| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
   |
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
About time you put your money where your mouth has been for so long .. debt has grown to astronomical proportions!
As you move forward and look for ways to make links work for the individual (solo Abso's for the win!) and crack the nut of on/off-grid, I'll urge you to consider just how much a single link is worth. Doubly so now that CC's are able to run two types and have weaponry to boot.
In short: One ship augmenting an entire fleet is wrong, that holds true whether it is anchored on grid as a sacrificial lamb or cowering within a POS. Ideally the maximum should be a squad, but practically the wings are probably a better bet .. only capitals/supercapitals should be able to boost up to the full 250 people.
PS: Kind of miffed that Caldari/Amarr alliance does not get skirmish bonuses but I'll live  |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:...If you had a single booster before, these changes + navy mindlinks will be an overall buff.
If you were running two boosters, you're getting nerfed.
If you keep them outside, sure. But why would you do such a thing when they can push out more than respectable dps (sans the Damnation) and have above average tanks even when fielding links?
Composition of your PvE fleets will change, but efficiency will remain the same or even improve dependent on choices .. hardly a nerf (Ex: Nighthawk will have same damage and more tank while running twin links (siege/info)). Same applies to pretty much all the revised CC's.
Hell, you in your case with a shield based crew you could probably get away with a pure Claymore spam with Basilisk focusing on cap transfers rather than shield ditto to make the most of free stuff (cap) and the local tank buff that has also been announced.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 14:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:...For me, if they force capital industrials out of shields without a good buff I will sell mine and let it and my mining chars die.
Fairly easy solution that doesn't break anything: Remove siege requirement for links and up the Orca agility.
Will make them far more viable in the belts where they will end up once the on-grid kicks in (ie. when hell opens ski resorts, because :CCP:), Gives you the choice of having bigger links on a proper fat-ass or weaker links on something that can more easily escape.
-Or-
You could ask for the bonus to apply to all links. Leeroy combat Rorqs .. warp in with fleet, deploy! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Roime wrote:...Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.
Would an icon mess of epic proportions, can you imagine having 9-10 link buddies and trying to follow primaries?
It is a good idea though, but I'd look into the ability to add people to a list similar to a watchlist and then they get boosts whenever they share a grid with the link ship.
Would address all my qualms (scaling, easy mode function, vulnerability) with regard to links. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Roime wrote:...Isn't that exactly bassackwards? Link efficiency should reduce with fleet member count. Frankly the last thing we need is another mechanic favouring numbers.
One could tie it into the Titan's and give them the ability to boost nearby links 25% (ie. that which was axed from mindlinks) or so. More reward for even bigger risk and it encourages the cowardly catapults to come out of hiding. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sigras wrote:...That being said, I believe that (as a player with 14 million in leadership) gang boosts need to be nerfed but not removed, just forced on grid. Forcing them on grid means more interesting decisions to make when considering who to bring and what to have them bring.
Removing them would mean reducing the number of options/meaningful decisions to be made in the game.
Fourteen million .. how much does the Fleet Command skill add, I am missing that and Info Spec and the mining fluff with only 5M
There will be no interesting decision when its on-grid as it stands now, for maximum performance to do the old-old-school all CC gangs .. can you imagine the sheer power of 10 of any or a mix of the CC's after their revision (well apart from the brick)?
One thing CCP still has not spoken of, something I hope will appear once they have a handle on the off/on-grid code, is that link ships must be presumed high priority targets in most fights which necessitates a more streamlined way of assigning boosters, preferably one that is semi-autonomous (ex. based on pre-made list) so that a gang doesn't have to rummage around to replace bonuses whenever a link goes dead. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:...Thoughts?
If my wildest dreams come true and links ability to boost entire grids/fleets is removed, then Titan's and Mom's can become true fleet boosters as the only ones able to apply bonuses to more than 10-20 people at a time.
Hell, when the tiericide train pulls into its last stop and Titan's get some sexxor our jobs will be to insure that the current hull bonuses are updated to be more in tune with what Eve looks like today .. doubly so if eWar is sorted and links are on grid by that time.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
mighty1 wrote:Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers.
So you started training it after it was announced that work had commenced on taking links on-grid and reducing their power to be compliance with Eve's risk/reward dogma? And you are complaining about what exactly?
What's your poison:
- Link platforms are becoming gank mobiles even when carrying links so Incursions are covered.
- Mining hasn't even been addressed so there is still ample time to make changes to mining link platforms before they come on-grid.
- Blobs will have more incentive to risk stuff (read: capitals) to ensure link availability when they come on-grid and will somehow have to muddle through with a less than 20% decrease in their boosts that apply to up to 250 people .. orbiting a POS is a nerf to AFK only and irrelevant.
- Solo => Medium gangs will be tons more fun and fights will be more readily available once links come on-grid as one can no longer hide the doubling of combat efficiency that links represent, making fights either lopsided (technically ganks, not fights) or non-existent because :possiblelinks:.
- Worm-folk .. see Incursions at top.
In short: There is nothing to complain about, except the ability to provide over-the-top augments while AFK sometime in the future. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:..Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?..
They can't afford to. By changing Faction War into Farm War they have over-saturated the LP market and need to add increasingly expensive consumable/destructible items in an effort to try to stem the tide .. because if the treated the disease (FW mechanics) instead of the symptoms they'd stand to lose more subscriptions than nano, ECM, link changes combined
Speaking of FW: Add a frigate command platform, plexing demands it (pre-emptively before on-grid change if possible so people can learn to kill them beforehand).
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:centralised computing power ..
Still very relevant but arguably beside the point .. 
What are we talking about here, the ability to provide boosts dependant on locks or just being in locking range? I am fully aware and in general agreement with your sentiment but I need the how/what/where/when to be absolutely clear.
Ideal solution, probable coding issues aside, what should links look like in the future? Answer that in a reasonable fashion and you have done 99% of the Devs homework |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
777
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:...CCP can try and criminalize boosts all they want but as I have been saying since the beginning of time on this subject, the best players will win 99% of the time....
Wish that it was so. Assuming you count yourself among the best/good players, I dare you to try and kill a ship that is 30-40% smaller, has 30-40% more speed, has 30-40% more tank and applies tackle from 30-40% farther out.
That is what T3's has contributed to solo/small-gang since the alts matured .. it is quite simply not possible to compete without having links in todays Eve. You can try of course, but it is rather pointless.
You are right that proper blobs will generally just ignore links as the sheer damage of focused fire will kill **** regardless, but if CCP manages to solve both the application of bonuses issue (hassle to manually assign boosters as they drop) and the head-shot problem you are looking at a vastly improved medium and down theatre complete with a brand new tactical layer (ie. link killer squads).
It is perfectly alright if people retask their alts to logi/eWar as they have a hard limit (locked targets, slots) to how much they can affect the outcome of anything and defenses against the two classes have been (are being) improved a lot with tiericide: Neuting Armageddon's, Sentry revival, Sensor HACs, fast'n'small AFs etc.
In tomorrow's Eve you will need to protect special assets (links, eWar, logistics) a lot more than previously, which is a good thing as it adds weak spots to gang/fleet compositions and thus more complexity. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
779
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 07:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:...My point is that its impossible to declare boosts as game changers. I used the AT as an example because the whole world watched it and the only thing that stood out was domi sentry's. PL had a 10mn frigate burn perpendicular at 3,000+ m/s 50k away and the drones still hit it. That is an example of game changing.
Boosts are just another variable in the equation. No reason to touch them. If you want boosts, train 6 months for them.
Are you really that naive, can any one be?
All those factors can already be manipulated by fitting faction and just being better, links are not even in the ballpark as they change the numbers to a staggeringly massive degree - so much so that hulls would need 10/10/10 slot layouts and Goddess knows how much ISK to do the same through fittings or the people be actual Gods (as opposed to Demi-Gods) of reaction time and conscious thought.
Few of the boosters were probably trained by users, they were buddy accounts purchased by crafty individuals and sold on to maximize the $/ISK conversion rate.
Officially saying that paying more to CCP will give you an edge in Eve is part of what caused the Jita debacle a few years back (gold ammo).
Prior to links the "Buy your own .. for hope" dogma that you apparently represent, suffered losses in the form of NOS, Nano, ECM, Angel etc. so simply repeating the oh so very tired party line will not cut it as CCP has already shown willingness to ignore those crocodile tears.
Either do as Mr. Windstalker suggest and come up with reasons/counter-arguments not to give them the axe or provide alternatives that solves the issues involved.
I am as staggeringly massively against links as they are game changing, to a point where I have on several occasions dropped a fleet because it had a safed T3, yet I know the value of them and want them in game in a useable format .. there are compromises available to make the blow trivial for most uses but the initial sacrifice (off-grid) must be made for Eve to make it through its teenage years. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 11:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
They should make information warfare an universal type (bonuses on all hulls or just bigger base bonuses) and change them to more provide more generic sensor augmentations.
Introduce a fifth type for Amarr/Caldari that complements eWar proper (think Recons) and/or synergizes with Skirmish links (extra tackle (points/web) strength) for example so that there will be a reason, however small, to use Amarr/Caldari hulls at all .. especially when/if they pull the trigger on axing the horrible brick bonus.
Why on Earth are the PvP centric skirmish links only available to the Winmatar/Gallente constellation and how many Dev neurons had to misfire to slap information links onto the supposed tanky race?
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 15:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The intent is for Info Links to be geared more toward large fleet fights and Skirmish to be geared more toward smaller gang stuff. In a large fleet fight Skirmish only helps you avoid damage if you're moving very carefully, otherwise you're going to end up with low traversal against some part of the enemy blob and then your sig radius won't help you much.
Plus with Skirmish Links on the less brick-tanked half of the Command Ships you're looking at something of a trade-off for using them in large fleets. Not a huge one but it's still there.
I get that, but wasn't the whole point of this CC revision to make each and every one of them capable in their own right and lay the foundation for the move to on-grid? The fact that we still have Fleet and Field (as per your own description) shows that the exercise so far has been a bust.
Why not mix it up some so that both constellations (Amarr/Caldari, Minmatar/Gallente) have access to all the options? Won't even need to go so far as to make a fifth class as I mentioned, one could just:
Damn: Armour/Skirmish.
Abso: Armour/ Info (Abso with skirmish is too scary, much like Astarte will be when/if link ship gets own bonuses).
NH: Shield/Skirmish.
Vulture: Shield/Info.
Etc.
As for the "trade off" .. where will that be if the Devs manages to come up with a way for relatively low EHP CC's (ie. when bricks go byebye) to survive in blobby weather (ex. recoded spectrum breakers + bonus to use). When that happens you are left with a whopping 50%+ of the newly rebalanced ships not having a purpose whatsoever.
Equal opportunity. |
| |
|