| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
844
   |
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Call Rollard wrote:I personally think that Off Grid Boosting should remain for mining etc, Rorq's are too risky to bring into a site.
But then in Combat, you require on-grid boosts for the boosting modules, so Vulture, Loki etc. Cov ops boosting must not be cloaked to give boosts.
For combat. I believe the boosting modules must be used on-grid, however your general boosting levels can be done offgrid.
Comment on this suggestion.
Wouldn't you love to do all your carebear activities without leaving your pos? Like for exemple offgrid mining? Sarcasm off.
Remove all type of OGB from the game.
The Tears Must Flow |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
845
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:
So you think that because someone can't be arsed to put in the time to train a Rorq pilot properly, that they should be essentially invulnerable?
POS bashing to kill a booster? That just doesn't sit right with me.
I really have no idea what they hell you're going on about. Time to train a Rorqual doesn't make any difference to it being a massive brick that's going to get hot-dropped and popped, at 2.5b a go.
And? What's the problem again? That's the whole reason why their are ships in space, to be blown up.
The Tears Must Flow |
Evei Shard
193
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:07:00 -
[33] - Quote
In my own opinion, I see two potential options to solve the problem.
Option A) Off grid boosting is just fine as it is, but make non-corp/non-alliance fleet members legal targets during wartime. OGB is used quite often in high-sec wars, and, unlike null, is a risk-free tactic.
Option B) Remove OGB completely, and then rework the Rorqual and Orca so they can either fill other roles, or make them more viable in a belt. I'm not completely sure, but do you even need scramblers currently to prevent a Rorqual from warping? Just bump it out of alignment with a BC or BS.
Profit favors the prepared |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
293
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:
And? What's the problem again? That's the whole reason why their are ships in space, to be blown up.
It's not a problem. It's just that only an idiot uses one on-grid when mining. My point: Nobody will bother, might as well delete the ships from the game. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
2902
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:11:00 -
[35] - Quote
So the game can't lose OGB because of legacy?
Why not an OGB jamming module?
And let that be OG too. |
Evei Shard
193
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:
And? What's the problem again? That's the whole reason why their are ships in space, to be blown up.
It's not a problem. It's just that only an idiot uses one on-grid when mining. My point: Nobody will bother, might as well delete the ships from the game.
They can be repurposed if needed and still be useful.
Examples (horrible ones, but examples):
Drop the ore hold out of the Orca, and shift the excess to the ship maintenance bay and the cargohold/fleet hangar (with the bulk going to the ship maintenance bay). The Orca fills a high-sec freighter role with the focus on carrying ships that are already fitted, and remove the ability to plastic wrap fitted ships.
Require the Rorqual to be at a POS, and turn it into a mobile refinery (as I suggested in the F&I forum). Make it capable of high level refining ability using a second type of industrial core. Pilots have the option of ore compression (for transport to a full refinery), or refining on the spot (for a %5 or %10 loss in refine).
Profit favors the prepared |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC
StructureDamage
569
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
I propose that we make boosting on-grid and move PVP off-grid, instead. Imagine two Lokis staring each other down at the sun while their fleets warred from within the safety of their POS shields.
It would be awesome.
(More seriously, you could fix a lot of the problems with the Rorqual by revisiting its design, because I don't like the idea that the solution to its being 100% vulnerable if deployed is that it should be 100% safe, instead.)
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Lara Dantreb
Reisende des Schwarzschild Grenze
19
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
Off Grid Boosting is one of the things that bothers me the least.
I believe it's hard to change and I prefer devs focusing on more entertaining stuff (POS revamp, more contents, new nullsec space, new subsystems, ship revamp)
If one needs a booster to kill my ship, it's really not my problem. (This game is unfair by nature, and must remain unfair)
In fact I'm much more concerned by ISBoxing which is a disguised way of botting...
----á-á Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005-á ---
--- -á-á-á-á-á-á BUT NOT ATM :)-á-á-á --- |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
428
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:29:00 -
[39] - Quote
Here's what I think might make OGB more acceptable:
1. OGB cannot be conducted from inside a POS bubble. Sorry, but your **** should be available to be killed.
2. OGB should not be the fun, always-on, let's be logged in 23/7 for no in-game cost behind our POS bubble setup. Ganglink modules should enjoy a fuel cost. A lot of fuel cost. Burn that liquid ozone. Or better, racial fuel types appropriate to each set of links. Ganglinks should also come with both a timer and a cooldown. Ten minutes on, ten minutes off, or something of that nature. As long as a boosting ship is under an active module timer, the ship is unable to dock, unable to warp, and unable to activate jump gates, acceleration gates, jump to a cyno or be bridged. The ship is effectively married to that system for the next 10 minutes. The pilot may not eject. The ship may move under normal propulsion and prop mods, and engage in combat as normal.
3. The ship should bloat up for scanning purposes. Activating a ganglink should put you in danger of being probed down by anyone with a modicum of skills; no more ECCM games or other nonsense that would hinder someone without max skills, tons of modules, or implants. Boost off-grid if you must, but never more enjoy the safety of being unable to be found/****** with.
You want to run constant links, you bring more than one booster; this is not a problem for some larger alliances/fleets, but begins to cut down on systems with resident booster alts and 'elite solo' nonsense. Links would be most effective at the beginning of a fight, or could be used strategically in the event of a tipping point if someone can bring only one booster into play.
Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for faction warfare solo & small gang frigate PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15042
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
Poe's law is strong in this one.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
|
Nikolai Lachance
Happy Wheels Logistics
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 17:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
I'm really enjoying how most people appear to be missing the very obvious irony and sarcasm dripping off of the original post.
I also love how hysterical some people are getting about the suggestion that making some ships unable to provide their massive benefits without any risk makes them completely useless and that EVE players are so risk averse that they won't use these ships anymore. It's like suggesting no one would ever try to transport PLEX in a frigate.
I feel that no one inside a POS shield should be able to participate in boosting activities in their fleet. That means if they are a designated booster they do nothing; if they are a squad/wing/fleet leader they pass no boosts, and if none of these, they receive no boosts. You want Rorqual boosts? Great. Figure out how to defend it.
I don't necessarily think off-grid boosting should be eliminated, but I do think there should be incentives to boosting on-grid, such as having on-grid boosts be more effective (or conversely, make off-gird boosts less effective). Also, activating boosting modules should run the weapons timer, and various flags should pass to boosting ships in fleet. However, I'm not sure how this flag passing mechanic would work since boosting isn't something that requires a target. But, I'm sure someone could figure it out.
|
Evei Shard
193
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 18:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
Nikolai Lachance wrote: You want Rorqual boosts? Great. Figure out how to defend it.
Until a Rorqual has the offensive capabilities of a dred or a carrier, it is pointless to have it in a belt.
For every pilot you have sitting there "defending" it, you lose millions of isk/hour.
Make your fantasy defense fleet 3 or more ships, and the Rorqual becomes irrelevant, simply because you could have those 3 ships sit in their own mining vessels and wind up making more isk/hour without the boosts. Once again, the Rorq would be rendered to POS duty, unless you intend to remove the industrial module completely, which would remove all usability beyond storage.
Risking a billion isk worth of mining vessels that have an align/warp time that is somewhere this side of a year and half is far more profitable than risking 3billion+ of Rorqual for lower yield because you have another billion isk worth of PvP ships sitting doing nothing.
Profit favors the prepared |
baltec1
Bat Country
6960
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 18:22:00 -
[43] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:
Until a Rorqual has the offensive capabilities of a dred or a carrier, it is pointless to have it in a belt.
Battle Rorquals are a real thing. The problem is PL |
Tomba
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 18:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
The solution to off grid alt boosting is quite simple.
On grid self boosting for everyone else...
Tomba
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
293
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 18:30:00 -
[45] - Quote
Nikolai Lachance wrote:I'm really enjoying how most people appear to be missing the very obvious irony and sarcasm dripping off of the original post.
I didn't miss it.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
653
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:26:00 -
[46] - Quote
Boosting off-grid, or not at all.
GTFO blob noobs. |
Ifly Uwalk
Empire Tax Collection Agency
777
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:29:00 -
[47] - Quote
Lots of people in this thread are equating OGB with POS-boosting. Just sayin'.
Of course those same people are too stoopit to understand the meaning of the word "equate" so w/e.
OGB is fine. POS-boosting must diaf. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
653
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:30:00 -
[48] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:ITT: Lots of people who haven't read the OP. And by "read" I really mean "understood", I'm just being polite.
Just goes to show how smart the people arguing about OGBs are. Enough reason for CCP to ignore them IMO. |
SpoonRECKLESS
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
13
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
You want to fix off grid boosting. Step one only allow t3s to off grid boost for pvp . Step two. Give only 3 to 4% boost compared to commnd ships.3 give penitlies to t3 boosting like big sigs for probing out easy. Make command ships give great wonderfull boost only on grid. I see why people hate it but I see how important this is for pvp. larger gangs cant over power the smaller better fc gang when they have boost.I get the so called "soloer" who uses off grid booster. Make it hard for them make the t3 stick out like a fat moon on probes.Also dont allow pvp links be boosting inside a pos shield.Only the mining links should be able to do it.Then again I may be wrong with my ideas just my input. |
Adunh Slavy
1013
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
SpoonRECKLESS wrote:
Step one ...
Step one, devise an idea that can be coded in such a way as to not create lag that also does not kill off fleet boosting. Adding more variables fails step one. |
|
|
Mistress Lilu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
187
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 19:58:00 -
[51] - Quote
Look at all the toons in big blobby blob corps/alliances saying OGB should be killed.
I do not think anyone in their right mind, who does small gang pvp, will agree to getting rid of OGB, even for solo people who take on gangs that outnumber them 3v1 or more.
As I have stated, this is a push from the big alliances and corps that can field 50+ or 200+ gangs to push links to ongrid.
What a joke that is.
When small gang pvp'ers go agains the odds, they need the little advantage that is provided by the links, just like the BLOBS HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF FIELDING 50+ WITH, 10 LOGI AND 4 OR 5 ECM SHIPS.
Take your head out of the ground. For those who say, links are not solo, gtfo, any adtvantage that does not provide ECM or DPS is considered solo, if thats your argument, than go to battle nude, no boosts, no drugs, no faction mods. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3713
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:08:00 -
[52] - Quote
Mistress Lilu wrote:Look at all the toons in big blobby blob corps/alliances saying OGB should be killed.
I do not think anyone in their right mind, who does small gang pvp, will agree to getting rid of OGB, even for solo people who take on gangs that outnumber them 3v1 or more.
As I have stated, this is a push from the big alliances and corps that can field 50+ or 200+ gangs to push links to ongrid.
What a joke that is.
When small gang pvp'ers go agains the odds, they need the little advantage that is provided by the links, just like the BLOBS HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF FIELDING 50+ WITH, 10 LOGI AND 4 OR 5 ECM SHIPS.
Take your head out of the ground. For those who say, links are not solo, gtfo, any adtvantage that does not provide ECM or DPS is considered solo, if thats your argument, than go to battle nude, no boosts, no drugs, no faction mods.
I like how the 50+ man gang somehow forgot to add +1 booster alt.
There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
TEST Defence, Please Ignore |
Draconic Slayer
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:15:00 -
[53] - Quote
All these people saying "on grid or not at all" are just people who aren't able to use them because they either lack the skills to do it or the ISK to buy the ships/modules needed. OGB is fine, but I agree with the idea to make it so that the activation of the warfare link modules blooms your signature radius. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux
Phobia.
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:19:00 -
[54] - Quote
Getting rid of OGB only benefits those who can gather up enough logi to support the links = Large corps/alliances.
Leaving OGB benefits everyone..
Leave it be and concentrate on balancing ECM, something CCP has been ignoring for a long time. |
Solhild
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1062
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:24:00 -
[55] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Benjen Gelade wrote:The funny thing is, whilst you were trying to frame the '1,2,3' scenario as totally unfair and unjust, with only the mentally sick thinking it is a realistic way for battles to work, I actually thought it made perfect sense....
I guess I better get my head examined It's like asking CCP to make doomsday damage scale with the amount of people in your fleet. It's that bad of an idea. But of course everyone has his own agenda so I doubt I'll be changing the minds of people who would actively benefit from this stupid proposed change.
Agree, and a great initial point too. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
865
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
Mr M wrote:No, you're wrong. No risk, no gain. No boosting ship on grid, no boost.
This.
OGB mechanics make it so people have Faction/mindlinks fitted toons/T3's full of T2 links kissing the POS with 0 risk loosing it while directly boosting fights and thus a game changer but with absolutely no risk at all.
Mining is a whole other story because Rorkal is plain bad for doing anything else than compress **** sit at a pos or stay dock, take the system wide links away from it and there will be no point on using Rorkals, the exception could still be made for Rorkal mining links only I would care less about this, wouldn't make a change at all for high sec miners anyway.
OGB has to go away or nerf to the ground and beyond.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
Whores in space
173
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:28:00 -
[57] - Quote
I support Offgrid boosting for all of the professions eve.
Leadership skills are extremely unique in the sense that only 2 ship types require them. Furthermore a good boosting alt has a minimum of 10,000,000 SP in just leadership. Those skills dont help you defend yourself, they dont make you go faster, and they sure as hell dont make you invincible. They just allow you to better to help a FLEET. Leadership skills are so out of the way the average pilot doesn't even train them......
CCP should leave boosting alone all together. What other mods in eve are so unique that in order to function properly they have to be trained for 2 years?
Don't punish the people that went out of their way to get a leadership alt. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux
Phobia.
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:32:00 -
[58] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Mr M wrote:No, you're wrong. No risk, no gain. No boosting ship on grid, no boost. This. OGB mechanics make it so people have Faction/mindlinks fitted toons/T3's full of T2 links kissing the POS with 0 risk loosing it while directly boosting fights and thus a game changer but with absolutely no risk at all. Mining is a whole other story because Rorkal is plain bad for doing anything else than compress **** sit at a pos or stay dock, take the system wide links away from it and there will be no point on using Rorkals, the exception could still be made for Rorkal mining links only I would care less about this, wouldn't make a change at all for high sec miners anyway. OGB has to go away or nerf to the ground and beyond.
People do loose link ships you know..
They are probable, there's no such thing as a ship that can not be probed. With the new probing updates, it is much easier to probe people these days. Your argument holds no value, now go back to that little cave and hide.
|
Termin Aurilo
EVE Engineering Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Is this topic something ccp is taking a look at and thinking of changing? or just something ppl are asking to be changed? |
Leper ofBacon
HELP GRANDMA SMASH HER LEGS IN
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 20:46:00 -
[60] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Those skills dont help you defend yourself, they dont make you go faster, and they sure as hell dont make you invincible. They just allow you to better to help a FLEET. Leadership skills are so out of the way the average pilot doesn't even train them......
If you're using an alt to boost then the skills are doing precisely this. They are increasing the statistics of the ship(s) that are actually in combat. What is 10m sp really worth in terms of isk (the only measure that matters)? Nothing significant.
OGB is in the game and the pay to win model is also already in, but it really should be moderated. Allow it to be an advantage but give players tools to detect and counter it.
Also although the economic reasons for keeping it are good, making changes to increase accessibility are also valuable for the same reason. Where OGB is truly sticking out is the 'low resource' pvp types like FW where casual play is suffering. If we're talking about 0.0 just bringing more material and balancing numerically imbalanced engagements is more important. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |