| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
172
   |
Posted - 2011.09.15 09:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Gang links should only apply to the grid where they are active.
Off-grid gang links these days are pretty popular with "solo" players and small groups that operate in a single solar system. I believe that if a pilot and ship are affecting your on-grid combat, they should be on-grid with you so that there is a chance to eliminate the force multiplier. This is already the case with every other ship and module that affects combat unless you count assigned fighters -- and in that case you can destroy the fighters to eliminate their effect.
I have no problem with gang links in general as I've been the beneficiary probably more often than the victim, but someone ought to be at the helm and the ship ought to be vulnerable to counterattack.
Likely the main detractors will say that since a gang linked ship has to be uncloaked to provide bonuses it is vulnerable -- but this isn't true if the ship is at a POS.
This means that the whole fleet has to stay together in the system. Eg: you cant have the heavy ships shooting a POS and the lights camping the in gate.
Also, the Fleet Command ships will need to be reworked to be able to have buffer tanks comporable to the Damnation; the Eos and the Claymore will need to lose their lolrep bonuses in favour of some kind of EHP boost. Shield tanking Fleet Commands may also need their slot layout revising, as the Command Processors replace tanking mids.
Being required to be on grid would make T3 gangboosters effectively useless.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
188
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 00:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Gang link ships can be made completely combat worthy. Command ships and Strategic cruisers are renowned for their ability to tank. Sure, they can't fit the most epic tank once you fit them properly (with gang links) but doesn't that make sense? Malcanis wrote:Also, the Fleet Command ships will need to be reworked to be able to have buffer tanks comporable to the Damnation; the Eos and the Claymore will need to lose their lolrep bonuses in favour of some kind of EHP boost. Shield tanking Fleet Commands may also need their slot layout revising, as the Command Processors replace tanking mids. That is a completely separate problem.
Wut? You forgot to add logic to your post. I point out that the only fleet command ship able to stay on the field in fleet fights is the Damnation, you say that fleet command ships are supposed to be tanky, then admit that the rest of them aren't tanky enough, but that's not a problem when we're proposing forcing them to all be on grid.
Active tanking has been an irrelevance for fleet fights for years. It seems to me that when you're proposing a change to Fleet Command ships work in fleet fights, then a look at the ship bonuses might perhaps be a very unseperate problem indeed.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
221
|
Posted - 2011.09.21 17:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Zephyrus II wrote:Given the force-multiplier, if the CS is in a gang of more than 10 or so fighters, you'd be doing something wrong NOT calling it primary after you've taken care of ECM and logistics.
Or even before if it's not one of the CS with significant EHP bonuses (because the lolEos isn't bad enough)
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
1157
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 07:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Mag's wrote:If someone has a pos up, they took the time to do exactly that. Why shouldn't they then reap the benefits of this later in fights. POSes already influence fights through cyno jammers, jump bridges, weapon & EWAR batteries. If you want to benefit from a POS during a fight, bring the fight to the POS.
So you actually have no problem at all with a genuinely invulnerable gang boosting ship in a POS participating in a fight, but you're complaining about a totally probeable ship doing the same?
OK
You know those horribly vulnerable, untanked "safe"spotted T3s are not cheap at all. Spend some ISK of your own and probe them out. You don't even have to risk your prober since the safespotted T3s are unarmed.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
1157
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 07:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Julia Connor wrote:I for one run exploration sites and I use an offgrid boosting alt. This proposition requires me to fly 2 accs at the same time just to get bonuses so whoever wants to gank me can get the advantage. NO ******* WAY! You're already flying two accounts to get the bonuses, the only difference is they now both require attention.
If someone's genuinely not paying attention to their 800M ISK ship, then you're looking at an easy kill.
Bring a dictor, because you may have noticed those skirmish mindlinks going past the 100M mark lately.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
| |
|