Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:44:00 -
[61] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:I think its just the t3 thats overpowered so that could be fixed So command ships are superior but there could be another way. They are still vulnerable when changing systems. how about a significant passive visual effect if links are fitted. Make it risky to fly t3 links. Blow up sig radius so its fast to lock, change sensor strength so its easy to probe out
It seems most people don't know how boosts work either and it also seems like I have things to learn yet but everybody talks about the 25% versus 15 % on t3 versus command but thats a small part of the whole boost computation. From what I can tell, after everything is done on a shield hardening boost the difference amounts to only a few percent of hardness. like 32 versus 35, am i wrong? I keep thinking I missed something on the numbers. Its like adding an extra invuln
The first thing I would look at about active tanking would be cap recharge rate. It seems this would free slots, extend tanking time and increase hardness. Neuts would have to work harder but it seems they have some extra capacity already. They could boost recharge up to the predicted neuting rates
While we're on to active tanks. Shield and armor could be balance a little bit by resolution boosts on typically armor turrets. There is no mechanic in game to adjust resolution. shield are usually larger. boosting res would increase hit chance against shield targets while leaving low sigs like armor barely changed. Could make up for lack of damage types somewhat also
DPS DPS buff nerf buff nerf. COme on!, were smarter than this. Jesus where to start if not a pure troll.
Ganglink T3s already have a dedicated subsystem and thus visual key that they're able to run links. Also links have a visual display, as does ECCM if they're forced to be ongrid and need to be probed/burnt to. And FYI they have a dedicated ECCM subsystem so how would you nerf that without making it truely useless?
PvP active tanks almost never rely on cap regen, and it would break so many things if ships just had a much higher natural regen. IIRC the only ships with such stats are the Retribution and Sac, their problem is then getting dps out of them when it's so much easier to tank them. Beyond them, iirc only T3s can be built to have bonused cap regen & capacity (again for the Tengu this is also the subsystem with a lot of PG because it's plain broken/named wrong). Boosting general cap regen would mean running neuts with a buffer tank is even less risk to capping yourself out such that you can't mwd away, a huge bonus to kiters again.
It sounds like you don't understand resists (which is only 1 of 3 ganglink bonuses for armour or shields, and doesn't factor in skirmish links sig reduction, prop mod speed, and ability to dictate range with prop jammers). An 85% resists vs an 80% resist is 25% better unless I'm mistaken.
Active tanking needs more raw rep power, atm they're usually just using 1 or 2 mids for cap injectors, the rest of the slots go to tank, tackle and dps. If anything, ships need more cargo/cap booster charges need to be smaller. There are no real slots used by cap mods to free up, especially not ones to be used for dps to counter stronger tanks. And the ubiquitus cane needs to have a PG nerf so those 2 medium neuts aren't without having to at least downgrade to 220s. If arties get a slight fitting reduction, so be it.
(In related consideration, how about moving arty volley damage to the end of the cycle, so insta-lockers aren't insta-death to all. They'd still point fast if fitted to do so (suiciding afk highseccers isn't affected either way) but you'd be able to get a little bit of transv up rather than being volleyed without any option to do anything. A few seconds could be enough to cycle reppers so they rep as the volleys come in and so you're more able to outrep their dps. For fleet fights there's minimal change. It's also roleplay/physically-justifiable, and not like missiles aren't also dps at end of cycle or worse too. Both weapons systems being able to select damage types too.) |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:16:00 -
[62] - Quote
It was just mentioned on the "Brave New Module" part of fanfest that there will be new shield boosters/armor, they'd repair a lot more than current boosters but require more resources, from capacitor, but also apparently something else directly from what you have in cargo (pretty sure he wasn't talking about cap boosters to cap booster)
I'm sure there will be more accurate details on that very soon, saying that, most likely wont make it to the game for a while
Edit : Picture Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
ElQuirko
Gravit Negotii Rogue Elements.
443
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:31:00 -
[63] - Quote
Making them ongrid would make it much easier to KILL the links. This would then justify the stupid tanks of, say, the Damnation or the Sleipnir. Reducing the power of T3 links would then practically balance them...
If we distribute pictures of people, does that mean God can file copyright claims under SOPA? |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
663
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:42:00 -
[64] - Quote
Hi there.
I'm Fon and I'm seconding pretty much everything Garmon says in his original post.
Have been using links since July 2009, btw - 3 months after Apocrypha release 14 |
bldyannoyed
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:12:00 -
[65] - Quote
Nerfing links by any amount will hit smaller gangs more than larger gangs and that is indisputable maths.
As pointed out they are a force multiplier. They are more effective the more force they have to multiply. Lets take Logistics as an example. Max skilled they boost each repper buy not far short of 100% which pretty much means that once you have 2 Logistics in fleet a max skills link ship gives more Logistic power than a 3rd Logi ship would. At this point the CS is simply "Better".
Reducing the figure won't change that maths, it simply increases the number of Logi ships you need in your gang before you hit that point. Whatever the figure may be there is stilla cut off point at which a link ship gives more Logi power than an additional Logi would.
By that logic nerfing gang links will relegate them to large fleet toys and render them literally uselss below a certain fleet size threshhold. Theoretically they are already useless below a certain threshold but as that threshold is effectively 1 it's never really much of a limiter.
Skirmish links are a whole other kettle of fish and don't fit the same maths as the logi type CS.
Rather than nerfing them what I would suggest is reworking them.
You could introduce many more Gang links, play with the fitting in order to make them fittable on pretty much anything, and then make them a targetted module. Now you don't have one ship boosting a fleet of 200 ships, you have potentially many ships boosting different attributes of their gang mates.
This would result in a far greater depth at all levels of fleet size and potentially benefit smaller gangs as micro-mangement of fitting and links would be possible. Good luck micromanaging a 1000 man null blob but 5 guys could tweak away to their hearts content.
You'd need to rework commandships and the leadership skills but that's no bad thing. Skills could exist to boost the number of targets 1 link can boost at once, up to 5 for example. Theres loads you could do with it rather than simply nerf them. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
75
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:19:00 -
[66] - Quote
Absolutely agree with the original post. Links are intrinsically overpowered in their current state and simply restricting their effects to the local grid won't adequately address the issue. |
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
134
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:26:00 -
[67] - Quote
just sold my boosta cuz cant be botherd to bring it on grid. so i support any nerf to them. how about the new mods there bring in have a boosta jammer lol |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1934
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:56:00 -
[68] - Quote
I know I'm saying this as a 90% solo frigate pilot but I have experience in small gang and even 300+ fleets but I 100% agree that links currently give way WAY too much advantage, particularly to the larger gangs in any given engagement. Sure everyone can fly links in their roams but it massively improves each individual ship in a gang so much that it's really off-kilter towards defensive large blobs.
I don't know if it should be nerfed down to 20% or 50% or whatever but currently it's a single off-grid ship giving so much extra oomph to every single ship in fleet that it is indeed something of a problem. Forcing them on grid might have an impact but again it just gives too much advantage to larger fleets so an overall reduction seems to make more sense. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Mimiru Minahiro
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:07:00 -
[69] - Quote
Where were all the link haters when t2 links went up on SISI? Almost everyone was like "coo yo" |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1934
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:14:00 -
[70] - Quote
I'm pretty sure plenty of people were unimpressed with TII links at the time. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
|
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Copine Callmeknau wrote:I disagree with the base premise that links cause people to not want to PvP
Personally it gave me something to aim for in EVE Some people could say the same about prenerf titans True
But pre-nerf titan's aren't accessible to the average player.
Gang-linking is.
At the end of the day you haven't got facts and figures of any players who have left EVE or stopped PvPing because of ganglinks, just the same as I don't have any facts or figures of how many players have joined EVE or started PvPing because of ganglinks.
It's just your opinion, and your opinion is "I don't like ganglinks", don't try to state it as anything else. |
ZGVsaXZlcnkgZ3V5
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:21:00 -
[72] - Quote
garmon so on d money he a foundn father |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1940
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:26:00 -
[73] - Quote
Copine Callmeknau wrote:It's just your opinion, and your opinion is "I don't like ganglinks", don't try to state it as anything else.
Excepts his opinion is typical and accurate. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Remove Gang-Links
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:16:00 -
[74] - Quote
I agree with everything Garmon has said.
Why not remove Leadership skills and give a new role to the super tanky T2 Command Ships?
P.S I use a gang-link alt for small scale pvp. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1223
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
I never perceived them as too much of a problem until T3s appeared - cloaky, interdiction nullified, highly mobile, hard to probe off-grid boosters that provide a better boost than Fleet CS and are capable of bonused probing at the same time are a pain in the arse.
A cloaky, bubble-proof scout and prober that provides an insane bonus - yeah - right ...
Whenever engaging someone in low/null and there's a neut in the system, it could be some lameass off-grid T3 booster. As opposed to popular belief, they're detrimental to solo/very small gang pvp - solo being quite obvious as it's not solo anymore if someone is fleeted with his booster alt.
The only reason off grid boosting had a right to exist was the nature of siege links - since that has been fixed, I don't see a reason too make them being on-grid mandatory.
Garmon may be right about the overall magnitude of gang link effectiveness being too good, but I'm more in favour of changing things one by one.
Off-grid boosting should go first - then probably diminishing returns with increased gang size as a next step (yeah - people will evade that, but it requires way more organisation to do so).
Changing too many things at once leads to the same fuckups when they changed projectiles and TEs at the same time. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Cyrina Manto
Masons of New Eden The Laughing Men
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:00:00 -
[76] - Quote
If anything is done, at least swap the Command ship link bonus and T3 link bonus.
A ship that is faster to train gets 30% better performance, can be made neigh impossible to scan and be immune to bubbles? Only downside is tank, but that isnt an issue 90% of the time with off grid boosting.
Really, Id like to see Gallente links and EWar fixed. Damps are ok, but they are still a bit sub par. And info links for ECM on the race that has no need for ECM?
IMHO, each race should get three different link types, 1 for racial tank (shield/armor, active/passive), 1 for racial EWar, and one racial secondary attribute (drones, speed, neuts, missiles, sniping, etc etc). And the command ships would get bonuses to the three (or whatever number is deemed nessicary) race specific links. |
FT Diomedes
Factio Paucorum
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:28:00 -
[77] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Garmon may be right about the overall magnitude of gang link effectiveness being too good, but I'm more in favour of changing things one by one.
Off-grid boosting should go first - then probably diminishing returns with increased gang size as a next step (yeah - people will evade that, but it requires way more organisation to do so).
Changing too many things at once leads to the same fuckups when they changed projectiles and TEs at the same time.
While I don't disagree at all with the OP, I think the above is important. Wholesale changes have much more potential to screw everything up.
Making the boosters come on the grid is a critical first step. Once you make the boosters come on grid, you have some risk involved. If you want those sexy 5% T3 bonuses, you run the risk of losing your expensive ship (and some SP). Or, you can stick with the CS and get smaller bonuses. Once those changes go through, we can step back and see whether boosters need more changes.
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1223
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 00:07:00 -
[78] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:
While I don't disagree at all with the OP, I think the above is important. Wholesale changes have much more potential to screw everything up.
Making the boosters come on the grid is a critical first step. Once you make the boosters come on grid, you have some risk involved. If you want those sexy 5% T3 bonuses, you run the risk of losing your expensive ship (and some SP). Or, you can stick with the CS and get smaller bonuses. Once those changes go through, we can step back and see whether boosters need more changes.
Compared to the magnitude of bonusses you get from leadership skills, the 15% vs 25% isn't that much of an issue imho - having to be on grid, you wouldn't want to gimp your fit with 2(+) command processors.
T3 boosters would be viable as they would provide better boost, but could only fit one - maybe two - links without being paper-thin.
The main issue I personally have with T3 boosters and off grid boosting is that they are easier to move around than a cov ops frig (they can't be interdiction nullified after all) whilst providing the same scouting and probing power and giving the best gang boost in game at the same time.
As soon as boosters have to be on grid, I either see there's a T3/Fleet CS/Titan/SC/Carrier (yeah - they get a bonus to fit command links as well) and know what I'm up to and wont engage or there's not.
Oh - and they should pull aggro for giving out bonusses.
morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
201
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
I think by far the second largest problem with the links (after the huge bonuses) is that its not actually a viable and fun role that a player actually wants to do. Saving people like a hero with repping is a fun thing to play, just sitting there in a link ship you want to get as many links and that means little tank (often) and next to do damage or RR ability.
CS links should always be the best links, you dont give full bonuses to all the EW version of the tech3s right?
My vision for a good change is the combination of a logistics ship with boosting links so a pilot might actually be able to take part in a fight and not insta die and loose the links for the whole gang (also bad).
Its no wonder everyone flys an alt for links, cram as many on and put it in a safespot/pos, everything points to this being the best use currently. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
321
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:34:00 -
[80] - Quote
Good thread, and looks like most agree.
Off-grid, unprobeable, nullifiied T3 links are lame, on-grid links on a Command ship are fine.
Currently it's just too easy to have link alt, and too stupid not have one, because of the bonus is so damn big. I'm training my indy alt for T3 links, we do small (micro) gang and really see no option. |
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:54:00 -
[81] - Quote
Garmon wrote:It was just mentioned on the "Brave New Module" part of fanfest that there will be new shield boosters/armor, they'd repair a lot more than current boosters but require more resources, from capacitor, but also apparently something else directly from what you have in cargo (pretty sure he wasn't talking about cap boosters to cap booster) I'm sure there will be more accurate details on that very soon, saying that, most likely wont make it to the game for a while Edit : Picture
Haven't seen this mentioned before, so I'm quoting this so it gets to page 5. Drone damage mod = return of the gayllente? I don't quite understand the armor resistance shifting hardener but it looks like that module + the target breaker one is designed to make large gangs primary'ing one target less effective which is great but I dunno where I'm going to find slots for those mods, I'm already short of slots when I go out and 2-3 man pvp already.
If any of these hit TQ in the next expansion it's going to be pretty exciting. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:30:00 -
[82] - Quote
When something goes from being an option to a 'must-have' you know it's broken. Ganglinks are just that.
Let CCP just take off-grid boosting from the table first and see how it pans out.
Commitment to the fight means that you can't put six ganglinks on a ship and expect it to be useful for longer then a few seconds. So more tank and thus less ganglinks will automatically balance out the overpowering effect of them even further. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
killorbekilled TBE
Dare Bears
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 12:07:00 -
[83] - Quote
i am in favour of off grid link alts either t3's or command ships
because they allow solo pvpers a chance to compete with larger gangs
when i say solo pvpers i mean a player with a off grid link alt please don't turn this thread into what is the definition of a solo pvper
when it comes to the skill prerequisites of both the t3 and the command ship , the command ship being the most skill intensive should get more of a bonus to gang links
huh? |
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
914
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:02:00 -
[84] - Quote
Whereas I completely agree with the implications, I would say the way to fix it is:
- Make the links need to be on-grid - Give the command ships the 5% bonus, T3's the 3% - Adjust both so they can be a viable combat fit (on par with their T1 hull) - probably through giving them a half rack of guns with a 100% bonus. This will also make the T3 lol-link fits disappear in favour of intelligent fitting decisions for use in combat.
Then see if making the force multiplier be on-grid starts to get properly countered and become a viable part of battlefield strategy.
This is a two-stage fix: - Give them a counter - Adjust the gameplay of the link ship character to make it less likely to be an alt - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:28:00 -
[85] - Quote
What was the issue with just making the bonus applied inversely proportional to the fleet member count? And for wing & squad member count for the corresponding booster positions? Say a 10man squad get 20% of the bonus, 100man fleet 5%? 'Solo' guy still gets ~100% |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
704
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:37:00 -
[86] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:yea please this stuff needs fixed. when t3 boosting became 'the thing' in fw nearly all small scale/1v1 pvp ended. and only people who are suicidal like me still fight without links.
There's a few others of us who don't abuse links.
But yeah, the threat of "I wonder if that Thrasher actually goes 3 km/s because of this neutral alt in local that I can't touch" is stupid. Good thread, Garmon.
Not having extensively used boosting myself, I can't say how they should be nerfed, but they do badly need a nerf Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
There should be off grid boosting
Promotes alternative Play style - non Blob Promotes the used of Combat scanner ship to find us cowards Moves from Group Weapons target Command ship to "Bob Find me that off grid command ship" Okay Wing 2 Disengage and warp to bob to take out the command ship and get back here.
Though if you are on grid you should be rewarded for the risk.
I think Command modules should have a lesser effect while off grid vs those on grid I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
136
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:12:00 -
[88] - Quote
killorbekilled TBE wrote:i am in favour of off grid link alts either t3's or command ships
because they allow solo pvpers a chance to compete with larger gangs
when i say solo pvpers i mean a player with a off grid link alt please don't turn this thread into what is the definition of a solo pvper
when it comes to the skill prerequisites of both the t3 and the command ship , the command ship being the most skill intensive should get more of a bonus to gang links
I had a boosta alt so i could solo pvp vs groups but most peeps have a boosta. Its just noobs who dont run with a boosta. If every fleet needs to have one whats the point? |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
704
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:29:00 -
[89] - Quote
Gevlin wrote: Moves from Group Weapons target Command ship to "Bob Find me that off grid command ship" Okay Wing 2 Disengage and warp to bob to take out the command ship and get back here.
You're delusional. Here is what actually happens:
- Hisec: can't get the boosting ship because it's neutral and you get CONCORDed if you try.
- Lowsec: can't get the boosting ship because it's pre-aligned and warps (and cloaks for T3s) immediately as anything appears on grid.
- Nullsec: sending any more than 1-2 people after it gives the enemy blob too much of an advantage. One of those ships has to be an interdictor, or you're back to the lowsec situation.
- Everywhere: boosting ship is already on a POS/station/gate making it impossible to kill.
Boosting as an idea for a mechanic is fine, but the ridiculous amount of bonuses it adds now is only acceptable with some risk like being on grid, or even within a certain distance (75 km?) of the ships you're boosting to get full bonuses. It also needs to extend aggression (a la neutral RR), and maybe bloom sig radius. Everyone always says "risk=reward", but right now one of the most rewarding things for a fleet only involves large ISK investment without much risk to lose it.
Ed: Because of the extra risks, aggression, etc, boosting ships also need to appear on KMs. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 12:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
What about a flat out 50% nerf to link effectiveness and then a further 50% nerf to link effectiveness if the links are off grid. I.e. Off-grid links only give a very small partial bonus where as on grid links give full bonus. Two Step for CSM |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |