reason why offgrid boosting worked was because it was hella boring so it was convenient to relegate it to an alt. With commandships giving a decent amount of boost while still being highly useful as dps ships, you wouldn't need to tell pilots before they fly said ships into combat willingly. |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2921
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 04:03:46 -
[37] - Quote
Jessie McPewpew wrote:If CCP wants to make links fun to fly then give them new slots on commandships, battlecruisers, T3s, Command destroyers where only links can be fitted and the ship can still use the majority of its resources in fitting a tank and guns. The reason why offgrid boosting worked was because it was hella boring so it was convenient to relegate it to an alt. With commandships giving a decent amount of boost while still being highly useful as dps ships, you wouldn't need to tell pilots before they fly said ships into combat willingly.
You can already do this by yourself by not trying to jury rig more than 3 link on a command ship. Most if not all of them will be left with most of their slots open for tank and the same for dps. The stupidity of 6 links command boat doesn't have to still be a thing once we get links on grid. You could hard-cap the link in 3 "class" where command ship bring 3, T3 cruisers and destroyer bring 2 and command destroyer bring 1. The funniest thing about this is you could then make then all give equivalent boost value since ship would probably flat out make sense to bring in different scenario instead of it being T3 or bust for a large majority of setups. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2139
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 06:57:27 -
[38] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:#1: This necessitates a complete and total rework of both T3 defensive subsystems and command ships. Why would this be the case? Command Ships as they currently stand have already been reworked once and are a fairly viable ship type in their own right. Plus it would be *far* easier to balance the rework around what already exists than to rework both links and Command Ships *and* T3s all at once. (T3s still need their big balance pass but unless CCP are scheduling that at the same time as this links change I see to need to rebalance one to suit the other specifically) Because barring a damnation they're far too easy to be blapped off field. Delete command processor and hard-limit the number of links each ship can run. Then they will all magically have the fitting to fit their links and a tank. Weapon might be a bit problematic but just like recons, their presence is not for their offensive firepower.
I'm OK w/ someone bringing a 6 link shitfit command ship on grid. If someone wants to put all co-processors, command processors and links on any ship on grid w/ me - sweet. I believe in choice and consequence. Bring a 2 link damnation w/ a massive tank or a 6 link paper damnation - their call and their consequences.
I think the anger (whatever) against off grid boosting was that there was this incredibly pvp powerful ship with a totally horrible pvp fit (super squishy) that could linger in safety. Bringing them on grid makes them viable targets. Leave it up to the pilot to make the call for max boosts or max tank.
Will ewar do anything to the aoe boosts? Can I damp down their effective range? Can I jam the booster? I understand how and why they don't affect smart bombs (energy pulse weapons) as it is the ship just kind of puking out damage over a short range. Boosts on the other hand kind of imply lending computing power via links with other ships. Jamming a linked ship would (possibly) break the links with other ships.
Finally, I would think bringing them on grid and seeing what happens would make for completely informed balance tweaks. Right now we would be guessing and assuming a lot based on how radical moving to aoe is. Having a tweaker in hand and at the ready for patch day would be smart, but I'm voting for let the emergent play happen and then fix what aoe breaks. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
435
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 13:56:31 -
[39] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Ion Nizer wrote:Anyway, to the point. I've seen mention of making links into something you need to target and apply to ships.
This I like, as it makes links into something like logistics which is fun to fly. Servo Libertas wrote:As someone else mentioned, I think that targeted boosts would be much more interesting/rewarding for that role. Booster alts need to be a thing of the past; combat boosting needs to be a fun, active role. Yeah, making links into a targeted module is a much more interesting approach than the buff bubble, by turning fleet bonuses into an active role akin to remote-rep logistics you create a much more engaging gameplay style and much more room for individual pilot decisions and input to make the difference. Here's how the version of fleet bonuses works in my head: ========= 1: Ganglinks are an active module and require a target lock to apply. 2: To use a ganglink the linking ship must lock and activate the module on a member of their fleet in any command position. 3: Once activated as above, the link bonus provided by that module applies to the targeted fleet member and any fleet member below them in the chain of command.4: The higher up the chain of command the targeted fleet member is, the more diluted the ganglink effect becomes.========= So if I'm in a ganglink ship in a full fleet of 256, I can target the FC, activate my link module(s), and (assuming their Leadership skills are up to it) all fleet members including myself will receive a small bonus from my ganglink. Or, I can target one of the Wing commanders, which would mean that the Wing Commander and all pilots in that wing receive a more powerful ganglink effect. Or, I can use my link on one of the Squad leaders. The ganglink will only affect the 10 members of the squad, but the effect of the ganglink on those 10 will be much more powerful than spreading it out across the whole fleet. Alternatively I guess we could have a boring AoE bubble which doesn't give any of those interesting gameplay choices, encourages the whole fleet to huddle together in a big stupid blob, and can be performed completely passively by the FC's alt character just like today.
This isn't really particularly interesting though, it just increases the number of Command Ships you need to bring on field to be effective. Other than that it's just "lock up your assigned leadership person and broadcast if you get targeted". That and you've just made ECM hard-counter *another* ship-type.
The end result of this, for any large fleet, would be bring 26/52 Command Ships and have 1 for the FC and one for each squad. That's not a particularly interesting choice or engaging gameplay, it's just another numbers and SP check. If you really want to limit the impact of Command Links then make the AOE smaller than 255km and force people to actually stay near the Command Ship if they want to get boosts, but even that isn't really a *good* solution, because it penalizes larger hulls, never mind what it does to capital ships.
This whole targeted links idea seems like a bad push to relegate Links to solo and very small gang warfare, which would *massively* change the survivability of ships at every other level of the game, especially the Command Ships themselves. Making them a targeted module would be equivalent to nerfing them into oblivion. |
MiB Zed
Men In Blap
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 18:14:27 -
[40] - Quote
off grid links are broken and bringing them on grid wont make it better ether. to make this short and sweet if you move links on grid every fc in the book is going to primary the link ship as soon as they can. if i can kill 1 ship that makes your entire fleet less useful i would have to be stupid to not try to head shot it. there isnt a good option with links you ether make them too focused or too weak to be useful or your going to make them the first ship to hit the battle reports. links in any form are just a tax put on a fleet to allow them to punch above there weight class what works for small gangs in links wont work in blobs what works in blobs wont work in small gangs one group is going to be upset about the changes.
sometimes the only winning move is not to play |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
444
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 18:34:19 -
[41] - Quote
Steve, any news or new information?
Heck, do you think this thread has been useful at all so far?
Any plans to do more threads like this for future features head of any CCP announcement? |
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
151
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 22:10:47 -
[42] - Quote
I am of the opinion, that OGB adds nothing to the game.
It ruins my immersion when a space ship is able to fly faster because some other ship has a button on.
I know this is a game, but, its the main problem I have with boosting.
Extra resistances, when off grid, make no sense either, while on grid, they make sense in the same way shield/armor/whatever repair does as in there's a steady stream of particles/energy flung at the target, even if they are being dispersed around a particular vessel (AoE).
Frankly, I don't even know the full extent of possible bonuses, because I never bothered to train link alts, but things like velocity, acceleration and manoeuvrability being affected should not be boosted.
Sensor locking speed is fine representing additional sensors available, signature reduction is fine (a weak ECM), but stuff like speed/agility should be well off the realm of electronic buffing.
My two cents really. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
444
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 19:41:20 -
[43] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:I am of the opinion, that OGB adds nothing to the game.
It ruins my immersion when a space ship is able to fly faster because some other ship has a button on.
I know this is a game, but, its the main problem I have with boosting.
Extra resistances, when off grid, make no sense either, while on grid, they make sense in the same way shield/armor/whatever repair does as in there's a steady stream of particles/energy flung at the target, even if they are being dispersed around a particular vessel (AoE).
Frankly, I don't even know the full extent of possible bonuses, because I never bothered to train link alts, but things like velocity, acceleration and manoeuvrability being affected should not be boosted.
Sensor locking speed is fine representing additional sensors available, signature reduction is fine (a weak ECM), but stuff like speed/agility should be well off the realm of electronic buffing.
My two cents really.
"Makes sense" isn't really something that comes into play here. This is Science Fiction so it's always possible to come up with some way something *might* be doable, even if it's just the external view point allowing for optimization of existing systems. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
16446
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 20:31:14 -
[44] - Quote
Sense, in f&i!! GET EM LADS!
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6041
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 23:28:04 -
[45] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Steve, any news or new information?
Heck, do you think this thread has been useful at all so far?
Any plans to do more threads like this for future features head of any CCP announcement?
Nothing new to share yet.
They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it.
But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start)
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1264
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 00:58:59 -
[46] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Nothing new to share yet.
They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it.
But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start)
We have been saying the same thing, we rather wait a little more and get something solid than have something that doesn't quite do it.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
19
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 01:47:17 -
[47] - Quote
So far my experience with links is - broken AF. Not only the bonuses but how they are applied, some1 sitting 100 au away at station or at safespot in an almost unscannable, claoky, nullified t3 providing constant boosts to everyone? Wat. So after thinking long and hard i came up with this:
1. Links should be on grid, all time, or at least most of it- this would open a profession currently occupied by alts
2. The ships should be tanky while having links fitted and running, low sig, good resist profile, base speed, minimal to none dps. Command destroyers need a buff in that regard, atm thay can fit 1 module, if that. Useful only for the mjd. Command ships- more buffor, able to fit more links without gimping the fit etc.
3. Duration seems like good idea to differentiate between hulls, smaller ship would have to stay with the group to provide buff constantly (but also be more mobile and avoid getting caught while on grid with the gang) Command ship could "link up" and warp off to a safe oldschool style, but it would warp slow giving enemy chance to catch it and after a while it would need to reunite with fleet somehow, giving opposite team another chance to point it. Or stay on field with the kitey cancer roam and be the slowest, potentialy catch-able high value target for enemy. gang link t3's should behave like something in between- weaker bonus to link strength and lower tank than command ship, but more agile. |
Cade Windstalker
Center For Postdoctoral Studies
446
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 02:02:17 -
[48] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Nothing new to share yet.
They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it.
But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start)
Not surprised by any of this. Game Development is like an iceberg, you only ever really see the tip of the process. (and no one really questions that until there's a horrible wreck...)
More wondering if the thread has been useful to you and/or the other CSMs in getting your own internal discussion going, coming up with potential concerns, or just generally producing "huh, I never thought of that" moments.
If it's doing any of that then I feel like the playerbase is doing its job as far as engaging with the CSM and providing feedback and fodder for discussions goes. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6045
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 12:06:38 -
[49] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Nothing new to share yet.
They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it.
But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start) Not surprised by any of this. Game Development is like an iceberg, you only ever really see the tip of the process. (and no one really questions that until there's a horrible wreck...) More wondering if the thread has been useful to you and/or the other CSMs in getting your own internal discussion going, coming up with potential concerns, or just generally producing "huh, I never thought of that" moments. If it's doing any of that then I feel like the playerbase is doing its job as far as engaging with the CSM and providing feedback and fodder for discussions goes.
I've been reading it, yes. The points will be raised (except for the 'don't change anything' one. because they will be changed.)
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Cade Windstalker
448
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 14:12:54 -
[50] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:I've been reading it, yes. The points will be raised (except for the 'don't change anything' one. because they will be changed.)
I lol'd. Love you Steve, keep being an awesome and super engaged CSM :) |
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1179
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 14:16:51 -
[51] - Quote
removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone. |
Cade Windstalker
448
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 15:12:13 -
[52] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone.
Oh noes, now you'll only have your Skill Points, Combat Boosters, and Fitting to make yourself invisibly harder to kill? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2165
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 15:31:20 -
[53] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone.
Yippppeeeeee
(good riddance) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1180
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 16:02:54 -
[54] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Oh noes, now you'll only have your Skill Points, Combat Boosters, and Fitting to make yourself invisibly harder to kill?
boosters are of limited value, fitting upgrades which would meaningfully matter consts tons of ISK and thus are only for rich people. Links however offer possibilities for regular players. |
Cade Windstalker
448
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 17:26:43 -
[55] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: Oh noes, now you'll only have your Skill Points, Combat Boosters, and Fitting to make yourself invisibly harder to kill?
boosters are of limited value, fitting upgrades which would meaningfully matter consts tons of ISK and thus are only for rich people. Links however offer possibilities for regular players.
A boosting character takes anywhere from six months to a year to train just to be able to fly the ship and boost to a good degree, and it requires a second account (something the average player probably can't afford with just PLEX).
A well fitted boosting ship, and the implants to go with it, costs at least half a billion ISK and can run much higher.
All of that hardly makes a Command Boosting alt "something for poor people" here...
Besides all of this though, just the fact that you consider Boosts to be so powerful says that they should be on-grid and under direct risk of getting shot rather than off-grid, hidden, and quite safe (you know, in comparison). |
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1082
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 21:05:53 -
[56] - Quote
If they come on grid limited boosting range.
Under no circumstances is to boosts stay active if ship is not present on grid...ship dies boosts dies ship warp off boosts dies
Add battleship size booster or rework marauders to fit that role,
size/class of a boosting ship could be used to determine how many ppl and how strong certain boosts are.
Marauders supposed to be redone few years ago into more PVP oriented roles not even greater PVE carebaremobiles with niche afterthought PVP every once in a blue moon action....not sure what happened there but whatevs.
Made some opinions here other than that il just wait for this disaster to unfold.
Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
|
Cade Windstalker
449
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 21:11:14 -
[57] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote:If they come on grid limited boosting range.
Under no circumstances is to boosts stay active if ship is not present on grid...ship dies boosts dies ship warp off boosts dies
This may turn into more of a server performance issue than a game balance one. While I agree in theory I feel that some kind of short-duration effect (call it 10-30 seconds) may be more practical from a server performance standpoint while keeping the overall effect on combat the same.
Mina Sebiestar wrote:Add battleship size booster or rework marauders to fit that role size/class of a boosting ship could be used to determine how many ppl and how strong certain boosts are. Marauders supposed to be redone few years ago into more PVP oriented roles not even greater PVE carebaremobiles with niche afterthought PVP every once in a blue moon action....not sure what happened there but whatevs. Made some opinions here other than that il just wait for this disaster to unfold.
Marauders were never supposed to be reworked into PvP oriented roles. This was disucssed during the Bastion rework and roundly shot down by CCP. Go read the thread if you want to know more.
Also I'm failing to see a compelling argument for a Battleship sized boosting ship. We have Destroyers, Battlecruisers, and Capitals, why do we need a Battleship when a Command Ship can out-tank a Battleship in most cases? |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
217
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 21:28:24 -
[58] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone.
If you're afraid to PvP without boosts, you're risk averse enough that I'd say good riddance. |
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1082
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 21:52:23 -
[59] - Quote
Quote:Marauders were never supposed to be reworked into PvP oriented roles
And yet very first update of them was giving em t2 resists and bonuses to webs and only minor tank buffs in bastion and talks about re positioning with MJD as well as RR capabilities to boot on battlefield if that's not epitome of PVP stats i don't know what is
Until flood of carebares tears that is at which point all that talk of pvp was replaced with how to kill arch gistum battleships or better yet tank it.
Quote:why do we need a Battleship when a Command Ship can out-tank a Battleship in most cases
Active tank marauder have significantly better tank than both minmatar and gallente command ships those would be active tankers and suitable in comparison
Other than that i mention it as an opinion as to size of boosting bubble/how many ppl get boosts and or strength of certain boosts over the others.
Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
|
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
19
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 22:45:41 -
[60] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone. Don't worry, people who go for Baity McBaitboat 2 minutes after seing his link tengu jump in, will also fall for same ship with a neutral Drake on grid.
Individually targeted links? Oh RNG Jesus pls no. I'm old enough to remember buffer class in ancient mmo's, 1 guy spending 3 minutes to provide buffs to a 7-9 man group and than having to sit down and regen for 5 minutes just to be able to redo same thing again. EvE has too much targeting as it is. One "special", shorter, more powerful targeted link is cool thou, blob warfare would keep their aoe while a micro gang could focus on utilizing both aoe and special ability to maximum. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |