Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

paritybit
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 22:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. |

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD Tragedy.
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 22:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree with this. Another role where you can be completely immune in PvP combat and yet still effect the outcome of a battle. Not really a good thing. |

TrollFace TrololMcFluf
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 22:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
It seem you guys spend more time crying your eyes out on the forum rather than adapting and pvping
Would you like a tissue |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 23:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
I agree with this in principle.
However, given the current fleet bonus' mechanics, I'm pretty sure its not possible to limit fleet booster effects to ongrid without completely revamping the fleet boosting system.
|

FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
50
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 23:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1
While the current system of off-grid boosting isn't as easy since unscannable ships were eliminated (unless you're boosting with a neutral in highsec or hiding it in a POS), It would make a lot of sense to require the boosting ships to be on-grid and actively involved in the battle.
This would also force mining boosters to be on-site for the mining, creating higher risk to go along with the higher reward. |

FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
50
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 23:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I agree with this in principle.
However, given the current fleet bonus' mechanics, I'm pretty sure its not possible to limit fleet booster effects to ongrid without completely revamping the fleet boosting system.
Why? The current system is limited to the solar system the booster is in, I don't see why it couldn't be reduced further to only be for those ships it can see on grid. |

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 23:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Your proposal is based on a false premise. Namely that off grid ganglinks are immune to attack. Back when it was possible to make a ship unprobable, it was broken as they had no risk beyond spies in fleet. Now however, they can be probed just like everything else. There is nothing stopping you from probing and killing them other than your own ineptitude. Some people do put them inside POS's and although that blocks attacking the booster ship, you can always go kill the POS instead. It probably costs more anyways tbh. |

paritybit
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 23:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: However, given the current fleet bonus' mechanics, I'm pretty sure its not possible to limit fleet booster effects to ongrid without completely revamping the fleet boosting system.
I appreciate that comment, but I think we should leave it to CCP to decide what is difficult because they're the guys writing the code. If they say it's impossible or would take months of work for a potentially small benefit, then I'm content to let them work on something else. |

paritybit
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 00:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:Your proposal is based on a false premise. Namely that off grid ganglinks are immune to attack. Back when it was possible to make a ship unprobable, it was broken as they had no risk beyond spies in fleet. Now however, they can be probed just like everything else. There is nothing stopping you from probing and killing them other than your own ineptitude. Some people do put them inside POS's and although that blocks attacking the booster ship, you can always go kill the POS instead. It probably costs more anyways tbh. 
Actually, I haven't based my proposal on that premise at all. I've based the proposal on the premise that off-grid assets shouldn't influence on-grid fights. Anything that influences a fight on a grid should be on that grid.
And honestly, "you can go kill the POS" is a kind of silly response as you can't just go shoot the POS and stop the ship with links -- you would have to go through the whole process of reinforcing it, then coming back later to finish it off. You've not stopped what I consider to be the problem, you've merely prevented it from happening in the future.
I expect the likely outcome would be that people would still use gang links this way, but that they'd be out at 300 km from whatever fight they are influencing. But at least you'd know that your fight was being directly impacted by links. |

Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 00:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
I agree as well with the idea of limiting the range of gang links. Especially in respect to mining. I've been in 0.0 before and I have seen plenty of players park their Rorqual/Orca alts in the safety of a POS while other mine (reaping the bonuses). Not much risk there compared to the rewards of mining. |
|

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 02:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:rewards of mining.
What rewards? |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 02:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
fleet fights would always start with "primary the claymore/vulture/damnation" and the whole point of fleet bonuses would vanish into thin air
(fleet fights usually have command ships on grid though v0v) |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 02:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
but I do believe that fleet boosters should not be in NPC corps |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 02:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
also do people actually fly the eos because lol |

Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 04:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Henry Haphorn wrote:rewards of mining. What rewards?
Mining in nullsec? The reward of mining 6 jetcans of ore per hour (minimum) with a dedicated hauler alt going between Hulk(s) and Rorqual. |

Goose Sokarad
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 06:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Im not sure if the reason it is this way is because ccp dont want to have deal with fixing broken grids.
|

Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
27
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 08:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
maybe introducing module that prevents non-grid bonuses to apply? kind of communication countermeasures. |

Anna Orkiste
SLAVING SYSTEMS INC.
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 09:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:I agree as well with the idea of limiting the range of gang links. Especially in respect to mining. I've been in 0.0 before and I have seen plenty of players park their Rorqual/Orca alts in the safety of a POS while other mine (reaping the bonuses). Not much risk there compared to the rewards of mining.
With reward you talking about, reward its none almost spend time and noting els ;( dis days mining is worst profesion in eve, max wath you can ern per hour is 25 milj mining arkonor bistot, so tell me how the poor miner with such income will genareta back his lost rork how much hours its takes to mine so much minerals back to replace it with all fiting. I not talking that evrage income per hour its verry poor that is 11 milj per hour with one hulk by perfect boosting, by mining randome ores. so for rorqual need to mine around 181 hours with one hulk. So look numbers and befor posting somting calcualte how that guy will ern back that money and if there is eny good reward at all.
This days ppl mining not for money eny more: 1, they minign for fun - to rest from hard work day. 2. they minign thatthey like to mine and chill in chats and voice.
If wie wish keep 0.0 mining att al in eve wie ned to create buble around hiden belts that one shjip with guns cant warp in it, that comes out form current mining incomes. |

Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
55
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 09:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
The above post melted my brain.
However, if you do that then people will just get better at gridfu, and put the booster at a pos anyway. You will see them in their WTF grid sitting at 100,000km from your fight, and the grid will earn its name again. o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
172
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 09:55:00 -
[20] - 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. |
|

Fabulous Virgil
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 12:45:00 -
[21] - Quote
supported, currently with T3 ships, gang links mean very low maintnence, almost risk free alts and don't bring anything to the game beside spreadsheet statistics, it's not just about the POS, it's also about being almost unprobable |

paritybit
Rote Kapelle
14
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 17:39:00 -
[22] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Maybe what it means is that you need two fleets. Or that you need boosters in every wing. Or that you need to properly separate your squads or wings and have a supplemental booster with an appropriate ship. This seems very natural to me and I don't know why it seems to be a concern for you. You simply need enough qualified commanders and people who will fly ships with links.
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.
Malcanis wrote:Being required to be on grid would make T3 gangboosters effectively useless.
It certainly would not. It would make useless ships useless (six gang-link Tengu anybody?). There are plenty of combat effective T3 gang booster fits and I see them used regularly. You might even come to think of them as more useful, because if the gang links have to be on grid, what better way to make it less obvious which ship has them than to put them on a T3 and blend in with the other strategic cruisers? It might mean you have to choose which bonuses you want, which again I would argue is a good thing.
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 22:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
by the way, just letting you know that your suggestion encourages blobs |

paritybit
Rote Kapelle
14
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 22:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Andski wrote:by the way, just letting you know that your suggestion encourages blobs
Please expand on this. Maybe with three more one-line posts in a row.
Do you mean that it would encourage fleets to be larger to fit in a gang link ship? Because I believe I am suggesting that the alt who (under current mechanics) sits off-grid gets replaced with a real player who is on-grid. Assuming a fixed number of pilots, that's actually one less in the gang because there isn't a purpose for the alt anymore.
Maybe you mean that solo players who use link alts will become a gang of two, thereby doubling in size! Clearly this cannot be allowed, as twice as many pilots on grid (regardless of whether they were in system before) is most certainly a blob.
Do you, instead, mean that any suggestion about improving EVE encourages blobbing because it's a simple one-liner to get people to poo poo it? Because I have no argument for that. |

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 00:59:00 -
[25] - Quote
The reason it encourages more blobbing is because practically no one is willing to sit in an unarmed ganglink ship in the middle of a fight, especially if they are heavily outnumbered. If you did put the link ship on grid in we'll say a 2 v 10 fight including the link ship, the very first thing that would happen is the other fleet would nuke the ganglink ship or drive it off grid, and then subsequently crush the lone combat ship.
Currently it works a bit different in the right hands. The boosting ship is reasonably safe because that 10 man blob didn't bother to bring a prober. All 10 of them are also obsessed with km whoring so no one brought a link ship of their own either. As a result, the lone combat ship on grid facing off against the 10 man gang is able to kite them or in some cases tank them (at least for a while) and put up a decent fight.
Like it or not, off grid boosting is currently about the only thing keeping "solo" and small gang pvp alive. Remove it, and anyone that's alone is just cannon fodder for the 30 man BC/BS gangs with full logi support and a cyno to titan bridge in 500 more if needed. And they won't hesitate to use it all against a single nano-cane if they can catch it. The only counter to that blob mentality is to stay out of hard tackle range so they can't all pile on you so easily. And it by no means makes you invincible either, all it takes is a single rapier on their side and they'll blob you to death regardless.
I believe boosting is working as intended and to change it as proposed would be a serious blow to the game as a whole. The absolute last thing this game needs is changing mechanics to favor blobbing even more heavily. |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 05:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
Andski wrote:but I do believe that fleet boosters should not be in NPC corps
I'd actually love to see the stats on pilots sitting in Logi and Command Link ships inside NPC corps, actually.
I've always been a big proponent for ending Neutral RR/Cmd boosts in Hisec and the like, but then Incursions pretty much solidified that that mechanic is here forever.
I can definitely get on board with this idea, though. And I come from the position of someone that actively takes advantage of this mechanic. I'm all for a nerf, since it would make for better, balanced PvP. We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
67
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 06:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:The reason it encourages more blobbing is because practically no one is willing to sit in an unarmed ganglink ship in the middle of a fight, especially if they are heavily outnumbered. If you did put the link ship on grid in we'll say a 2 v 10 fight including the link ship, the very first thing that would happen is the other fleet would nuke the ganglink ship or drive it off grid, and then subsequently crush the lone combat ship.
GǪ because a 1 v 10 fight wouldn't have simply squashed the lone combat ship, off-grid booster or not?
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. At present, flying a logistics or ECM ship in a fleet means you get primaried. Those ships are still used in combat. As to your assertion about "unarmed ganglink ship", wouldn't forcing link ships on-grid encourage people to explore fits that don't try cramming 6 warfare links onto one paper thin hull?
Wouldn't it be interesting to have squad, wing and fleet commanders all providing boosts of some kind? |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 09:45:00 -
[28] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:The reason it encourages more blobbing is because practically no one is willing to sit in an unarmed ganglink ship in the middle of a fight, especially if they are heavily outnumbered. If you did put the link ship on grid in we'll say a 2 v 10 fight including the link ship, the very first thing that would happen is the other fleet would nuke the ganglink ship or drive it off grid, and then subsequently crush the lone combat ship.
Currently it works a bit different in the right hands. The boosting ship is reasonably safe because that 10 man blob didn't bother to bring a prober. All 10 of them are also obsessed with km whoring so no one brought a link ship of their own either. As a result, the lone combat ship on grid facing off against the 10 man gang is able to kite them or in some cases tank them (at least for a while) and put up a decent fight.
Like it or not, off grid boosting is currently about the only thing keeping "solo" and small gang pvp alive. Remove it, and anyone that's alone is just cannon fodder for the 30 man BC/BS gangs with full logi support and a cyno to titan bridge in 500 more if needed. And they won't hesitate to use it all against a single nano-cane if they can catch it. The only counter to that blob mentality is to stay out of hard tackle range so they can't all pile on you so easily. And it by no means makes you invincible either, all it takes is a single rapier on their side and they'll blob you to death regardless.
I believe boosting is working as intended and to change it as proposed would be a serious blow to the game as a whole. The absolute last thing this game needs is changing mechanics to favor blobbing even more heavily.
Pretty much this. Although your example is a bit flawed, a more reasonable example is a 15-man gang. You have a WC 5 Claymore in the wing command slot and everyone else is in Cynabals, Vagabonds, Huginns and Lachesis. An Erebus is dropped on the gang and the Claymore is doomsdayed, the Lachesis and Huginn pilots are revealed to be spies and proceed to point and web their buddies so they can get taken out one by one by the maniacal titan pilot's guns.
A 20-man gang in sniper HACs take out the Claymore before the other ships can burn to them, the long-range tackle bonuses are gone and they just go home because being kited is boring.
(this example is probably unrealistic but I really can't think of anything better right now) |

Lelob
SniggWaffe
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 11:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
No. As previously mentioned, this would break gang bonuses. Stop trying to remove legitimate features of the game and think of ways to add more features. |

Yabu Kusanagi
Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 15:23:00 -
[30] - Quote
Just a thought, but maybe a compromise would be that only command ships can pass gang links in fr om off grid. Means you could have offsite boosters, but only if there was a command ship in the squad ongrid to pass down the bonus' from higher up the chain.
It would maintain the flexibility of fleets that are spread out over a solar system, but increase the vulnerabilty of a squad using offgrid boosters. You could destroy the command ship and effective cut the chain of boosts.
EDIT: by command ships i mean both command ships and t3 ships with the command subsystem. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |