Pages: [1] :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1605
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
This suggestion solves the following problems with gang links:
- brings links on grid without the need to code new mechanics - nerfs links without making them obsolete, putting all the precious SP in leadership into better use than now - makes boosting and active and interesting gameplay role in a fleet, instead of being a job for alts - makes ongrid links more viable for small gangs, promoting upengaging
Links as Projected Assistance Modules
Instead of fire-and-forget system-wide boosts, gang links are turned into normal modules, used just like remote repair, remote sebo and remote ECCM.
The main reasons are the need to kill OGBs and kill boring alt-gameplay. Currently players are excited to fly into combat as fighters, recons, logistics and scouts, but show a single person that wants to be an off-grid booster :D This suggestion would turn a gang booster into a logistics-type (but more complex), very active and vital role in a small gang, and good boosting could mean the difference between winning and losing.
- link fitting requirements are reduced so you can fit a full high rack of links on a CS - their base stats are bit lower, but can be overheated to be higher - only one module of a kind can be activated on one ship (so no triple Passive Defense IIs, but as many different links as you can) - command processor requirement is removed
Range is something that requires careful consideration. I feel it should probably be less than logi and certainly less than EWAR range to enforce tactical decisions instead of just working your boost magic from 100km.
In addition to these targeted high-slot modules, there would ECM-burst style small (<10km?) AOE midslot boosting modules, with similar charge mechanics as ASBs. These would create a short-lived sphere of linky love around the boosting ship. These would be harder to fit and give lesser boosts.
Command ships would need to be adjusted to be able to keep up with their boosted mates, and this would mean removing all their offensive bonuses to keep things in balance.
This obviously favours small gangs, but nothing prevents large fleets to bring a wing of space bards. And it's easy to see that focusing boosting on kingpin ships (logi, tackle) and wings would still yield good results in large fleets.
I like this idea because it brings more complexity into battlefield, more tactical stuff to consider and a new, interesting fleet role using existing base mechanics.
ߦéhat do you think?
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm not a fan.
Quite aside from obviously benefiting armor tanking over shield tanking (they are targeted modules, so you could jam command ships to totally remove their bonuses and thus ECCM is an absolute requirement, and the damnation has 3 vacant med-slots, while the vulture has none) the concept of them being targeted seems to drop them from the actual role of being 'gang assist' into being 'single person' assist.
The idea of making a bubble around the command ship that projects the gang-assist effect is better, but not great either. Think about it for a minute: Fights have become very mobile these days. Being able to kite range, or close range very quickly is what makes battlecruisers and t3s and similar. With command ships being generally much slower than their more nimble compatriots, any bubble range is going to make using them on the field near impossible.
We live in a world of 100km web range. It's just a fact of life. If the gang is milling around the command ship, it is going to get webbed and that will give the fleet in question two bad choice. Either leave it behind, and get no bonuses, or stay still and face the full might of return fire. Neither works well for smaller ships.
You idea STRONGLY benefits armor tanking, and static fleets, battleships particularly.
Is that a bad thing ? Perhaps not. I for one wish there were more battleship fights, they are awesome. But it's not a balanced answer to exclude command ships from being in small mobile gangs. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1611
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 18:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
I did mention that CSes would need to be adjusted to keep up with their gang. This would mean making speed/shield boosting ships much faster, and armor boosting ships much tankier. Slot layout changes would obviously be needed as well. So my idea does not work out of the box just applied to current CSes as they are.
Not single person assist, but handful-person assist. This created the need for tactical decision-making, which ships are you going to boost when you can't boost them all? I think this is more interesting and player-skill elevating than passive, system-wide boosts.
As what comes to the necessity of remaining in contact with your fleet, aren't Scimis and Basis viable logis for mobile fleets? In order to benefit tanking of shield fleet, a Vulture would need to be able to boost their logi ships. Anyway, mobile CSes would need to be more mobile than now.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
949
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 18:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Well, that's one way to make sure they're never used in fleet fights again. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1615
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 18:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Are you sure? What about having a Damnation pilot just boosting your Guardians with armor and info links, and an Eos (iknowrite, lol) boosting your recons?
What you would loose in a large fleet is eg. the fleetwide HP boosts
But yes, this change would benefit small gangs much more than large fleets, and I see this as very positive thing. Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
949
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Roime wrote:Are you sure? What about having a Damnation pilot just boosting your Guardians with armor and info links, and an Eos (iknowrite, lol) boosting your recons?
What you would loose in a large fleet is eg. the fleetwide HP boosts
But yes, this change would benefit small gangs much more than large fleets, and I see this as very positive thing.
Large fleets is the kind I was referring to. No benefits whatsoever for them, and as was already mentioned, all you need to do is ECM or damp the enemy command ship, and that's their bonuses gone. |

Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
84
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 22:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
best way to ask ccp to kill the game and the company.gg    |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1620
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 01:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Danika,
I doubt that people are terribly against being able to actually fight enemy links, which is not currently very easy (Virtue set), or even impossible (POS boosters). Large fleets could still get benefits from boosting selected ships, but large fleets already have an advantage over small ones, without links.
Recoil,
how exactly would this killl the game and CCP?
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Sean Parisi
Meridian Commonwealth
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 03:31:00 -
[9] - Quote
I believe changing grids to being on grid would help out drastically. While providing sub-level command ships (frigate, destroyers and cruiser variants). This would encourage people to use gang links for multiple engagement scenario's while not putting forward the loss of a battle cruiser for a small gang frigate roam.
That being said, I would definitely like to see more modules that are similar to that of tracking links, remote sensor boosters, etc. Something that can be projected onto another ship in order to buff it. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1626
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 10:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
From what I've read, CCP would have changed the links to on-grid only, but ran into some technical issues.
Why not go this easy way, and change them to favor small gangs more at the same time- while creating new, challenging gameplay :)
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1635
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Just wanted to repeat that this is indeed the best solution to the gang link issue  Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1658
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Perfect solution to a pressing problem! Hot!
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
This hurts so much more than it helps |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1659
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
What does it hurt exactly?
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
Where do I begin? The separation of field and fleet command ships is based (to an extent) on the ship participating in the fight (field command) and being at a safer spot (fleet command). Making it require someone to be on grid and having the bonus be projected nerfs fleet command ships along with large scale fleets where bonuses are more common and really matter. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1659
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
Most common complaint seen in many years is the ability to boost a fleet off grid, and the only reason it is still possible is purely technical according to CCP. See latest CSM minutes for confirmation, they haven't solved it in code. Projected boosting works around this by using existing mechanics. So forcing links on grid is hardly a downside of my suggestion, it is one of the goals.
Regarding large fleets- assuming both sides have an OGB, do the bonuses really matter? Compare to having them on grid, and more dependent on actual player actions would create more differences.
And if as a side effect (due to links getting primaried early) they wouldn't be viable in large fleets, neither side would be using links. I'm aware that this suggestion favours small gangs with link characters, but not in the currently imbalanced way that allows for example POS boosters.
You would have link players whose player skills matter in a small gang fight- real human interaction, instead of asset-like alts.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
People would still use alts to add more dps on the field while boosting but having it be projected nerfs it for large fleets because if only one ship at a time receives bonuses no one will ise command ships anymore |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1659
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ok let's assume the current Damnation, it has 7 high slots. It would be able to use 7 of these new highslot links (easier to fit than current ones) to boost 7 ships simultaneosly, for example giving rep amount bonuses to 7 Guardians. Got more Guards? Bring another Damnation. Orbit your logi anchor and activate an AOE Sensor strength midslot link to boost all the Guards in the ball against Falcons. Overheat your links to feed more juice to ships that need it.
Same with long tackle, have a Proteus boost other Prots/Lachs to gain more point range.
Just quick examples, link selection and projecting would force more decision making when preparing fleets and coordination on the battlefield.
This would make links very much like logi- provide benefits to ships that currently need it, you are not repping the whole fleet from a safe spot either.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
But them becoming more logi like doesn't make it a good thing, and the fact that the main bonus for fleet command ships is being able to use 3 links at once which would put too big of a gap between two ships under the same classification |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1663
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
Those hull bonuses would need to be adjusted, like mentioned in the OP.
Making them like logi would indeed make this a good thing :)
Player skill affecting events > fire & forget offgrid alts Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |

Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
On field is the most change I, and what I think people who use command ships would accept |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1728
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 07:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
On-grid links that don't benefit the large fleets as much as small gangs = win
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |

Malcorian Vandsteidt
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 15:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
Roime wrote:This suggestion solves the following problems with gang links:
- brings links on grid without the need to code new mechanics - nerfs links without making them obsolete, putting all the precious SP in leadership into better use than now - makes boosting and active and interesting gameplay role in a fleet, instead of being a job for alts - makes ongrid links more viable for small gangs, promoting upengaging
Links as Projected Assistance Modules
Instead of fire-and-forget system-wide boosts, gang links are turned into normal modules, used just like remote repair, remote sebo and remote ECCM.
The main reasons are the need to kill OGBs and kill boring alt-gameplay. Currently players are excited to fly into combat as fighters, recons, logistics and scouts, but show a single person that wants to be an off-grid booster :D This suggestion would turn a gang booster into a logistics-type (but more complex), very active and vital role in a small gang, and good boosting could mean the difference between winning and losing.
- link fitting requirements are reduced so you can fit a full high rack of links on a CS - their base stats are bit lower, but can be overheated to be higher - only one module of a kind can be activated on one ship (so no triple Passive Defense IIs, but as many different links as you can) - command processor requirement is removed
Range is something that requires careful consideration. I feel it should probably be less than logi and certainly less than EWAR range to enforce tactical decisions instead of just working your boost magic from 100km.
In addition to these targeted high-slot modules, there would ECM-burst style small (<10km?) AOE midslot boosting modules, with similar charge mechanics as ASBs. These would create a short-lived sphere of linky love around the boosting ship. These would be harder to fit and give lesser boosts.
Command ships would need to be adjusted to be able to keep up with their boosted mates, and this would mean removing all their offensive bonuses to keep things in balance.
This obviously favours small gangs, but nothing prevents large fleets to bring a wing of space bards. And it's easy to see that focusing boosting on kingpin ships (logi, tackle) and wings would still yield good results in large fleets.
I like this idea because it brings more complexity into battlefield, more tactical stuff to consider and a new, interesting fleet role using existing base mechanics.
ߦéhat do you think?
This Idea is excellent... For PvP.
However you are forgetting ships like the Orca and the Rorq, and Industrial ships in general and their Large mining fleets. Your proposal Bennefits the Pvpers, however it severely cripples the Industrial individuals.
* Severely Cripples the Orca which only has 3 high slots, (And the Rorq but not as badly as it has 6) as at least one of these slots must be a Tractor beam (generally speaking), and one on the Rorq must be the Industrial recon Mod and another a Tractor leaving only 4 slots for command bonuses. (Which again can only boost one ship each with one bonus thus crippling entire fleets)
* Since the Rorq and the Orca have no mining Capabilities, this effectively Cripples the fleet as you's need 1 Orca for every 2 ships, and one Rorq for every 4 ships. (Less if you want to give each ship mre then one bonus) Which basically makes mining with fleet bonuses pointless and VERY expensive. To effective bonus's with this you would need Fully 75% of the fleet to be Indy Command ships which can't mine. So your income in minerals would fall from 90% to a mere 25%.
**** The above would also increase ship and module prices due to the lower income of minerals. The value of which would skyrocket, You probably talking about a 75% increase in price per ship/Mod/etc. Mineral prices would also Skyrocket, and the Orca and Rorq would see very little use in game afterwords except maybe as Haulers (And in the Rorqs case a compressor).
* Means a Mining Fleet can only consist of 2 - 4 Mining Vessels at most per Orca/Rorq, and only receive 1 Bonus each, (Since you have to target the ship). For most mining fleets this is Impractical at best, and completely useless at worst.
* Basically turns the Orca and the Rorq, into a mini freighters instead of an Industrial Command/Capital Ships.
My question to you is:
What do you propose for industrial ships in Order to keep the Orca and Rorq inline with the rest of the command ships, while retaining their cargo capacity as well as their Industrial Command and functions abilities? |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
1734
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 16:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
Good point, and I suggest the same as most gang link suggestions do- let Mining links work off grid like currently.
Them being off grid does not cause any unfair situations.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |

Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 16:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
They should not ever be targeted modules, as they're designed to support a fleet. However, getting them on grid is important. A smart-bomb style AOE effect for in-fleet ships is (in my mind) the only way to make it work without leaving it to be heavily and strangely manipulated with grid-fu.
Command ships and battlecruisers with 30km AOE fields will enable a reason to have more than one ship with links (to ensure full coverage). Such a change would not necessarily break industry links (they could be given a base 100km range or more to cover a full belt).
Back to the targetted links. Unless they offer massive boosts, 1 command ship and 3 drakes will not be as good as 4 drakes, meaning they'll be underpowered right out of the gate. DirectX 11, it's not rocket appliance! |

Kuro Bon
Running with Knives Nexus Fleet
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 02:27:00 -
[26] - Quote
+1 elegant. Simple. Strategic. Love it.
I especially like the decisions which result. Which tackler gets range and scan res bonuses and from whom?
I think it might make sense to remove or diminish hull boost bonuses with this design. That would make it more difficult to determine which ship was the booster. You'd have to identify it by boost effect visual instead of merely looking at ship types. Command ships can be differentiated by having more utility high slots for these boost modules.
Even if the details are all wrong.. this idea is a winner. 100M ISK per hour is about $3US an hour. -áIt's more efficient to work at starbucks.-á Playing the game doesn't advance skills, kinda like ProgressQuest. |

Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2816
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 03:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
Roime wrote:ߦéhat do you think?
I'm all for nerfing links, but that's not really exciting to me. I've seen mechanics like that before and they've never really been that pleasant.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|

Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
542
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 10:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
I agree with adjusting off grid boosting.... instead of just removing it all together.
But I don't like these ideas. |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
2269
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 10:18:00 -
[29] - Quote
I like these ideas, +1!
OP is not only staggeringly handsome, but also smart. Props!
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |