Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Armeggeda iscariah
Ganja Labs Exodus.
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 06:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
So , after reading the CSM minutes (what i cared to read that wasnt Twostep being a ragey dumb ass.) I came across the ever so controversial topic of Offgrid links.
Now im a fan of offgrid boosting (Im a terribly spoiled Huginn pilot), but do i think its kinda OP ? Yeah. But the way the CSM/CCP is implying to fix offgrid boosting seems suprisingly stupid and uniformed. Mostly because it will give Huge scrubsec(nullsec) blobs a big advantage over the people who like to fly small gangs against the blobs, and their are allot Better ways we can fix offgrid boosting without nerfing it in such a stupid way. The simplest way i see to fix this is switch the bonus attributes on T3's to be what commandships have and vise versa. Even then this is kinda "Iffy". In all honesty Offgrid links aren't to broken/game breaking. There are a few situations where they are completely dumb. I.E Solo PvP with links (not really solo now is it?) And links that sit inside a POS. <--- kinda risk averse.
Little Snip from kugu.which was snipped From PL.com "Currentl-â, -+ff-grid boosting does need fixing, however not in the way that you are probably thinking.
-Pff-gr-ûd boosting in safespots in space should not be changed. These people can be caught by probing them downGÇÜ or slowl-â b-+okmarking your way to glory. I tihnk I have shown that it is possible with a decent investment (lg virtues) to catch off-grid boosting t3's. So I think that is fine.
However, boosting from a P-PS -ûs completely safe. There is no risk whatsoeverGÇÜ and it is literall-â imp-+ssible to counter. All that for a mere 400mil/month and a setup P-PS. It g-ûves the defender an incredible advantage and offers a strong incentive for the defender to never leave their home system. [...] I think that for someone to recieve gang bonuses, be it from a t3, a Titan, or even an industrial that the character who is boosting should be put at some risk of dying, ala boosting outside of a P-PS.
So, I would propose that gang mods not be allowed to be run from -ûnside of a POS."
So, In-light of what my opinions are what do you guys think ? And if Dev's give a **** to post (Not like you guys play your own game anyways so your uniformed as hell.) what do they think ? --------------------------------------He who dares , wins. |
Jack Miton
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
449
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 06:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quote:what i cared to read that wasnt Twostep being a ragey dumb ass
I loled, cos sadly it's true...
I agree, offgrid boosting should stay. I also agree that you shouldnt be able to boost from inside a POS. I dissagree that CS/T3 bonuses shou;d be swapped, the fact that you can't tank a boosting T3 at all makes up for it. |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds The Bloody Ronin Syndicate
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 06:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
i am using offgrid links ... mostly cheap BC or CS with skirmish mindlink and maxed skills on my alt. Got caught 5 times in last 7 months (mostly because I was concentrating on FCing ;) ).
Our Loki boosters got caught once or twice .... however they cost about ten times more then my drakes or canes.
So I dont see the problem here. Problem it is for null blobers, because they dont like to be harrashed by smaller gangs buzzing around them with boosted speed and picking weak and careless (I like it this way) .... so again CCP is saying : "We dont care about mid/small scale pvp we want blobsters - because" .... well there has to be some compensation behind this ;) IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free?>>>????-áPublic ch.: Basterds on vacation Hans resign from CSM! |
Dread Operative
Justified Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 08:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Off grid boosting shouldnt work in a POS force field. That way there is at least a risk. |
Dread Operative
Justified Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 08:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Off grid boosting shouldnt work in a POS force field. That way there is at least a risk. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
487
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 09:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
I live in faction war lowsec. I'd say anywhere from a quarter to half of my kills every month are solo. There is a rather long list of of people I shouldn't engage and places I shouldn't go due to booster alts. If off grid boosting were removed I can say without a doubt, at least personally, that I would have many more targets to choose from. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
300
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 09:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Quote:what i cared to read that wasnt Twostep being a ragey dumb ass I loled, cos sadly it's true... I agree, offgrid boosting should stay. I also agree that you shouldnt be able to boost from inside a POS. I dissagree that CS/T3 bonuses shou;d be swapped, the fact that you can't tank a boosting T3 at all makes up for it.
You're third point is so wrong.
You can tank a T3 booster. T3 boosters are meant to have 1 link, not four. As with miners fit you ship correctly and stop bitching about its stats when you choose to fit it wrong. |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
94
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 10:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
1. Off-grid boosting should be removed in general. 2. Boosting behind POS shields should also be removed. |
Abannan
Moira. Villore Accords
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 10:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'm in two minds, I don't like fighting people who are using 3 different sets of links, but I love scanning them down and killing them, and watching the tears in local. |
Lugalzagezi666
49
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 11:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
For almost 3 years of using offgrid booster (around half of that time it was unprobeable) i never lost a single one. And the closest i get to lose one was when i forgot my alt on the gate while i was afk.
Honestly - if you know what are you doing, its almost impossible to lose, it requires almost 0 effort and it MASSIVELY boosts combat efficiency of whole your fleet.
This advantage you get is so big, that it should require significant effort, full attention and proper piloting of 1 person, not just occasional blinking on 1024x768 window somewhere in the corner of your screen.
The best thing ccp can do is remove offgrid boosting completely and limit the boosting range to 100-150k, possibly even less with "gangboosting range" role bonus for commands. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
241
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 11:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
It is not easy in the least to stick it to someone that doesn't want to be probed (sexual innuendo, best innuendo!) .. maxed skills, implants, CovOps and rigging just to be eligible .. then comes the actual probing part.
One problem with off-grid bonuses is that they force a very specific play as that CovOps is the only real counter to it .. a counter that is not "normally" found outside blob/fleet-fests (ie. low-sec/roams). Keeping status quo (or the stingy compromise of 'not in POS') and simply add even more mandatory 'alt required' mechanics ... more accounts, more dinero for CCP = good for game .. right? Another problem with off-grid bonuses is the magnitude. With the correct hull, implant and modules you are looking at amplifying a given groups performance by 50%+ which is staggeringly OP .. particularly since you have just the one above mentioned counter. Consider that we pay millions, even billions, to get just a few percentage points advantage on our individual ships by using bling .. links provide more than 10x (probably closer to 20x) that across an entire fleet (Ex. one ship with just one link magically transforms all T2 disruptors in the entire fleet into RF disruptors .. that is before commandship/T3 hull specific bonuses are even applied mind you). Yet another problem with off-grid bonuses is that they represent the most heinous of game design where one can influence events with no active participation, indeed without even being present.
CSM, being null-bears for the most part, are fully aware of the potential pitfalls of just moving them on-grid. Pretty sure there will be major changes/overhauls of both command's and T3's prior to or in conjunction with such a change .. they talk about ideas for changing both in the minutes as well by the way, let the lobbying begin!
My preferred solution is to make the bonuses range dependent to simulate the slight delay in C&C data. With a maximum range of say 400km, split into 5-6 range bands with bonuses decreasing the further away the links are from the action .. would be a massive server drain though as blob fights would force a bazillion calculations so 'meh' (I can live with on-grid and a maximum range (has to be included to account for Grid-fu scenarios)).
PS: Before the mining crowd finds this thread and starts moaning about not wanting to commit the Rorq to a belt .. get protection or use a regular command ship. The slightly lower bonuses still make your roids pop faster than not having bonuses at all. PPS: When change is made, give Carriers (not the super variety) a small link bonus (already have fitting bonus) so that they can be used in blobby weather when/if commands fail to do the job. |
Lea Sahara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 11:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
At the most basic level everything an off grid booster does is to disguise your true capabilities. In this regard it's not much different from being hotdropped by capitals, by a BO or titan bridged fleet or from getting blobbed by reinforcements one jump over. But unlike those things a booster will show up in local and often appear on d-scan. So an informed decision prior to engaging is quite possible oftentimes.
On the other hand they provide quite significant bonuses which can reach ridiculous levels compared to an unbonused ship. But then, so do HG pirate implants and booster pills.
In favor of those gang link boosters is that they enable smaller entities or "solo" pilots to engage blobs and gate camps. Which both are good things in my opinion. It promotes PvP and is what often leads to "gf"s in those scenarios.
I think overall they are a worthy addition to EVE though. They are expensive and fragile and to make the most use of them you have to prepare the battlefield beforehand, which costs time and makes you less flexible.
The only thing which I find somewhat bothersome is, that it is quite hard to scan down a well set up off grid T3. On the other hand they have to sacrifice a lot for that, are absolutely defenseless and extremely fragile. That they cost around 1b minimum with a well suited clone shouldn't be forgotten either.
Boosting should not be possible from within a POS field though as this negates pretty much every risk. There must at least be a chance to catch one if you are as well prepared as the booster itself is.
And lastly I think for big fleet engagements this whole topic is a non-issue. If you have the capacities to field super carriers and titans you should also have the capacities to bring your own boosters and well skilled and fit CovOps pilots. It's another tactical layer there. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
524
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:It is not easy in the least to stick it to someone that doesn't want to be probed (sexual innuendo, best innuendo!) .. maxed skills, implants, CovOps and rigging just to be eligible .. then comes the actual probing part. One problem with off-grid bonuses is that they force a very specific play as that CovOps is the only real counter to it .. a counter that is not "normally" found outside blob/fleet-fests (ie. low-sec/roams). Keeping status quo (or the stingy compromise of 'not in POS') and simply add even more mandatory 'alt required' mechanics ... more accounts, more dinero for CCP = good for game .. right? Another problem with off-grid bonuses is the magnitude. With the correct hull, implant and modules you are looking at amplifying a given groups performance by 50%+ which is staggeringly OP .. particularly since you have just the one above mentioned counter. Consider that we pay millions, even billions, to get just a few percentage points advantage on our individual ships by using bling .. links provide more than 10x (probably closer to 20x) that across an entire fleet (Ex. one ship with just one link magically transforms all T2 disruptors in the entire fleet into RF disruptors .. that is before commandship/T3 hull specific bonuses are even applied mind you). Yet another problem with off-grid bonuses is that they represent the most heinous of game design where one can influence events with no active participation, indeed without even being present..
I can't agree more. The response that people need to get an scanning alt to counter other peoples boosting alt is terrible. I hate dual boxing. Its pretty immersion breaking.
And before you say "get friends" Let me just say that anyone who wants to just scan on on their main without an alt must have brain damage. I will do it but its really boring and tedious play.
No off grid booster No boosting from inside a pos boosters show up on km. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lugalzagezi666
52
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 12:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Cearain wrote:boosters show up on km. + aggresion from boosted ships is transferred to a booster (OT : same needs to apply for logi reps and ships like orca or caps if they allow "docking" of agressed ship). |
Noisrevbus
183
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
This topic again? I'll give it the same reply i always do.
Remove the Command processor modules, almost every percieved abuse of- or malbalance in the system relate back to that one module. The module effectively handicap the ship that use it to do nothing but boost, while boost more.
I think alot of you ascribe more to the ability to stay off grid than what it has earnt. The problem is rather that doing so allow you to boost more, so people will explore those options well before they explore eligable alternatives. I don't mind that alts can carry out the role of a main, in part. I mind it, in case of boosting, when it has become more effective to use alts for it. Where alts will completely obscure the use of a main in the same role, and rear it's ugly head at other parts of the game (such as the market; look at mindlink pricing - it may have something to do with the decline of supply from L4, but it also have alot to do with demand, and risk-confident alts happily paying those sums while on-grid mains will think twice).
Remove that module and you will effectively cut the performance of exploitation (i mean it as cutting down rainforests, not as breaking rules) by a good two thirds, while positively directing the community toward on-grid use without removing the ability to run off-grid boosts for groups who lack manpower or utilize strategy that involve it.
In short, the problem is that off-grid boosting allow three times as many links on average thanks to the Command processor, not that it could exist as an option with equal boost performance but one less ship fullfilling additional roles on the grid. Prior to related issues, such as market splash-off, my groups always used to put at least some boosting on grid and utilize the benefit from the extra module slots you also get on grid. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
366
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
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¥, with much of the CSM nodding in agreement. I am glad CCP Ytter and much of the CSM agree with my position. |
Ramon Sohei
URSALIS LOGISTICS GROUP Villore Accords
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
I do not think there is a problem with offgrid boosting. The problem is with unprobeable ships offgrid boosting like the Loki. |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:This topic again? I'll give it the same reply i always do. Remove the Command processor modules, almost every percieved abuse of- or malbalance in the system relate back to that one module. The module effectively handicap the ship that use it to do nothing but boost, while boost more. I think alot of you ascribe more to the ability to stay off grid than what it has earnt. The problem is rather that doing so allow you to boost more, so people will explore those options well before they explore eligable alternatives. I don't mind that alts can carry out the role of a main, in part. I mind it, in case of boosting, when it has become more effective to use alts for it. Where alts will completely obscure the use of a main in the same role, and rear it's ugly head at other parts of the game (such as the market; look at mindlink pricing - it may have something to do with the decline of supply from L4, but it also have alot to do with demand, and risk-confident alts happily paying those sums while on-grid mains hesitate). Remove that module and you will effectively cut the performance of exploitation (i mean it as cutting down rainforests, not as breaking rules) by a good two thirds, while positively directing the community toward on-grid use without removing the ability to run off-grid boosts for groups who lack manpower or utilize strategy that involve it. In short, the problem is that off-grid boosting allow three times as many links on average thanks to the Command processor, not that it could exist as an option with equal boost performance but one less ship fullfilling additional roles on the grid. Prior to related issues, such as market splash-off, my groups always used to put at least some boosting on grid and utilize the benefit from the extra module slots you also get on grid. Removing off-grid boosting completely, or swapping bonuses between CS and Tech III will, as other people put it: only reinforce existing trends and popular gameplay (ie., feed the blob). I'm keen on Tech III as focus and CS as blanket. Remove Command processors (and seed mindlinks in the LP-stores) and you will endorse a balance between alts and mains as well as CS and Tech III, without once again massively disrupt balance between small- and large scale to kill off interaction between the two, and get less ships in space. Haven't you fed the blob enough Ytterbium? Bubble changes, etc. Sir, a fleet command ship can natively fit 3 links without the need for command processors. Removing command processors and you will have offgrid claymores linking instead of lokis, who the **** cares. The only difference is that you cant scout iwth them and will need a THIRD client for that role. |
Noisrevbus
183
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:23:00 -
[19] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote: Sir, a fleet command ship can natively fit 3 links without the need for command processors. Removing command processors and you will have offgrid claymores linking instead of lokis, who the **** cares. The only difference is that you cant scout iwth them and will need a THIRD client for that role.
Miss, their boost amount is lower, they have larger sigs and no cloak or bubble interdiction.
Meanwhile Tech III will offer better boosts on fewer links and a more "covert" approach, letting (smaller-) more specialist gangs use their focused bonuses while larger groups more interested in just filling out the gaps use the clumsier option.
The only thing you need to adress then is wether we should allow links to flow through POS shield or not, assuming POS still have shields when CCP get around to adressing these issues (shields, CSM minutes etc.).
Once again, i don't see a problem in the fact that off-grid boosting exist - the problem is that it's an overblown superior option today.
Balance assumes within tolerable difference. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
227
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
Yes boosting needs changing, I sold my booster so I don't really care how. Please don't do anything involving the words "on grid" I do not want to see people making 10,000km grids on every gate, station or POS they may want to fight with boosts on. Give them a 500km range or something, or whatever, just don't be dumb.
I find the posts complaining about it quite hilarious though, especially appearing on KMs / not being able to engage because of it. Don't delude yourselves that this will change the game massively, you'll still have something to complain about, eve isn't fair and never has been. I prefer boosters to the falcons of old and hope the new 'thing' wont be too intrusive.
The on KMs is particularly amusing, who cares? If you want you can do what some of the really awesome pilots do and just tag a "+booster alt" in the comments so that everyone who looks at the killmail can rest assured that you are a bad-ass PVPer who would never lose to someone who didn't cheat. |
|
Zicon Shak'ra
Vacuo Anomalia
37
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
Armeggeda iscariah wrote:So , after reading the CSM minutes (what i cared to read that wasnt Twostep being a ragey dumb ass.)
Stopped reading here. Wormholes are cool, m'kay? |
Griznatch
Xicron Syndicate Tus Network
156
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:21:00 -
[22] - Quote
Disallow links inside a pos and make the links increase sig radius when active: problem solved
next! I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Max Khaos
PSK Industries Cascade Associates
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
They only ship that should be aloud to off grid boost is the Rorqual. Deployed mode in a belt = lol ------------- Insert Goon Tears Here ------------- |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1832
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:20:00 -
[24] - Quote
Boosters should only work within e.g. an invisible 200 km radius bubble and be blocked by POS shields, otherwise, there would be too much messing around with Grid-Fu. You know... morons. |
David Devant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 20:24:00 -
[25] - Quote
I have a booster alt and I like it. Sure it's given be the advantage in "1v1s" (boo hoo), but it's also given me the confidence to throw ships in to daft situations (and loose). T3s vastly broadened the envelope of possibility for solo and small gang warfare.
Regardless of how much you might disagree, you're all mental if you think CCP will remove off-grid boosters. "I know, let's make it so lots of people unsub their second account!" :eye roll: |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 20:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote: Sir, a fleet command ship can natively fit 3 links without the need for command processors. Removing command processors and you will have offgrid claymores linking instead of lokis, who the **** cares. The only difference is that you cant scout iwth them and will need a THIRD client for that role.
Miss, their boost amount is lower, they have larger sigs and no cloak or bubble interdiction. Meanwhile Tech III will offer better boosts on fewer links and a more "covert" approach, letting (smaller-) more specialist gangs use their focused bonuses while larger groups more interested in just filling out the gaps use the clumsier option. The only thing you need to adress then is wether we should allow links to flow through POS shield or not, assuming POS still have shields when CCP get around to adressing these issues (shields, CSM minutes etc.). Once again, i don't see a problem in the fact that off-grid boosting exist - the problem is that it's an overblown superior option today. Balance assumes within tolerable difference.
The difference in boosting strength is neglectable. For comparison: The point range difference between loki and claymore links on an overheated rf point is 53.8->52.3. The speed difference on an ab tengu is 2664->2613 what sells for the t3 option is indeed the bubble interdiction and the cloak, so you can simultanously use it as a scout, albeit still being in danger of losing a 500m+ ship to a gatecamp. Removing command processor would make t3s not an option anymore. There is no balance between **** and not ****. Having only 1 link is a waste of a fleet boosting slot (no matter how big your fleet is, each member can only have up to 3 people boosting him). People would switch from lokis to claymores but still have them offgrid, however they would need yet another alt account for scouting in a covops, after all who wants to use a main for scouting :) |
Pax Thar
The Black Rabbits Academy The Gurlstas Associates
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
David Devant wrote:I have a booster alt and I like it. Sure it's given be the advantage in "1v1s" (boo hoo), but it's also given me the confidence to throw ships in to daft situations (and loose). T3s vastly broadened the envelope of possibility for solo and small gang warfare.
Regardless of how much you might disagree, you're all mental if you think CCP will remove off-grid boosters. "I know, let's make it so lots of people unsub their second account!" :eye roll:
An unfair adva.tage is unfair no matter how stupid you fly. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1833
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
David Devant wrote:
Regardless of how much you might disagree, you're all mental if you think CCP will remove off-grid boosters. "I know, let's make it so lots of people unsub their second account!" :eye roll:
0/10
falcon nerf You know... morons. |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:09:00 -
[29] - Quote
Pax Thar wrote:David Devant wrote:I have a booster alt and I like it. Sure it's given be the advantage in "1v1s" (boo hoo), but it's also given me the confidence to throw ships in to daft situations (and loose). T3s vastly broadened the envelope of possibility for solo and small gang warfare.
Regardless of how much you might disagree, you're all mental if you think CCP will remove off-grid boosters. "I know, let's make it so lots of people unsub their second account!" :eye roll: An unfair adva.tage is unfair no matter how stupid you fly. Remove titan bridges then. How many people are using the titan on their main account and not just dual boxing it to bridge the fleet in? Unfair advantage is unfair. What, youre telling me people use it for logistics too? Lets make them suffer because one group uses it to blob small gangs. |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
38
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
With the coming of ongrid boosting.
I recommend a significant tank buff and bonus changes to command ships.
Fleet commandships are meant to tank and give boosts, not to deal dps- wasted bonus that does not help its true role.
All command ships should have these bonuses: 5% tank resists, 10% tank hitpoints, 3-5% command bonus and then an additional 25-50% bonus to related gang bonuses to fleet.(just like titans)
Electronic superiority.
Eos: lose the drones and hybrid bonus. Eos will give 50-75% greater bonus to Tracking disruptor, ECM, Target Painters, Remote Sensor Damps, Tracking link, Remote ECCM, and Remote Sensor Booster effects to fleet members.
Siege Fortification.
Vulture: Lose the pointless double range bonus and give 25-50% greater Shield HP to fleet members.
Superior Mobility and Response.
Claymore: Lost the projectile weapon bonus and give 25-50% greater ship velocity to fleet members.
Armor Reinforcement.
Damnation: Lose the missile bonus and give 25-50% greater Armor HP to fleet members. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |