Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 18:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
The recently released CSM minutes have prompted a fair bit of discussion on our Corp forums and I wanted to open some of that discussion to a broader audience.
Quote:Moving over to Command ships, CCP Ytterbium addressed the concern of off grid links and simply stated GÇ£off grid boosting should not existGÇ¥, This is of course a pretty big statement and something that I personally believe is a huge step in the correct direction, but this brings up a few concerns for small gang command ship uses. Right now 'racial links' divide the bonuses so that shield (obviously) and skirmish links are bonused and provided by fleet command ships designed for shield tanking. On the other side you have armour (duh) and info links bonused and provided by fleet command ships designed for armour tanking. Leaving the T3 and command ship discussion completely to one side, an armour tanked claymore is a pretty poor solution for something like an AHAC gang that relies quite heavily on the sig reduction and speed provided by bonused skirmish links.
I hope CCP Ytterbium has a plan for this in place?
Taking this line of thought to the extreme it seems pretty reasonable to say, as devil's advocate, that the easiest solution would be to remove the 'racial' attributes from command ship bonuses and allow a fleet command ship to boost all links by their 3% per level. You would quickly end up with damnation and vulture CS everywhere passing skirmish links together with their traditional armour and shield links with an occasional bonused info link thrown in. (A lack of claymores and eos would likely continue to exist due to the current active tank bonuses on those ships and with no requirement to bring them to get their bonuses). This would force some interesting changes in the meta with the inability of CS like the vulture or damnation to kite in any way or really mesh well with some of the small gang dynamics common in the game.
I was thinking about this line from the minutes however:
Quote:CCP Greyscale had a suggestion to separate the HICs a bit which is to make one set of HICs faster and another set tankier GÇô essentially the situation now, but make the differences more pronounced. This makes a ton of sense to me and immediately seemed like it could apply to the problem of fleet command ships as well. What if the damnation and eos where both given armour resist bonuses and were balanced so that damnations have the same sort of speed and tank as they do now, but the eos were made somewhat less tanky but roughly as fast as Gallente HACs. Much like the proposed solution for devoters and phobos. The same could be done with vultures being a shield resist bonused brick with current mobility, while the claymore gains a shield resist bonus and roughly the mobility of Minmatar HACs. The desirable end result would be a shield fast / tanky and armour fast / tanky decision to be made which could support current and future metas for large and small gangs.
This is fairly far out, and broad brushed concepts rather than specific numeric balancing but do people think this is a potential problem? Do you think this is a potential workable solution to this issue? Do people have other ideas that could be implemented? Fire away and hopefully it will give CCP some thoughts and tools to work with when they eventually look at this aspect of balancing. |
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 13:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
I was having this conversation again last night and it was brought up that having one ship provide a simultaneous bonus to multiple types of links was poor design since it didn't promote enough choices. For example you could field a damnation and have it provide bonused links for armour, skirmish AND info if desired. This is a really good point, but I personally believe that the mindlink already provides enough decision making as that ship will only be able to mindlink and therefore really maximize the possible boost from one of those types at a time. Is that enough of a distinction? Should the bonus to limited to only one type even if the ships are changed to push all the links effectively? |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
315
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 16:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
this subject is bigger than just combat command ships.. when you take about "grid" you might as well say "belt" for miners. I can't imagine a scenerio where Rorqs required to be in seige mode in belts to give their superior boosts ends well. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
85
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 18:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Disregarding the Rorqual problem, i believe this is a good solution that would lead to more interesting fleet choices. |
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 13:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:this subject is bigger than just combat command ships.. when you talk about "grid" you might as well say "belt" for miners. I can't imagine a scenerio where Rorqs required to be in siege mode in belts to give their superior boosts would end well.
You have a great point, but I am not sure the debate about boosts being on grid or not belongs in this thread. CCP Ytterbium certainly seems to be convinced about the way ahead for off-grid boosting based on the line in the CSM minutes, but who is to say what the solution would be for Rorqs etc. Maybe he has some other work around, maybe he believes the risk / reward needs to be adjusted anyways, maybe it is some other combination of factors.
From a PvP focus however, I am pretty confident that moving links on grid is the best solution for the health of the game. Doing this without making some very significant adjustments to the applicable bonused ships could be a rough blow for certain types of gangs and tactics. That is what I am hoping we can brainstorm some solutions for, that CCP can use when the day comes to address this issue.
If on-grid only boosts does become a reality what would be YOUR proposed solution for miners and mining links? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Make 2 sizes of links: - ordinary, that are only effective within grid - capital, to make it throughout the system. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Omega Industries
220
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Make 2 sizes of links: - ordinary, that are only effective within grid - capital, to make it throughout the system.
This.
Whilst I completely understand the need for combat boosting to be on grid, the cost of a rorqual prohibits it being on grid. The bonuses don't give enough of a boost to make the risk worthwhile. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1740
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:I can't imagine a scenerio where Rorqs required to be in siege mode in belts to give their superior boosts would end well.
The Rorqual doesn't need to be in siege mode to provide boosts on-grid. On grid, aligned at speed it can warp out before any silly AFK cloaker can get a disruptor on it. You only need to siege the rorqual for ore compression. So while it's in the belt providing command boosts, you don't even need the industrial core fitted. You still have the advantage of ultra-long-range survey scanning & tractor beams, and the huge ore bay.
Do the ore compression at the POS. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
277
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Make 2 sizes of links: - ordinary, that are only effective within grid - capital, to make it throughout the system.
Carriers can provide gang links too. People will use them as off-grid boosters out of a POS if their command ship or strategic cruiser can no longer do that.
Off-grid boosting should not exist at all.
If an exception needs to be made, then ONLY for the mining gang links, but I'm not convinced that this is necessary.
An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1740
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:If an exception needs to be made, then ONLY for the mining gang links, but I'm not convinced that this is necessary.
If they want the boosts, they'll have the Orca or Rorqual on-grid and take the appropriate precautions.
Life would be much simpler if CCP were to introduce a deadspace field projector, of course :) Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Carriers can provide gang links too. People will use them as off-grid boosters out of a POS if their command ship or strategic cruiser can no longer do that. I dont see problem with that. If you have a POS in system - you're the defender, and should have the advantage. And having a dedicated expensive and skill-intensive ship is a fair price for that, IMO. Besides, carriers are less efficient than command ships, and thus are not used in this role at all, AFAIK. So either boost command-carriers, or nerf this ability away from them, leaving it to supers. |
Griffin Omanid
IntersteIIar Moneymakers
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Make 2 sizes of links: - ordinary, that are only effective within grid - capital, to make it throughout the system.
I think this would be the best idea. But i think the names are a bit irritating.
I think of an aura-like boost with a range of ~500 km as on-grid gang link, and one system wide (~100 AU) off-grid gang link, but only with half the bonus. This way you can also field a fleet command ship or Orca for miners, as cheap but effeciv boosters, and if you don-¦t want to risk a ship or for emergency you can put something like Rorqual or T3-Cruiser as an off-grid booster. This way would also rebalance the T3 Cruiser and Fleet Command ship imbalance. |
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
So I think it is safe to say it is possible for CCP to cook up some solution for mining links if they think it is required. I am still pretty curious if people think the problem of skirmish and info links in armour and shield gangs would become a problem with 'on-grid only' boosting without some sort of modification. |
Griffin Omanid
IntersteIIar Moneymakers
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
I would also boost the on-grid links a bit, because of the higher risk. For example the "Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control I" gives a bonus of 2 %. After the changing the On-grid gang link gives a bonus of 3 %, while the of grid one gives a bonus of 1,5 %.
This way you can also use an Orca as a on-grid mining booster when the Rorqual is to unsecure to be deployed in a belt. The bonus will be much lower but you risk less. |
Omnathious Deninard
M'Tar Logistics Division Night Sky Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 04:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:this subject is bigger than just combat command ships.. when you talk about "grid" you might as well say "belt" for miners. I can't imagine a scenerio where Rorqs required to be in siege mode in belts to give their superior boosts would end well. Easy, change the rorqual so it doesn't need to siege to provide the bonus to the links, only siege for ore compression |
Nnamuachs
Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 06:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
In discussing the difference of the Rorqual against the rest of the command ships for link bonuses, couldn't we just as easily give the Rorqual a role bonus that allows system wide boosts? There's a lot of discussion revolving around modifying the links to make an exception for a single ship. Just modify the ship instead. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
148
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rorqual should be on grid for gang links to be applied. end of story
Heaven forbid that people would actually have to protect their mining ops with combat ships and the Rorqual can fit a good tank (1.4 million EHP + a cap shield booster). Yes super-capital hot dropping will still occur. Can't be solved until the obscene number of supercaps in the game is reduced.
Lets look at this from another point of view though. POS's are getting their force fields removed. So super cap hot dropping rorqs at POS's will probably happen anyway. But their is talk of an anchorable forcefield. I imagine this will be destructable so why not anchor a bubble at a belt and boost away. Yes you could still be caught if someone bubbles the force field before you can warp off but it's an option. (purely speculation) |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 08:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nnamuachs wrote:In discussing the difference of the Rorqual against the rest of the command ships for link bonuses, couldn't we just as easily give the Rorqual a role bonus that allows system wide boosts? There's a lot of discussion revolving around modifying the links to make an exception for a single ship. Just modify the ship instead. It's not about single ship. Carriers, motherships and titans all can fit links. The matter is that they are not used for this role, because simple command ship or T3 is more efficient. So the question is - either this role is needed for capitals or not. My opinion - let it be. And as we introduce capital-sized links, we can simultaneously boost capital-commands, and fix T3 and command ships. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
369
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Make 2 sizes of links: - ordinary, that are only effective within grid - capital, to make it throughout the system. This. Whilst I completely understand the need for combat boosting to be on grid, the cost of a rorqual prohibits it being on grid. The bonuses don't give enough of a boost to make the risk worthwhile.
then mine without rorq. Eve is a sandbox, either you will organize defense for your mining ops, or mine without bonuses otherwise.
Takeshi Yamato wrote: Off-grid boosting should not exist at all.
this. Having ships sitting somewhere and making all other ships in fleet better is an extremely stupid idea for its own. If you like bonuses, expose them to the risk the remaining fleet is at.
Sinzor Aumer wrote:I dont see problem with that. If you have a POS in system - you're the defender, and should have the advantage. your assumption POS is only for defenders is wrong. POS for offensive activities is reality, for example staging POS in enemy territory. POS provide already defender advantages since you cant remove them instantly - you are required to go a RF cycle, time during which POS owners could relocate to a safer place (another POS) at manageable risk. There should be no bonus ships sitting safely in POS providing boosts for everyone else. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
gang bonuses being system wide is STUPID. simple as that. Its agaisnt EVE spirit where you need to risk somethign to gather the great bennefits. Few things in this game give more bennefits than fleet bonuses therefore they must bring some SERIOUS risk.
Yes, rorqual SHOULD NEED To be on belt as well! Want the bennefit? then RISK something!
Also the Command ship bonuses should be WAY higher than the t3 ones, not the other way around.
The change to boost on grid only woudl brign a LOT more consequences and more tactical variety in fleet fights. Fleetas would need to be better organized, sivided in proper wings with proper chain of boosts so they coud separate when neede and still ahve the boosts running. Also woudl add another layer on ana attack, the psosibility of focusing on their commadn ships (LOGICAL) to deny their fleet bonus! |
|
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 20:58:00 -
[21] - Quote
There are many excellent points on both sides about boosting and specific to the mining link problem. If we move past that however and assume for a minute that links ARE changed (as an arbitrary brainstorming exercise) to being on-grid only, I personally think we will experience a problem with some fleet comps and the current fleet command ship designs. That is what I outlined in the original post.
So do people think there should be a change to making the Claymore a feasibly armour tanked ship if links become on-grid only? Or should another approach be taken such as I outlined originally. |
Bong Ki
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 21:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
While I've always flown my command ship pilots on grid in fleet fights, anyone who suggests that a rorq should ever be placed in a belt has simply never seen it done. It is beyond foolish. Even if it stays aligned, it is a guaranteed ship loss. I've seen too many people prove this fact beyond question. Always while suggesting to the corp members who beg them not to do it, that THEY knew how to stay aligned and nobody could catch them. I've personally seen dozens of them pop because they refused to accept this fact.
Disagree? That's OK. You are wrong. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 06:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:I dont see problem with that. If you have a POS in system - you're the defender, and should have the advantage. your assumption POS is only for defenders is wrong. POS for offensive activities is reality, for example staging POS in enemy territory. POS provide already defender advantages since you cant remove them instantly - you are required to go a RF cycle, time during which POS owners could relocate to a safer place (another POS) at manageable risk. There should be no bonus ships sitting safely in POS providing boosts for everyone else. Ok, I was wrong about the "defender" part. But still, if we make 2 sizes of links - we introduce the tradeoff of either to have expensive inefficient system-wide boosting or cheap and efficient in-grid boosting. The exception is the Rorqual, wich is just fine with me. Leave alone the miners, go fight someone akin to you. And btw, if the POS is under siege, the defender still will be able to put their grid-only booster under the forcefield. Isn't it OP? Maybe we should prohibit activation of links when inside the FF? :trollface: |
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:22:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bumping and hoping I can stimulate conversation outside the (valid) debate about mining links that has pretty hijacked the intent of the thread. |
Jessie Nolen
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 09:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
1) Make it impossible to activate links inside POS (no lol 6 link fits siting in safety) 2) Get decent prober with virtue set 3) Happy hunting
Excluding some 100+ AU systems off-grid boosting isn't that safe. In smaller systems its virtually impossible to stay away from probes long and warping/cloaking turns boosting off. There's only so many places far away from any objects in 30AU system...
Also most off-grid boosters are double or even triple-boxed. They don't have time to check probes every 2 seconds. If you force them on grid you just screw over the side who has less numbers. And what about smaller roams?
Also what about fights that happen in multiple places. You may have one part of your fleet cover one gate, second part cover 2nd gate and rest shooting POS/Station/ihub.
And what happens when grids broke randomly? Sometimes grid is 20 (twenty) km wide, sometimes like 1000km wide.
However I agree T3 bonuses shouldn't be better than CS bonuses. Balance them to same level and then its just user choice wether he wants to boost with un-tanked T3 or tanked CS. And FYI I have toon that has CS5 so defending T3 boosters is not because training time investment. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 10:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Jessie Nolen wrote:
Also what about fights that happen in multiple places. You may have one part of your fleet cover one gate, second part cover 2nd gate and rest shooting POS/Station/ihub.
This is why I think there should be a smaller and cheaper T2 command ship. A destroyer hull for the squad commanders. I also think that the Gallente gang (Infomation warfare) links should be scrapped and replaced with a more offensive Gang link system that compliments their fighting style. "Assault Warfare" is what I would imagine it being. It would give bonuses to damage application. For example, one link would provide a range boost for Turrets, Missiles and Drones. Another link would provide better tracking for Turrets and Drones with better Explosion Velocity for Missiles. The 3rd link could provide better targeting range or scan resolution.
The Info Links would then be moved into an umbrella set which all command ships would get a bonus for. Or they could be specialised for a new hull type: Covert Command Ships in the Destroyer hull.
Just ideas. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
245
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
Re: Mining bonuses. - Deployed Rorqual yields ~42% (twice that in beam range) with implant and maxed skills; is stationary and generally just a fat-arse. - Any fleet command yields ~28% (twice that in beam range) with implant and maxed skills; is mobile, can bite back and depending on fit .. also a fat-arse, albeit not as much as the Rorqual (Damn(((....)))ation)
So ...
If you are mining in space frequented by roams, leet cloaking PvP'ers or during an invasion .. use the Commandship. If you are mining in space nestled in the deep blue sea of NAP land .. use a deployed Rorqual.
PS: Orca is mobile and gets 3%/lvl link bonus, increase that to 5%/lvl and you have effectively halved the "loss" by choosing survival over mammon.
Almost exactly the same that will apply for the pew portion of this urgently needed change, if you are confident in your ability to smash the enemy you can use a fragile multi-link platform whereas you are better off with spreading links out to increase individual tanks in the more even fights .. or Goddess forbid .. have to decide which link is more important!
Re: spread out fighting. - On the surface the question makes sense, but it really is on the surface only. Eve operates with 250 man fleets, often with multiple in same system .. where is it written that there shall be only one or two link ships per full fleet? Were it up to me then: Only capitals could boost an entire fleet. Commandships could not boost more than one wing at a time. T3's could not boost more than one squad at a time. Or some variation thereof.
The designated platforms merely need a once-over to increase survivability on-grid in the small/medium engagement, Carrier/Scarrier ability to field links takes care of the full-blown blob-on-blob action if FC is not confident he can keep the bonused platforms alive. Wouldn't hurt to take a look at the way bonuses are managed either. If the future is to have several ships with links then it should be possible to set up a prioritized list with back-ups/redundancy where we today have the single entry so that alternative bonuses are applied automatically in case the primary dies/jumps/docks/disconnects. Micromanagement can be fun, but minimizing the need for it is a 'good move' in games involving shooting each other in the face like Eve. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 19:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jessie Nolen wrote:1) Make it impossible to activate links inside POS (no lol 6 link fits siting in safety) It could be a good solution as well. The Rorqual can be deployed right next to FF to be defended by POS guns. Same for carriers. Lol-fitted T3, on contrary, will not survive alpha-strike of hit-and-run gang.
|
Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 02:40:00 -
[29] - Quote
If i got this thread right is a discussion about off-grid boosting vs on-grid boosting? If so, I overheard a few people sharing their ideas in a incursion fleet and I think it was a good idea:
Instead of going Off-grid VS On-grid the that the command ships should do both. Instead of removing the off-grid booster to get people to boost on grid i belive in the EVE Sandbox concept. the choice of the player. I belive that the higher the risk the higher the rewards. so if a Command ship wer eon gridd boosting it should be in more danger and it should be more effective. but let the playe choose how they wanna fly it. Make it so that every ganglink module have a offgrid value and a on grid value. So if the command ship is on grid it may boost its links 7% per level where offgrid it only effects 3%. This will create incentives to actually be on grid to boost as it will help the fleet more but still leave the choice for people who do not wanna risk it and play it safer.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
222
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 05:43:00 -
[30] - Quote
I think that one of the big problems here is that people feel like they NEED to have max boosts. If you're doing a mining operation too small to safely bring a Rorqual or Orca along, then fit a laser optimization link on one of the defending hurricanes/harbingers.
I also think perhaps the link modules should cost less powergrid. I don't see how a ship can be expected to tank if it's using up 200MW for each link installed. If you use 3 links, that costs 600MW. But maybe I'm wrong. Still, I don't see how you'd ever get one onto a Drake without gimping its tank. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |