Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Madbuster73
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 11:33:00 -
[1]
its the new hype, and all the big rich (pirate) alliances use it against the average players in low sec. its getting really annoying, in almost every low-sec system where pirates live they have 2 or 3 alts in their t3 gangboosting ships with mindlinks giving them insane bonuses in any pvp-engagement.
I think this should be nerfed, so the bonusses can only be given if the actual T3 ship that gives the bonus is on grid of the fight, and not somewhere unprobable on a ss or in a pos. So they will have to risk the ship for the bonusses so it can actually be killed. Because it is massively being abused at the moment. This is not about pvp-skills anymore but it is about who has the most T3 ships hidden in system.
grtz, M73
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 13:14:00 -
[2]
Not enough to make them susceptible to probes, the effects of gang-links are incredibly powerful, on par or surpassing that of logistics/eWar due to numbers potentially affected.
"Defenders" have more than enough help in the cyno-jammer, bridges, bubbles etc. mechanics so allowing a booster to not even be present (or even present at computer!) makes 'home-turf' advantage way too big.
On-grid or not at all is what is needed.
|
Madbuster73
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 20:37:00 -
[3]
My point exactly...
|
Anubis Xian
Word Bearers of Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 22:10:00 -
[4]
Stacking penalize ECCM.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Sakura Shiro
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 22:43:00 -
[5]
Have to factor in the fleet structure to see why you have off grid bonuses. You have wings and squads who may not all be on the same grid. Been in wings with shield squads only...and the drakes and shield canes spread out like dog crap on a rainy day. Put the rokhs in there as well and you can have a wing split between rokhs firing spitballs at structures and drakes camping gates for system security. Off grid bonus allows FC's and WC's to have that flexibility. Also give the foot soldiers their bonuses as they bounce around when really busy jumping called warp ins all over the system.
Hidden boosters...had it for years in game. Not really broken...been a common practice in null sec for a while now. Low sec getting more null sec vets tired of the cap and moon goo games...they are jsut bringing this trick with them over to low sec. Much like drake blah blah blah threads...ccp hasn't changed anything, players changed habits.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 23:36:00 -
[6]
I don't think any ship should be unprobeable. Nothing is completely undetectable. I think the same of cloaks. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 00:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sakura Shiro ...ccp hasn't changed anything, players changed habits.
I guess the strategic cruisers showing on scan in practically every system prior to a gank/fight are just illusions then
The problem with "regular" command ships (which are most commonly used by the null-sec homeless) are not as pronounced as they are bigger, slower and generally more vulnerable .. which of course is why they are never used except in large bs/bc/logis gangs. Doesn't help that the time it takes to get a brand new alt into a T3 to act as an AFK booster is significantly shorter than getting it into a command ship .. result is that they are quite literally everywhere now.
The fact that a fleet is too undisciplined, disorganized or incompetent to stick together in squads/wings should not be a reason to maintain a flawed system. That you see it as a problem that some ships would be without bonuses if on-grid was made real is as twisted as the system itself. You have simply gotten addicted to having one ship boosting up to 250 to perform as if they were 400 or more.
The fact that it has been in game for years doesn't exactly say anything about it being broken or not, just that it has never been perceived as a problem. Wardec system wasn't changed until it was abused, stacking wasn't introduced until its absence was abused, ECM wasn't changed unti..... you get the picture .. all age old systems that were ultimately changed for the good of the game.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 02:37:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Torothanax I don't think any ship should be unprobeable. Nothing is completely undetectable. I think the same of cloaks.
As long as high-sec suicide ganking is still allowed, unprobeable ships should be allowed too. Yes, wouldn't that be lovely, if the people trying to keep themselves safe from you would no longer be able to do so? Well, you're not getting that. :P And your 0.0 tears mean nothing to me. Seriously; I'm looking at this from a high-sec missioner perspective: and in that scenario, well, what happens in 0.0 should stay in 0.0, really.
Very NOT supported. --
|
Monte Shill
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 03:09:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Monte Shill on 07/01/2011 03:09:45
Quote: so the bonusses can only be given if the actual T3 ship that gives the bonus is on grid of the fight,
Whats called primary first? the DPS ships? Probably not, its the Gang booster/Logistics/EWAR spotted first (cause they are so annoying when they interrupt the fight) and I don't want to be the first one popped . T3 ship isn't on grid, its not participating actively in the fight. T3 gang booster is regulated to alt account, cause training a main to sit out of the fight while listening to you mates on vent having fun is really ****ing stupid wouldn't you say? CCP makes money off that account's subscription, cannot see why thats a problem on their end. Also, that unprobable T3 is so ackwardly sub-systemed that if its caught at gate/station it will pop fast.
Try not to set yourself up for a slugging match on a gate that gives your opponent the advantage, jump out system and catch them as they come through before the T3 is moved to give them bonuses again. Problem solved. Nothing says you have to stay and slug it out everytime you see something thats not an ally and the odds are against you.
|
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 03:16:00 -
[10]
This to me sounds more like a problem with off-grid bonuses than with unprobable ships.
An unprobable ship is just as useless and harmless as a cloaker. In order to do anything, they need to uncloak, and if they fight - they are in a gimp fit and sitting ducks. The problem doesn't really appear until you give the invisible/unprobable ships the ability to do something useful: like provide massive off-grid bonuses.
My personal opinion is that any ship that's even remotely involved in a fight needs to be right there in the thick of things, being a target. Just like in a war you'd snipe the officers first - we should get a shot at the buffing ships. At the very least, allow us to deploy a device to jam the data signals to render the off-grid ships useless - and force them to come in close if they want to continue to provide the buff.
With all the noise these days that the game encourages blobbing, and how it's too hard to engage as a small group or a solitary ship - surely this has to be a factor as well. If you manage to catch a ship and force it into a 1-on-1 it's kind of pathetic to know that one of them could be buffed to kingdom come by ships that aren't even there, and worse: can't even be found.
Gimping off-grid bonuses won't do anything when it comes to large engagements - they all have the off-grid bonuses now, and after a gimp - no one would have them. It'll be status quo. It WILL however make it easier for smaller groups and even solitary ships to have a fighting chance. Now that, I'm all for.
|
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 03:45:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Karn Velora This to me sounds more like a problem with off-grid bonuses than with unprobable ships.
An unprobable ship is just as useless and harmless as a cloaker. In order to do anything, they need to uncloak, and if they fight - they are in a gimp fit and sitting ducks. The problem doesn't really appear until you give the invisible/unprobable ships the ability to do something useful: like provide massive off-grid bonuses.
My personal opinion is that any ship that's even remotely involved in a fight needs to be right there in the thick of things, being a target. Just like in a war you'd snipe the officers first - we should get a shot at the buffing ships. At the very least, allow us to deploy a device to jam the data signals to render the off-grid ships useless - and force them to come in close if they want to continue to provide the buff.
With all the noise these days that the game encourages blobbing, and how it's too hard to engage as a small group or a solitary ship - surely this has to be a factor as well. If you manage to catch a ship and force it into a 1-on-1 it's kind of pathetic to know that one of them could be buffed to kingdom come by ships that aren't even there, and worse: can't even be found.
Gimping off-grid bonuses won't do anything when it comes to large engagements - they all have the off-grid bonuses now, and after a gimp - no one would have them. It'll be status quo. It WILL however make it easier for smaller groups and even solitary ships to have a fighting chance. Now that, I'm all for.
A very sensible post. --
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 07:30:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Monte Shill Edited by: Monte Shill on 07/01/2011 03:09:45
Quote: so the bonusses can only be given if the actual T3 ship that gives the bonus is on grid of the fight,
Whats called primary first? the DPS ships? Probably not, its the Gang booster/Logistics/EWAR spotted first
There's a huge difference between primarying a 30-40k EHP recon or a 30-100k EHP Logistics and primarying a 200-500k EHP brick with insane resists. Only an idiot would primary a boosting Fleet Command at the start of an engagement.
As ever, supported. Both unprobeability and off-grid boosting need to go, the latter more than the former. Signature removed. |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 10:13:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 07/01/2011 10:13:37
a cloaked ship has no effect (except a psychological one), an unprobeable fleet booster has, this is the difference. I feel fine with unprobeable mission runner since they dont affect other people and sacrifice a lot for their safety, however, fleet booster should not be unprobeable.
|
Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 10:36:00 -
[14]
As it's fleet boosting that seems to be the problem, how about just giving that act a sig radius boost?
So while you're not doing anything, let you be unprobable, whatever - you know.
However, with the amount of data you send and receive being a booster (How else would you get bonusses?) it only makes sense that it should become easier to get a lock and probe you down. ---
Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser/Assembler: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ http://gemblog.nl/assembler/
Originally by: De'Veldrin Welcome to the ****ing sandbox
|
Niklas
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 10:47:00 -
[15]
Make gang bonuses project a bubble. Ships inside the bubble get bonused. Ships outside, do not. Forget the fleet/wing/squad booster crap.
T3 boosters can be stronger. Command ship boosters can be significantly larger.
Oh, and since theres none of that fleet/wing/squad booster stuff, You can easily have multiples on the field to cover losses. They just don't stack.. best applies.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 11:02:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Gemberslaafje As it's fleet boosting that seems to be the problem, how about just giving that act a sig radius boost?
So while you're not doing anything, let you be unprobable, whatever - you know.
However, with the amount of data you send and receive being a booster (How else would you get bonusses?) it only makes sense that it should become easier to get a lock and probe you down.
Sounds more than reasonable. 'Boosting' should be seen as an active act, really: when you boost, your sig goes up (significantly enough); and when you don't, sig remains 'as is'. --
|
0oO0oOoOo0o
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 11:55:00 -
[17]
It's not a t3-specific problem. A command ship with 6 warfare links that is sitting next to a pos or station and is giving all that nice bonuses without taking any risk, is a broken game mechanics as well.
Making the bonus only count for ships on the same grind would fix both and restore the risk-vs-reward equation: if one brings something extemely beneficial (rewarding) to the fleet, one should have the risk to lose it.
|
shadowace00007
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 21:14:00 -
[18]
Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o It's not a t3-specific problem. A command ship with 6 warfare links that is sitting next to a pos or station and is giving all that nice bonuses without taking any risk, is a broken game mechanics as well.
Making the bonus only count for ships on the same grind would fix both and restore the risk-vs-reward equation: if one brings something extremely beneficial (rewarding) to the fleet, one should have the risk to lose it.
I agree but you only have this problem if your in someones space. because they can use alts to sit there. but if your attacking you have to pick between the bonuses with a loss of DPS E warfare or anything else a normal ship could bring.
Its kinda like a home field advantage.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 22:02:00 -
[19]
Funny, ECCM finally has a use, and you want it nerfed.
|
Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 22:04:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Marlona Sky Funny, ECCM finally has a use, and you want it nerfed.
ECCM has a use. it stops you from being ECMmed. That's what it's DESIGNED for.
That you can use it to decrease the chance of being probed, is a (most likely designed) side effect. However, it shouldn't make an unprobable fleet booster. ---
Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser/Assembler: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ http://gemblog.nl/assembler/
Originally by: De'Veldrin Welcome to the ****ing sandbox
|
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 01:46:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Torothanax I don't think any ship should be unprobeable. Nothing is completely undetectable. I think the same of cloaks.
As long as high-sec suicide ganking is still allowed, unprobeable ships should be allowed too. Yes, wouldn't that be lovely, if the people trying to keep themselves safe from you would no longer be able to do so? Well, you're not getting that. :P And your 0.0 tears mean nothing to me. Seriously; I'm looking at this from a high-sec missioner perspective: and in that scenario, well, what happens in 0.0 should stay in 0.0, really.
Very NOT supported.
Welcome to eve. No one is supposed to be completely safe unless they never undock. BTW I gave up null a couple years ago. I live in low sec.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 02:59:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ranka Mei on 08/01/2011 03:04:10
Originally by: Torothanax
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Torothanax I don't think any ship should be unprobeable. Nothing is completely undetectable. I think the same of cloaks.
As long as high-sec suicide ganking is still allowed, unprobeable ships should be allowed too. Yes, wouldn't that be lovely, if the people trying to keep themselves safe from you would no longer be able to do so? Well, you're not getting that. :P And your 0.0 tears mean nothing to me. Seriously; I'm looking at this from a high-sec missioner perspective: and in that scenario, well, what happens in 0.0 should stay in 0.0, really.
Very NOT supported.
Welcome to eve. No one is supposed to be completely safe unless they never undock. BTW I gave up null a couple years ago. I live in low sec.
EVE is a fairly balanced game. For almost every form of attack there's a counter. Getting warp-scrambled? Use warp core stabs! Being neuted? Use cap boosters! Getting probed down? Fly an unprobeable ship! You get the gist. If you want to introduce a great disturbance in the Force, then it should cost you too, lest the game becomes unbalanced. Which is why I brought up high-sec suicide-ganking. The "Just stay docked!" argument sounds cute, for sure; but what you're really after is just nerfing one side (in this case, the defending party). And, like I said, you're not getting that. :P
Also, much like you're trying to make EVE unsafe for everyone else, everyone else should stay allowed to try and make themselves safe from you. Turnabout is fair play. Don't be that cat who complains that the mice are running away. :)
Furthermore, people can warp to a safespot and cloak, and be completely safe. Naturally, they can't do much there, but it's working as intended. Like flying an unprobable ship costs the pilot thereof dearly, gimping wise. Again, working as intended. --
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 07:00:00 -
[23]
Propose a COUNTER for those fleet boosters not on grid.. don't nerf the unprobeable feature for all other niches (mission running in low sec). support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 11:10:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Karn Velora This to me sounds more like a problem with off-grid bonuses than with unprobable ships...[/b]
Spot on, gang-links are not only a huge force multiplier but as things are now the pilot doesn't even have to be there, hell they can even be AFK. Nothing else in Eve them is able to a affect a battle without being there. Closest thing is assigned fighters but they require a tether on-grid, are fairly pricey and do not actually do that much except in huge swarms.
Originally by: Tres Farmer Propose a COUNTER for those fleet boosters not on grid.. don't nerf the unprobeable feature for all other niches (mission running in low sec).
That would be the on-grid requirement, the unprobable nature is completely irrelevant to the problem at large.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 11:16:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 08/01/2011 11:16:23
Originally by: Gemberslaafje
Originally by: Marlona Sky Funny, ECCM finally has a use, and you want it nerfed.
ECCM has a use. it stops you from being ECMmed.
^^ LOL!!!!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |