EVE Search - Off grid boosting

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Off grid boosting

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Maggeridon Thoraz Reconfiguration Nation Existential Anxiety 55	Posted - 2013.03.28 03:37:00 - [31] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Simply moving the link bonus from the industrial core to the hull (you know, the same as for every other command ship in the game, removing the special case for the Rorqual) will address this issue. What about the mining mindlink then ? becomes worthless as well for roqualpilots
Calathorn Virpio ZionTCD Legacy Rising 28	Posted - 2013.03.28 03:45:00 - [32] - Quote DrHekki wrote: Any one got a link on CCP's intention regarding OGB's? don't even know what it is CCP are the French gate camping=/=PVP everything else is fair game
Katran Luftschreck Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps 1228	Posted - 2013.03.28 03:48:00 - [33] - Quote Do extra accounts to create OGM specialist toons generate revenue for CCP? There's your answer. Live Events are neither.
Aralieus Shadowbane Syndicate 89	Posted - 2013.03.28 04:24:00 - [34] - Quote Command and conquer When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships. They are seriously lacking at the moment for two reasons: first, regular tier 2 battlecruisers mostly fill the same combat role for less expensive operational costs, and second, tech 3 hulls are just plain better at gang link boosting. Our goal is to make them appealing to fly as a whole, not something you keep inside a POS forcefield while watching your favorite TV show. For this reason, we want: Tech 3 ships to be able to carry more gang links at once than Command Ships, but with less effect Tech 3 ships to be able to carry some gang links while still maintaining some combat capability Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) - if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls. All Command Ships to have a combat role on the field on top of having the possibility to be fit for a pure fleet commanding platform. What does that mean in practice? We are removing the distinction between GÇ£fleetGÇ¥ and GÇ£fieldGÇ¥ Command Ships. All of them will now have 3% bonuses to two Warfare Link fields and be able to fit three warfare link modules simultaneously (instead of 3 for fleet versions only). That also means that the previous fleet Command Ships will be rebalanced to fit combat roles. Want to use an Eos as a truly effective drone ship? You can. Or the Damnation as a sexy Khanid missile platform beast? Be our guest. All that matters is the specialization choices you make before undocking by deciding to fit gang links or not, not something forced to you from the arbitrary "field" versus "fleet" hull. Tech 3 treatment will focus on making them more generalized. Their Warfare Link bonuses will be reduced from 5% to 2% effectiveness; however they will have bonuses to three racial Warfare Link fields while being able to fit three Warfare Link modules simultaneously. As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble. Source: Back to the Balancing Future Devblog 06.11.2012 14:49 By CCP Ytterbium HTH Oderint Dum Metuant
Diesel47 Bad Men Ltd. 576	Posted - 2013.03.28 06:19:00 - [35] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Day after the OGB nerf: Interceptor pilots complain that they don't get bonuses after warping after targets ahead of the fleet Other pilots complain about losing bonuses when the grid breaks T3 now become completely useless for boosting due to an inability to fit a tank while fitting multiple links Smaller groups complain about the one advantage they might have had getting blasted out of the sky whenever trying to face larger groups because it's now being forced into the line of fire Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid Rorqual pilots complain about being completely useless now for anything except ore compression since nobody dares boosting on-grid with one People agree that forcing boosting on-grid didn't actually solve anyone's problems and merely created more This. I hope CCP never fixes it. I also hope that they make it not possible to activate a gang boost module inside a POS. I think it would be a simple change. activationInPos == 0; Or whatever it is.
Irya Boone TIPIAKS 220	Posted - 2013.03.28 08:07:00 - [36] - Quote There Will be salty, juicy tears :) RENAME null sec systems With the name of REAL Universe Stellar Name like KOI-730 etc etc It will be awesome. Need Black Ops be able to FIT cover ops cloaking device !!!
DrHekki Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 3	Posted - 2013.03.28 19:05:00 - [37] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: DrHekki wrote: OGB-ing should be a "direct" thing. OGB should be that you have to choose who they boost and in all honesty I couldn't care if it was in a pos or not. By the same argument that time in the game should be rewarded more if someone has taken then time to train a character to deliver specific boosts then this too should also be rewarded. I think the solution is to limit how many and who can receive boosts. OGB has fleet options that says "boost this guys warp disrupt range", "Boost this guys resistance", imagine having an active OGB that is a specialist role and not one to sit in space "somewhere" delivering boosts. (picture the booster toggling who is to receive boost in essence changing the boostered in relations to the environment) I would like to add that I think if someone is getting boosts Quote: it should be known to all in the vicinity and since the boosts are being directed at someone and not just anyone, the boost amount should be increased. Nobody complains then How does this change the current practice of "solo" PvPers being boosted by an OGB alt who is parked in a POS and never touched? In all things eve you point out a very small number of people who play their game this way but I've highlighted the change that perhaps you skipped over. If you engage a target you know is being boostered and die that's your problem.
Kirluin Hedion University Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2013.03.28 21:01:00 - [38] - Quote It would be interesting to see boosts not only be on-grid with a radius, but also limited to your squad. then formations would matter, staying with your wingmen would be important. The fleet/wing/squad system would have meaning beyond a mechanic thats really only used to manage raw fleet size. fleets with smarter wing/squad composition would have an advantage over those that dont positional space tactics beyond 'target called, f1'
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 4468	Posted - 2013.03.28 21:54:00 - [39] - Quote Kirluin wrote: It would be interesting to see boosts not only be on-grid with a radius, but also limited to your squad. then formations would matter, staying with your wingmen would be important. The fleet/wing/squad system would have meaning beyond a mechanic thats really only used to manage raw fleet size. fleets with smarter wing/squad composition would have an advantage over those that dont positional space tactics beyond 'target called, f1' No. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix
DrHekki Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2013.03.29 01:29:00 - [40] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Kirluin wrote: It would be interesting to see boosts not only be on-grid with a radius, but also limited to your squad. then formations would matter, staying with your wingmen would be important. The fleet/wing/squad system would have meaning beyond a mechanic thats really only used to manage raw fleet size. fleets with smarter wing/squad composition would have an advantage over those that dont positional space tactics beyond 'target called, f1' No. I agree with James. Radius boosting is just stupid. Just limit the number that receive the boost and make it known in overview that this dude is receiving a little boosting love and everyone is happy. Like I said I couldn't care less that the booster is safe in a pos when it becomes a disadvantage for me is when there are tons of people receiving the boost from the ship safe in a pos.
Solhild Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 919	Posted - 2013.03.29 08:15:00 - [41] - Quote I hope CCP do something radical like introduce a boost receiving rig. No boost at all unless you have the rig fitted
pussnheels The Fiction Factory 1073	Posted - 2013.03.29 08:50:00 - [42] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: Small gang and solo PVPers still unable to compete with people using boosting alts because these alts are still out of reach, albeit being on-grid At least you'll be able to see that your target has boosts. This also provides home-ground advantage. James Amril-Kesh wrote: Rorqual pilots complain about being completely useless now for anything except ore compression since nobody dares boosting on-grid with one Simply moving the link bonus from the industrial core to the hull (you know, the same as for every other command ship in the game, removing the special case for the Rorqual) will address this issue. James Amril-Kesh wrote: People agree that forcing boosting on-grid didn't actually solve anyone's problems and merely created more The issues being created are tactical in nature, and sure beat having to blow up a POS just to get to that "solo" PvPer's OGB. you ever flown a rorqual ? that thing is slower than a turtle even if you plce the boost to the hull still nobody will risk a 3 billion ship on grid near a belt basicly you are left with a overpriced jumpfreighter and not even a good one i always thought CCP wanted to boost nullsec industry beside moongoo not kill it I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20251023/0204
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.