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)
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 98	Posted - 2011.12.19 17:01:00 - [151] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: 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. ... Yeah it's bad. The question ccp needs to address is whether this blatant attempt to go after alt accounts is going to outweigh their desire to make the eve a long term good quality game. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
The Djego Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition 3	Posted - 2011.12.21 01:34:00 - [152] - Quote Supported, if something has a huge outcome on the fight like a T3 fleet booster, it should be also on grid and a viable target for the other side.
Roonia Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 4	Posted - 2011.12.21 04:46:00 - [153] - Quote + 1 supported. The ship which DECISIVELY affects the outcome of a battle is currently untouchable. This in itself is ridiculous. Its a balance issue dealing with you being able to drastically affect the battle without anyone being able to do a damn thing about it. Bonuses should apply to and come from ONLY FIELDED SHIPS. A command ship should not be hiding at a POS or sitting at a safe somewhere. It should be in fleet and on the field, if you want to put it that way. I think the best way to do this is to give fleet command ships, battle-cruisers, or whatever warship a maximum of 500km (or whatever the grid is) range on the effects of its links. This should only apply to combat ships. Think if the roles of the command ships were reversed and instead of boosting fleet members bonuses, they take away attributes from the enemy. Would you like to have a ship reduce your armor resists, shield resists, or whatever the second you enter the system and there is NOTHING you can do about it? On a balance scale, its about the bonuses of one fleet vs another, so if you decrease the attributes of one its the same as if you were boosting the other. Ying Yang. I do not think this should apply to miners because miners do not affect the outcomes of battles, that wouldb . It would be a impractical and extraordinarily risky to park a Rorqual or Orca in a belt in 0.0 or on grid there. I suppose being 400km away from the hulks would give you plenty of time to warp back to POS.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 287	Posted - 2011.12.21 14:10:00 - [154] - Quote Roonia wrote: I do not think this should apply to miners because miners do not affect the outcomes of battles, that wouldb . It would be a impractical and extraordinarily risky to park a Rorqual or Orca in a belt in 0.0 or on grid there. I suppose being 400km away from the hulks would give you plenty of time to warp back to POS. It should apply to them as well. It may not be a combat advantage but it is still an advantage. Risk should be required for advantages of this scale. With good intel/scouts/security there should be no issue.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 196	Posted - 2011.12.21 16:19:00 - [155] - Quote Emperor Salazar wrote: It should apply to them as well. It may not be a combat advantage but it is still an advantage. Risk should be required for advantages of this scale. With good intel/scouts/security there should be no issue. Concur. Once you start making exceptions then any change, even if good, can be questioned thus eroding it to oblivion. Hopefully such a change as this will be implemented alongside changes to the principal link carriers, namely Command Ships, so that a mining operation can choose whether they want to risk the big boat for the extra bonus or are content with non-bonus links on a sturdier hull. PS: Really wish CC's are updated SoonGäó regardless ..
Vitoc Slave Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.12.22 06:07:00 - [156] - Quote Agreed that if a ship is getting bonuses I should be able to shut those down by having a chance to kill the booster. This was a flawed mechanic! +1
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1369	Posted - 2011.12.22 07:54:00 - [157] - Quote Cearain wrote: They are not used solo. Actually, yes, they are. Cearain wrote: There is no reason to think they are used by small groups more than large groups. Large groups rarely use T3s for boosting, as the fleet is rarely stationary. A three-link Loki, Legion or Tengu would have a hard time surviving even with logistics, and considering that such groups routinely use fleet warps (i.e. to land the fleet on a POS at optimal) it would be impractical to boost from off grid. Cearain wrote: 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. You do not need to run a T3 gang link alt to be competitive, believe it or not. Cearain wrote: crew members This isn't World of Tanks.
Wolodymyr Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos 15	Posted - 2011.12.22 08:39:00 - [158] - Quote Yeah I'd like to see gang links only work on grid. That way you could shoot them out the same way you shot out logi, rather than just have them safed up at a POS. granted this is probably an API swapping session changing nightmare, having people's stats going up and down depending on whether their squad, wing, or fleet boosters were warping on and off grid. Also if you don't like the idea of a grid (being to met gamey or whatever) just say it only works within 300km.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 197	Posted - 2011.12.22 12:52:00 - [159] - Quote Andski wrote: ...Large groups rarely use T3s for boosting, as the fleet is rarely stationary. A three-link Loki, Legion or Tengu would have a hard time surviving even with logistics (you have **-all resists), and considering that such groups routinely use fleet warps (i.e. to land the fleet on a POS at optimal) it would be impractical to boost from off grid.... Assuming you meant on-grid, so what? That would only affect the noobier fleets that where the FC warps everyone around with no warning .. the experienced fleets are already accustomed to bringing logis/ewar in separate from the dps/ehp boats and adding a handful of link hulls to those groups should pose no problems for them. Besides, who says that there can ever only be one ship with links present and that it has to carry all of them at the expense of tank/dps/tackle/ewar/etc.? With a little Dev time I am certain that multiple ships could be assigned as fleet/wing/squad booster, part of the problem is that the system is designed to have just one booster per fleet level which makes the current 1 super-link boat not only obvious but downright mandatory. Andski wrote: You do not need to run a T3 gang link alt to be competitive, believe it or not Guess that depends on where and how one operates. Try going up against a boosted Hurricane in your unboosted ditto and see how well you fare .. he'll have longer scram, higher speed, lower sig and more EHP than you can ever achieve "alone". But for a gank on a gate/undock or a bait/trap it does indeed make little difference. Wolodymyr wrote:** ...granted this is probably an API swapping session changing nightmare, having people's stats going up and down depending on whether their squad, wing, or fleet boosters were warping on and off grid... This is the main reason why the change has to be carefully implemented, especially since CCP has so far been unable to solve the shield HP issue that is caused by fleeting .. may have to change the bonus to one of recharge/resists or something to circumvent it. Ideally the change would be in conjunction with an overhaul of the link ships so that the need to warp in/out constantly is limited, it should still be there but not even close to what we see with ECM birds and logistics.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1372	Posted - 2011.12.23 09:59:00 - [160] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: Guess that depends on where and how one operates. Try going up against a boosted Hurricane in your unboosted ditto and see how well you fare .. he'll have longer scram, higher speed, lower sig and more EHP than you can ever achieve "alone". But for a gank on a gate/undock or a bait/trap it does indeed make little difference. So you want off-grid fleet boosting to be nerfed, to the detriment of practically everything in the game (incursions, ratting, mining, defense fleets, etc.) for the marginal benefit of ~honour~ matches?

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 198	Posted - 2011.12.23 10:44:00 - [161] - Quote Andski wrote: So you want off-grid fleet boosting to be nerfed, to the detriment of practically everything in the game (incursions, ratting, mining, defense fleets, etc.) for the marginal benefit of ~honour~ matches? Jumping to conclusions big time are we? You were the one who said they are not needed to be competitive, I merely tried explaining why you were wrong. Is it a nerf if it brings balance to the game as a whole? Consider what links are able to do .. infinitely (up max. fleet size) scalable bonuses that enhance very important characteristics. Why on Earth are logistics and eWar required to not only be on-grid but in range of almost everything when their individual "contribution" is infinitesimal by comparison? How is Incursions, defence fleets et al. unduly "nerfed" by a change such as this? The only thing that changes as far as they are concerned is that the link ships (note: plural) will need actual pilots available as multi-boxing can be kind of iffy in combat situations. Mining would be only be affected to the extent of losing the extra 15% bonus granted by the Orca whereas the Rorqual provides nothing additional .. where does it say that mining should be barges only with all auxiliary craft stuck in POS until needed? Throw a tanked command platform into the belt, it can even help with rat clearing!!! Note: Personally abhor the current mining system and would prefer it be changed entirely thus making the above completely obsolete, so 'meh'. PS: Keep in mind that only a few (Nutters!) have asked for an on-grid change with nothing else done, best solution would be to go over the CC's, T3 subsystem and whatever else might need tweaking to facilitate the change.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 268	Posted - 2011.12.23 13:52:00 - [162] - Quote After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 104	Posted - 2011.12.23 15:26:00 - [163] - Quote Andski wrote: Cearain wrote: They are not used solo. Actually, yes, they are... Really you see people flying t3 gang link ships solo? I think it would be kind of silly to fly that without another ship that they give the bonuses to but whatever you may still see it. How does that work for them? You know if they are giving the bonuses to another ship, that is 2 ships right? To me solo means 1. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 104	Posted - 2011.12.23 15:37:00 - [164] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: Andski wrote: You do not need to run a T3 gang link alt to be competitive, believe it or not Guess that depends on where and how one operates. Try going up against a boosted Hurricane in your unboosted ditto and see how well you fare .. he'll have longer scram, higher speed, lower sig and more EHP than you can ever achieve "alone". But for a gank on a gate/undock or a bait/trap it does indeed make little difference. Its just a difference in the type of pvp we do and what he does. I'm not saying one is better or worse but its definitely different. For solo and small scale pvpers it makes a big difference. In fact I would almost say you practically throwing ships away if you don't have a booster alt. Now with the t2 mods I'm training my alt. But the thing is eve is not going to be as fun when I am forced to do things like drag alts around with me. By forcing this down everyones throat people are more likely to get tired of eve and unsub altogether. Short term gain by making people get booster alts = long term loss because eve is no longer as fun. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1373	Posted - 2011.12.23 16:27:00 - [165] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already. Whereas the only people that do want this change are likely upset that they lost their 1v1 in Rancer or whatever because the other pilot was ~dishonourable~ with an off-grid T3 link ship. It has nothing to do with the other pilot simply being more competent, that's for sure!
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 270	Posted - 2011.12.23 16:30:00 - [166] - Quote Andski wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already. Whereas the only people that do want this change are likely upset that they lost their 1v1 in Rancer or whatever because the other pilot was ~dishonourable~ with an off-grid T3 link ship. It has nothing to do with the other pilot simply being more competent, that's for sure! No...it has to do with immunity from the risk vs reward scale that EvE is supposed to have. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1373	Posted - 2011.12.23 16:42:00 - [167] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Andski wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already. Whereas the only people that do want this change are likely upset that they lost their 1v1 in Rancer or whatever because the other pilot was ~dishonourable~ with an off-grid T3 link ship. It has nothing to do with the other pilot simply being more competent, that's for sure! No...it has to do with immunity from the risk vs reward scale that EvE is supposed to have. Overwhelm them with superior numbers, bait them next door, or deny them a fight. If you're that worried upset you can't get a killmail on some chucklefuck in a linkship (because you're not equipped to probe it down, or you don't want to bubble its POS, w/e) then I don't know what to say.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 270	Posted - 2011.12.23 17:00:00 - [168] - Quote Don't say anything at all...you obviously are completely oblivious and ignorant to the entire issue. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 104	Posted - 2011.12.23 17:22:00 - [169] - Quote Andski wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already. Whereas the only people that do want this change are likely upset that they lost their 1v1 in Rancer or whatever because the other pilot was ~dishonourable~ with an off-grid T3 link ship. It has nothing to do with the other pilot simply being more competent, that's for sure! What are you talking about honor? There is nothing dishonorable about using t3 boosters I don't recall anyone saying there was. Nice attempt at a strawman. Lots of people prefer not to have to drag a neutral alt everywhere they go in order to pvp. It has to do with wanting to have fun in the game as opposed to the game being a chore. Some people think eve is such "serious business" they don't understand that. Perhaps that is why you missed a major point of this proposal. I don't know. The only thing I can say is you are deliberately skipping the reasons people actually give for wanting this proposal and creating strawmen. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 104	Posted - 2011.12.23 17:45:00 - [170] - Quote Andski wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Andski wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: After 8 pages of posts it is blatantly clear that the only people who don't want this change are the ones that abuse this mechanic already. Whereas the only people that do want this change are likely upset that they lost their 1v1 in Rancer or whatever because the other pilot was ~dishonourable~ with an off-grid T3 link ship. It has nothing to do with the other pilot simply being more competent, that's for sure! No...it has to do with immunity from the risk vs reward scale that EvE is supposed to have. Overwhelm them with superior numbers, bait them next door, or deny them a fight. If you're that worried upset you can't get a killmail on some chucklefuck in a linkship (because you're not equipped to probe it down, or you don't want to bubble its POS, w/e) then I don't know what to say. This is your serious business nulls sec mindset. "deny them a fight" great. You know lots of people like to pvp in this game. Denying them a fight also denies you a fight. Signing on with no fights is just as boring for me as it is for them. Fights where you are just camping gates/setting bait and blob traps, and winning with overwhelming numbers is boring too. Do you really still get any sort of thrill from that? The thing is you play the game much different than lots of other people interested in this topic. Your strategy and null sec sov strategy in general often boils down to doing things that make it so the enemy no longer wants to log on anymore. The problem is those tactics often involve you doing things that are eyestabbingly boring as well. ItGÇÖs a matter of who can out-bore the other side. The side that "wants it more" read "takes internet spaceships more seriously" wins. In chess there used to be no time limits. And sometimes people would just take hours to make a move. And sometimes it took so long the other guy just couldn't stand it and left. This actually had a name. It was called GÇ£out sittingGÇ¥ your opponent. Well thatGÇÖs the way I and allot of others see sov war in eve. How long are you going to sit camping that gate or that station? You and likely many people who play the game like you are simply out of touch with the other people who will say "yeah this is boring/a chore I will stop playing." They just donGÇÖt care as much as you do. If the game is boring or a chore they will do other things with their time. Anyway none of this has much to do with the proposal. (other than to point out the solutions you think of, are not really going to work for people who arenGÇÖt super serious about internet spaceships) If booster ships have to be on grid you can still use your strategy of outboring the other side. But on the other hand people aren't super serious internet politicians and sign in to have fun fights will get a benefit. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1373	Posted - 2011.12.23 18:54:00 - [171] - Quote Because denying them a fight was the only option I proposed
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 104	Posted - 2011.12.23 19:15:00 - [172] - Quote Andski wrote: Because denying them a fight was the only option I proposed I also addressed your suggestions of overwhelming them with superior numbers and bait and ganking them. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1374	Posted - 2011.12.23 19:24:00 - [173] - Quote "who says I need to use tactics, tactics are for the boring sov nullsec blobbers"
Cearain Imperial Outlaws 104	Posted - 2011.12.23 19:33:00 - [174] - Quote Andski wrote: "who says I need to use tactics, tactics are for the boring sov nullsec blobbers" Yep your right. Thats what I said. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 838	Posted - 2011.12.30 19:33:00 - [175] - Quote A full week with no bump...this is unacceptable... Gang links...on grid. You wanna contribute to a fight then you need to be in the fight. Period. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts 155	Posted - 2011.12.31 12:15:00 - [176] - Quote This is obvious and should have been done a long time ago.
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 191	Posted - 2011.12.31 12:27:00 - [177] - Quote Support. Maybe people will gasp actually put gang links on a disposable tier 2 bc?
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 399	Posted - 2011.12.31 13:35:00 - [178] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: A full week with no bump...this is unacceptable... Gang links...on grid. You wanna contribute to a fight then you need to be in the fight. Period. I can think of one reason why not: shield gang links. It's bad enough shield gang links have an issue just from getting in the right system, they don't really need to keep yo-yoing back and forth between boosted and unboosted. If they fix this so the levels are determined based on a percentage of full shield, however, then I see no real problem.
Terranid Meester Tactical Assault and Recon Unit 4	Posted - 2012.01.01 03:28:00 - [179] - Quote I support this change.
Takeshi Yamato eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 82	Posted - 2012.01.01 15:04:00 - [180] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: This is obvious and should have been done a long time ago. This.



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.