EVE Search - [proposal] limit gang links to a single grid

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[proposal] limit gang links to a single grid

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 192	Posted - 2011.11.21 20:02:00 - [121] - Quote Damassys Kadesh wrote: +1 to OP Makes no sense that you can boost from 100% safety. You're gang should be assembled in order to receive gang bonuses. I'd be totally satisfied if it was completely axed, but a variation (and more dev work) to this could be that off-grid boosting is nerfed to something like 20% of full value, and stays full value when the booster is on-grid. I think that would be an excellent compromise. Maybe make one of the skills increase the effectiveness of gang links accross distances to allow it to get above 20% but not too much higher. I think the incentive should be to get the pilot to have a reason to be on grid and in the battle with bonuses instead of just being 100% immune and safe while contributing to the fight. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 79	Posted - 2011.11.21 20:17:00 - [122] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Damassys Kadesh wrote: +1 to OP Makes no sense that you can boost from 100% safety. You're gang should be assembled in order to receive gang bonuses. I'd be totally satisfied if it was completely axed, but a variation (and more dev work) to this could be that off-grid boosting is nerfed to something like 20% of full value, and stays full value when the booster is on-grid. I think that would be an excellent compromise. Maybe make one of the skills increase the effectiveness of gang links accross distances to allow it to get above 20% but not too much higher. I think the incentive should be to get the pilot to have a reason to be on grid and in the battle with bonuses instead of just being 100% immune and safe while contributing to the fight. Personally I don't see the reason to have him be 100% safe and contributing to the fight at all. I just don't think its a good idea to force people to multibox alts. It makes the game less fun. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations 0ccupational Hazzard 15	Posted - 2011.11.21 22:06:00 - [123] - Quote Great idea. To people complaining about losing single unbuffered booster ship.. you don't have to fit full rack of links. Fit a link + buffer. You like another booster ? Fine, bring second BC.
Willl Adama Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED 42	Posted - 2011.11.22 16:28:00 - [124] - Quote I don't understand why people are complaining about this, it's not like it's impossible to kill offgrid boosters unless they are in a pos, in which case it's a matter of the residents of a system having a slight advantage, which is fine. Limiting boosting to ongrid will make managing fleet hierachy a nightmare with the current game mechanics, as you will lose bonusses (potentially for the entire fleet) whenever a commander of some sort dies or is forced to leave grid for some reason, and it'll also screw up if you have to split your fleet up to fight in several places at once. The people who think fitting command t3s with buffer and weapons is a good idea are just plain wrong. It will be useless and outperformed by a drake, and also only have 1 link, and be overpriced (noone would ever use that subsystem on a t3 again). Commandships, however, are meant to be on the field - I wouldn't mind if those were buffed in order to be doing the job better than offgrid t3s . Maybe switch the bonusses so the commandships give a bigger bonus that T3s. Or make some kind of mechanic that enhances Command bonusses for a command ships if they are on grid, so it'll have the role intended. Latest Video:-á-á Kill Will: Volume 4
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 79	Posted - 2011.11.22 16:45:00 - [125] - Quote Willl Adama wrote: I don't understand why people are complaining about this, it's not like it's impossible to kill offgrid boosters unless they are in a pos, in which case it's a matter of the residents of a system having a slight advantage, which is fine.. If the t3 ship is already aligned and using an afterburner the pilot would have to be afk to get caught. Meanwhile the gang that is uselessly trying to chase the booster ship is short at least one pilot that should be on grid during the fight. The advantage will not be slight once t2 links are out. People who do not use these alts will not be able to compete. Willl Adama wrote: Limiting boosting to ongrid will make managing fleet hierachy a nightmare with the current game mechanics, as you will lose bonusses (potentially for the entire fleet) whenever a commander of some sort dies or is forced to leave grid for some reason, It won't be a nightmare. It will of course hurt the fleet if a booster needs to leave grid or dies - but that is expected right? Willl Adama wrote: and it'll also screw up if you have to split your fleet up to fight in several places at once. .. Even now if they are fighting in different systems there is no bonus. Willl Adama wrote: The people who think fitting command t3s with buffer and weapons is a good idea are just plain wrong. It will be useless and outperformed by a drake, and also only have 1 link, and be overpriced (noone would ever use that subsystem on a t3 again). Commandships, however, are meant to be on the field - I wouldn't mind if those were buffed in order to be doing the job better than offgrid t3s . Maybe switch the bonusses so the commandships give a bigger bonus that T3s. Or make some kind of mechanic that enhances Command bonusses for a command ships if they are on grid, so it'll have the role intended. I don't think people are saying t3s should be used on grid as command ships. I think command ships should be used on grid as command ships. Its not like t3s will become completely useless if they are no longer the ship everyone sits their booster alts in. If this in fact will be a significant hit to those who do t3 industry that would just prove that this is getting ridiculous. I would be in favor of buffing command ships but I'm not sure increases the command bonuses is how to do it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 2189	Posted - 2011.11.22 17:57:00 - [126] - Quote Cearain wrote: If the t3 ship is already aligned and using an afterburner the pilot would have to be afk to get caught. Meanwhile the gang that is uselessly trying to chase the booster ship is short at least one pilot that should be on grid during the fight. The advantage will not be slight once t2 links are out. People who do not use these alts will not be able to compete. Yet more lazy excuses and '*can't be bothered' arguments. If they don't bring a booster, then isn't that simply bad planning? Bring a booster and compete, simple. Also, everyone has the ability to gain the same* advantage with T2 links. Cearain wrote: It won't be a nightmare. It will of course hurt the fleet if a booster needs to leave grid or dies - but that is expected right? It will be a nightmare and it is a completely unnecessary change. Cearain wrote: Even now if they are fighting in different systems there is no bonus. Irrelevant. Cearain wrote: I don't think people are saying t3s should be used on grid as command ships. This bad idea says otherwise. CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Willl Adama Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED 42	Posted - 2011.11.22 19:23:00 - [127] - Quote How about this. Nerf T3 links slightly (mby just remove the command bonus so they are the same as Battlecruiser links) but leave them alone otherwise (still able to be offgrid). Then buff commandship links to current T3 stats but limit them to ongrid. This will allow small roaming gangs, who doesn't have manpower to bring people in command ships, to still bring their alts in cloaky t3s like they do now - slightly less effectively. And it will ensure that an ongrid dedicated command ship will do the job better, rewarding the people who actually bring their links to the fight. tbh I would rather not see it changed at all, but this is a compromise I can live with Latest Video:-á-á Kill Will: Volume 4
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 80	Posted - 2011.11.22 19:44:00 - [128] - Quote Mag's wrote: Cearain wrote: If the t3 ship is already aligned and using an afterburner the pilot would have to be afk to get caught. Meanwhile the gang that is uselessly trying to chase the booster ship is short at least one pilot that should be on grid during the fight. The advantage will not be slight once t2 links are out. People who do not use these alts will not be able to compete. Yet more lazy excuses and '*can't be bothered' arguments. If they don't bring a booster, then isn't that simply bad planning? Bring a booster and compete, simple. Also, everyone has the ability to gain the same* advantage with T2 links. You and I just disagree on whether Eve should require people to multibox alts if they want to pvp. Thats what all this comes down to. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 193	Posted - 2011.11.22 19:48:00 - [129] - Quote Willl Adama wrote: Limiting boosting to ongrid will make managing fleet hierachy a nightmare with the current game mechanics, as you will lose bonusses (potentially for the entire fleet) whenever a commander of some sort dies or is forced to leave grid for some reason, and it'll also screw up if you have to split your fleet up to fight in several places at once. Ummm...duh? This is kinda the whole freaking point. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Jax Slizard Celerna Talocan United 1	Posted - 2011.11.23 02:02:00 - [130] - Quote The way this has been going: A:Off-grid gangboosters are bad! They can't be hurt! Put them on grid. B: Yes they can, just scan them down! Leave them alone. A: But the sig is too small! You need mad-1337 skillz to scan them! B: HTFU Why not just make ganglinks increase sig/decrease res (make them easier to scan down), but keep them off grid, and then everyone only a little unhappy...

Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 81	Posted - 2011.11.23 02:17:00 - [131] - Quote Jax Slizard wrote: The way this has been going: A:Off-grid gangboosters are bad! They can't be hurt! Put them on grid. B: Yes they can, just scan them down! Leave them alone. A: But you can't actually catch an aligned t3 even if you can scan them, so you are just wasting a pilots time chasing them. B: You're just lazy. ... FYP. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 197	Posted - 2011.11.23 02:48:00 - [132] - Quote Jax Slizard wrote: The way this has been going: A:Off-grid gangboosters are bad! They can't be hurt! Put them on grid. B: Yes they can, just scan them down! Leave them alone. A: But the sig is too small! You need mad-1337 skillz to scan them! B: HTFU Why not just make ganglinks increase sig/decrease res (make them easier to scan down), but keep them off grid, and then everyone only a little unhappy... Obviously hasn't read a single post in this thread... Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Klown Walk iCruiser. 1	Posted - 2011.11.23 04:38:00 - [133] - Quote Bad idea, it allowes a solo pilot or a smaller gang to engage a larger group and still be able to win the fight.
paritybit Rote Kapelle 69	Posted - 2011.11.23 06:59:00 - [134] - Quote Klown Walk wrote: Bad idea, it allowes a solo pilot or a smaller gang to engage a larger group and still be able to win the fight. Which is fine. If they are on grid with you. A Falcon affords the same benefit -- but it has to be on grid with you. Any recon for that matter. But they all have to be on grid with you.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 32	Posted - 2011.11.23 09:20:00 - [135] - Quote Are you required to have a Falcon alt, too, in order to be competative? Or may be another damage dealer? You know, dual-boxing 2 battleships isn't that hard. Or a cloaked tracking-disrupting pillgrim? Or logistic ship? Some should better deal with the fact that bringing in another ship is always beneficial. It's another story whether on- or off-grid boosting is Ok - just don't bring irrelevant facts to the discussion. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 197	Posted - 2011.11.23 14:32:00 - [136] - Quote Jax Slizard wrote: The way this has been going: A:Off-grid gangboosters are bad! They can't be hurt! Put them on grid. B: Yes they can, just scan them down! Leave them alone. A: But the sig is too small! You need mad-1337 skillz to scan them! B: HTFU Why not just make ganglinks increase sig/decrease res (make them easier to scan down), but keep them off grid, and then everyone only a little unhappy... Yeah...this is a pretty stupid post...especially since the "lazy" people are those in an invicible gang link ship not participating in the fight. Yes let's go to all the trouble of scanning down a ship which has either already left it's position and is warping around system from one safe spot to another or is sitting in a POS where he cannot be touched. You were born with a brain...try using it. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 81	Posted - 2011.11.23 14:35:00 - [137] - Quote Klown Walk wrote: Bad idea, it allowes a solo pilot or a smaller gang to engage a larger group and still be able to win the fight. What do you mean solo? No one takes these booster ships into combat solo. They are almost exclusively used by an alt. Oh do you mean solo because the killmails don't show the booster alt? So your killboard looks like you fought solo but really you had what ever ship gets the killmail plus a t3 cruiser helping? Is that what you mean? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 81	Posted - 2011.11.23 14:48:00 - [138] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: Are you required to have a Falcon alt, too, in order to be competative? Or may be another damage dealer? You know, dual-boxing 2 battleships isn't that hard. Or a cloaked tracking-disrupting pillgrim? Or logistic ship? Some should better deal with the fact that bringing in another ship is always beneficial. It's another story whether on- or off-grid boosting is Ok - just don't bring irrelevant facts to the discussion. Not all falcons pilots are alts. If people want to try to dual box several ships while they are on grid they can go ahead. Some can do it, but many will just hand out easy kills for people who are focused on one character. Dual boxing 2 battleships on a combat grid may not be that hard if you are are in a blob but if you are in a tough small gang fight its pretty hard. But again go ahead and do that if you want. I have no problem with people bringing many ships on grid. Tracking disrupter pilgrim to ***** killmails? Go ahead. It will be on grid and therefore you will have to manage it much closer than a t3 booster. As far as logistics I will agree those mechanics need looking at as well. But at least they show up on grid. One important difference is at least you can learn the people/corps who are always going to bring the falcon, or the logi in on grid. So you can get burned once but then you know. The next time you can know what they are going to do and prepare for it. You likely won't even know about the t3 booster alt, and even if you did figure it out, there is nothing you can do about it - other than start multiboxing alts yourself. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations 0ccupational Hazzard 17	Posted - 2011.11.24 06:23:00 - [139] - Quote Willl Adama wrote: How about this. Nerf T3 links slightly (mby just remove the command bonus so they are the same as Battlecruiser links) but leave them alone otherwise (still able to be offgrid). Then buff commandship links to current T3 stats but limit them to ongrid. I like your solution.. T3 bonus goes down to BC level but cruiser still can give bonus off-grid.. EHP buffed command ships have to stay on grid. thumbs up!
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 88	Posted - 2011.12.01 18:00:00 - [140] - Quote I will admit that I like the extra layer of complexity that booster ships can provide. What if they said boosters basically provide a mechanical means to what a crew could provide. So you could buy crew members for your ship according to the different bonuses links give. The minmatar crew would give the bonuses of the skirmish warfare links a different crew member would be required for each bonus, and you could only have that type of crew working together. You don't need to have the whole crew though just for the bonuses you want. Also since the crew members provide the bonus that you otherwise get from the boosters you can't add them together. This way people like me and others who hate the idea of dragging an alt around everywhere could simply by crew members which provide the same bonuses. The crew members would of course cost isk. I suppose you could set up academies or something on planets through pi in order to train them to different levels. You could keep your t3 alts as long as others who don't want alts can still compete. Edit: crew members would be destroyed or drop just like other modules in your ship Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

grazer gin Raving Rednecks 19	Posted - 2011.12.01 19:01:00 - [141] - Quote proposal QUIT WHINING AND JUST PLAY THE GAME
Derth Ramir Hellion Evolution 5	Posted - 2011.12.02 00:15:00 - [142] - Quote You people do realize that majority of people that do use t3 gang links operate in small gangs. All your proposal does is promotes blobs and makes solo/small gang pvp even less viable.
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 88	Posted - 2011.12.02 00:30:00 - [143] - Quote Derth Ramir wrote: You people do realize that majority of people that do use t3 gang links operate in small gangs. All your proposal does is promotes blobs and makes solo/small gang pvp even less viable. They are not used solo. There is no reason to think they are used by small groups more than large groups. The proposal just makes it so you do not need to multibox an alt t3 with gang links to be competitive. But like I said before if there were a way to give the bonuses and allow others who do not want to multibox alts a way to be competitive I wouldn't mind so much. I will admit that I like the extra layer of complexity that booster ships can provide. What if they said boosters basically provide a mechanical means to what a crew could provide. So you could buy crew members for your ship according to the different bonuses links give. The minmatar crew would give the bonuses of the skirmish warfare links a different crew member would be required for each bonus, and you could only have that type of crew working together. You don't need to have the whole crew though just for the bonuses you want. Also since the crew members provide the bonus that you otherwise get from the boosters you can't add them together. This way people like me and others who hate the idea of dragging an alt around everywhere could simply by crew members which provide the same bonuses. The crew members would of course cost isk. I suppose you could set up academies or something on planets through pi in order to train them to different levels. You could keep your t3 alts as long as others who don't want alts can still compete. Crew members would be destroyed or drop just like other modules in your ship Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lady Spank GET OUT NASTY FACE 435	Posted - 2011.12.12 17:35:00 - [144] - Quote Supported, and look at all these shitposting alts. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ Those that can, do. Those that can't, cry on the forums. ~ (a¦á_a¦â)
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 241	Posted - 2011.12.12 18:42:00 - [145] - Quote Derth Ramir wrote: You people do realize that majority of people that do use t3 gang links operate in small gangs. All your proposal does is promotes blobs and makes solo/small gang pvp even less viable. What? lol...stupid statement is stupid. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 184	Posted - 2011.12.12 19:39:00 - [146] - Quote Willl Adama wrote: How about this. Nerf T3 links slightly (mby just remove the command bonus so they are the same as Battlecruiser links) but leave them alone otherwise (still able to be offgrid). Then buff commandship links to current T3 stats but limit them to ongrid. This will allow small roaming gangs, who doesn't have manpower to bring people in command ships, to still bring their alts in cloaky t3s like they do now - slightly less effectively. And it will ensure that an ongrid dedicated command ship will do the job better, rewarding the people who actually bring their links to the fight. tbh I would rather not see it changed at all, but this is a compromise I can live with Problem is that all that accomplishes is roll back Eve to pre-T3 times and probably make CS even more of an unused class .. it will in fact probably be worse than pre-T3 as the multi-link CS are a lot easier to probe out than the T3 ditto .. the concept of being able to directly influence the performance of <250 people at once has always been broken, T3's abuse just pushed it into the open, the only "feature" that historically even comes close to that kind of power was deliberately crashing a node. In short: If anything, an off-grid booster should be operating at a significantly reduced capacity as opposed to when being on-grid - as in half strength .. makes it a conscious choice to opt for the slight but 'hidden' edge rather than the full monty. They don't necessarily have to become insta-gibbed when moved on-grid, that only applies if it is done with nothing further changed: - When the CS are revised (which they have to, way outdated) the Field commands should be given 2 free links slots (up from 1), the Fleet commands unlimited (up from 3, no command procs needed) and they should both get tank boost as well as a signature reduction. - T3 command subsystems should have their link allowance doubled (2 'native' rather than 1) and the tanking bonuses increased, could be a sig decrease or maybe even an +% incoming RR. Once people learn that the 6-link hull is kind of useless, links will be spread out onto multiple hulls to minimize the risk of being completely stripped .. Goddess knows there are enough BC's floating around these days to pick up any slack that might appear. Add a revision to fleet window where the commander (or assigned role) can list all available links in fleet and change boosters on the fly .. will have to sort out the shield crap first if rapid switches is to be viable for all though.
Kn1v3s 999 Aliastra Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2011.12.14 11:23:00 - [147] - Quote +1 supported. I agree with the idea that CS should be on grid
Spugg Galdon Mak Mining Corp 27	Posted - 2011.12.14 12:41:00 - [148] - Quote I have to say that I find off grid boosting lame (even though I enjoy Will Adama's PvP videos and the fact that he doesn't hide that he uses off grid T3 gang links). The boosts that these ships give are clearly profound and to be able to use them in relative safety is baad mmkay. @people who say you can't fit these ships for on grid boosting without utterly gimping them; get a life and adapt your fitting. It's very easy. Remember only FLEET COMMAND SHIPS are supposed to be able to use three gang links simultaneously EFFICIENTLY. Not T3's. To that end: I support the idea of "On grid fleet boosting". +1 However I believe that off grid boosting should also be possible but at a heavily reduced effectiveness. 50% or even 75% less effective as on grid boosting.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 257	Posted - 2011.12.14 13:40:00 - [149] - Quote In a fleet fight, you can destroy your enemies damage dealers, logistics, ewarfare, dictors/hictors, tacklers, etc. You should be able to destroy your enemies fleet boosters as well. Destroying a fleet booster means removing enhanced abilities that may be affecting the entire enemy fleet, thus possibly improving your odds in a fight. The concept of safespotted T3 with ganglinks running during a fight with cov ops/interdiction nullifier to move around unchecked is beyond terrible.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 258	Posted - 2011.12.16 14:12:00 - [150] - Quote Emperor Salazar wrote: In a fleet fight, you can destroy your enemies damage dealers, logistics, ewarfare, dictors/hictors, tacklers, etc. You should be able to destroy your enemies fleet boosters as well. Destroying a fleet booster means removing enhanced abilities that may be affecting the entire enemy fleet, thus possibly improving your odds in a fight. The concept of safespotted T3 with ganglinks running during a fight with cov ops/interdiction nullifier to move around unchecked is beyond terrible. Quoting for truth. And bump! Support our boobies!-áLINKY!



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.