Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:23:00 -
[301] - Quote
This is one of the conspiracies forwarded by CCP to kill small gang pvp. Thank you CCP. Blob warfare = more cash for CCP small gang = who da f gives a damn. |
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
489
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:26:00 -
[302] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Eukaryotic wrote:I am a new player who likes to solo pvp. I find myself getting killed in small engagements alot because someone is linked to hell by an offgrid booster. I have no chance against them and do not want to pay to win to be able to compete with this tactic. I refuse to buy another account. That is dumb. Smaller scale pvp has evolved into buying new accounts to win, what kind of game does that make this. It is demoralizing to new players who think they will have fun flying by themselves and fighting.
New players having low sp, low isk, and little experience take a big risk when they pvp because often times the opponent is superior in these categories but instead of being encouraged to continue this brave type of gameplay despite the odds against them, it is like they are being punished by off grid boosters to just forget about pvping because without links it isn't happening.
And the sad part, many do forget pvp and some Eve. But that's okay right CCP? More links = more subs right? Dishonor.
Please remove links. you dont want links removed, you want links brought on grid. Removing links removes meaningful choices from the game, forcing them on grid adds meaningful choices to the game. Additionally Links were designed for you 'Eukaryotic'. You were supposed to fleet up with an older toon and he is supposed to pass some of his SP (Experience) down to you through links and thereby help you survive. Removing links only guarantees that a noob will never win a fight Vs. a veteran. Of course like many things in EVE the intended use is rarely similar to the eventual use.
Things that keep me up at night;-á Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Couch Camoflage, If you sit very still maybe they wont see you. |
Sigras
Conglomo
476
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:27:00 -
[303] - Quote
maCH'EttE wrote:This is one of the conspiracies forwarded by CCP to kill small gang pvp. Thank you CCP. Blob warfare = more cash for CCP small gang = who da f gives a damn. so by nerfing something that large fleets use, they have buffed large fleets?
please tell me more about how you would balance ships . . . |
Aramis Defranzac
Wild.Stallions
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:32:00 -
[304] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:Mining links should not be given special treatment...
Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame. We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.
I sense raging carebears :)
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:33:00 -
[305] - Quote
I dont know why everyone is crying about links, he just nerfed the biggest link ofender which was skirmish links, now you wont be pointed by a condor at like 36km. Other than that unless soloing I think links are great |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:46:00 -
[306] - Quote
To be fair, changing links can't kill solo pvp, because being solo means being alone. As in one, not two.
edit- I'd like the numbers to be even lower but it's probably something you want to look at in action first before adjusting it (downward). |
Rumless MK2
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:48:00 -
[307] - Quote
TinkerHell wrote:Dear CCP,
I cant say i like these changes as i believe this always will benefit the larger gangs. The problem with links is the fact they exist.
Please reconsider.
I suggest just deleting links from game completely and reimbursing the SP. That way no one needs whine the other fleet has links, the smaller fleet wont get raped by the gang fielding a mass of logi to protect their command ship.
Everyone is happy.
Thanks.
I support this post. |
Roggle
Swarm Coalition Interstellar Conquest Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:54:00 -
[308] - Quote
**** links |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1313
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:01:00 -
[309] - Quote
The nerf to defensive and interdiction links seems a little too strong. I get that most of the popular ones are being toned down but a 9% and 14.2% reduction is excessive.
5% and 10% reductions from current would still be strong but not as crippling to high end small gang warfare (20 man w triage type stuff). It's some of the funnest gameplay available in EVE, don't kneecap it! "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Apollo Eros
Daktaklakpak.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:06:00 -
[310] - Quote
Interesting changes. Cannot wait to see them implements.
I saw a post earlier about a BC mining hull.
Honestly I would love to see a T2 Venture that allows fitting of a single link. Battle SKIRMISH VENTURE GO! [LVL 5 Space Wizard] |
|
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:17:00 -
[311] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi
Good opening - it's a first step, nothing more - yeah - an improvement but not nearly enough.
The number of ships a single booster can boost should be limited to avoid blob-power creep. Easiest way would be to purely make them applicable on squad commanders.
A gang of ten only needs one booster, a blob of 100 ships needs 10. That's only fair.
OGB needs to be put down like a rabid dog - the sooner the better - I don't care how you do it - make them work like bubbles, fix grid mechanics once and for all or whatever, but they need to DIAF ASAP.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3215
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:21:00 -
[312] - Quote
This is also full of win
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Ivory Kantenu
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:24:00 -
[313] - Quote
I seriously doubt you will see the removal of links all together.
Remember, CCP is still in the middle of rebalancing ships. If you remove Command Links, we now have 8 useless direct command ships, 4 useless subsystems, a handful of useless ship bonuses, and just a ton of headaches on CCPs part.
Remember, this is an initial posting of things to come, and are always subject to change.
They're more of an interesting start than a good one. Sit tight, guys, and don't get all twisted up over it. This change was coming eventually. Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread
|
Aeonisis Kenon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:29:00 -
[314] - Quote
Oops. |
MrDiao
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:31:00 -
[315] - Quote
As the "Command Process I" consumes mid-slot, shield tanked fleet will often have less bonus, if you do eliminate the "off-grid boosters".
Hope you have considered this before shield fleets totally fall into ****. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
618
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:35:00 -
[316] - Quote
Eukaryotic wrote:I am a new player who likes to solo pvp. I find myself getting killed in small engagements alot because someone is linked to hell by an offgrid booster. I have no chance against them and do not want to pay to win to be able to compete with this tactic. I refuse to buy another account. That is dumb. Smaller scale pvp has evolved into buying new accounts to win, what kind of game does that make this. It is demoralizing to new players who think they will have fun flying by themselves and fighting.
New players having low sp, low isk, and little experience take a big risk when they pvp because often times the opponent is superior in these categories but instead of being encouraged to continue this brave type of gameplay despite the odds against them, it is like they are being punished by off grid boosters to just forget about pvping because without links it isn't happening.
And the sad part, many do forget pvp and some Eve. But that's okay right CCP? More links = more subs right? Dishonor.
Please remove links.
Solo PVP hasn't really been a thing since like, 2007.
It used to be you could roam around and find 2,3,4 man gangs and that is manageable. But then more players joined EVE, corps got bigger, players got more experienced, people got in bigger ships and players got more risk averse.
So what's the solo player to do when gangs that were 2-4 become 5-7, well he can stop soloing, he can join a corp will do counter gangs if they time it right, or he can not in engage. Or he can purchase a second character, put him in a blackbird/falcon/link ship. More challenging for him but the rewards are greater and he can engage small and bigger gangs.
The people that want to win at any costs do what they always do, find the easiest way to do that without stopping you engaging. This is links. They make their ship better than yours for 700m isk and 20m SP. The issue for some time was that that 700m was never at risk, that's less of the case now.
People get even more risk averse and stop flying battlecruisers and battleships as much, they start flying frigates and assault frigates (even demanding their buff so they can fly them even more) Then you have all these frigate pvpers with link alts because that's the easiest most risk averse pvp there is and that's what most people in low-sec are flying. Also the links having such a large impact on frigates because of the fine line between them.
Then again this guy spent 30m fitting his frig another 700m fitting his booster and 40m sp and superior tactics, maybe he should beat your 15m frig 5m sp with only 1 character.
Simple EVE Math is 2 vs 1, the guy with 2 characters usually wins, whether it's on grid or not.
And if there were no links, you think they'd unsub their boosters? No way, they put them in a Navitas. Suddenly that incursus you were talking about that tanks 200dps with links is now tanking 300 with a remote rep alt, for 30m isk and almost no risk.
You are tackled by the incursus his rep alt comes in after, it never shows on any killmails, you can't get near it to kill it and even if you do you're probably not going to kill his frig as well.
Lesson 2 Characters with more ISK, more training time > 1 character less isk less training time. The ship types don't even matter.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
695
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:57:00 -
[317] - Quote
Honestly I don't think it goes far enough, but I'll take a little when I can get it. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Pixel Navigators
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:59:00 -
[318] - Quote
+1 for removing links entirely and reimbursing SP |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:06:00 -
[319] - Quote
Not sure if it's been answered, as I previously didn't notice it, but you aren't changing the warfare processor sub on T3's to an electronics sub? This is really important if you eventually want these things to come on grid, else they'll never be used when you need on grid links. This would also stop you using one t3 for everything (probing, scout, links) though I suppose that's the point of t3's, do everything at once to a reasonable level.
Perhaps make the warfare sub electronics and then give it a massive cpu boost, that way you can fit links and probes, but the probes won't be bonused, hey presto it's perfect for the idea of a t3.
Either way, Command processors NEED A REDUCTION IN CPU! Unless a t3 can now natively fit 3 links, you really need to reduce the cpu cost of those things. It's impossible to fit a decent tank and have 3 links when they cost 150 cpu each and you need 2 of them. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:11:00 -
[320] - Quote
coming from a person with more than 1 ogb, this only a half step. take the full step.
these reductions are good, but it really needs more reduction. |
|
Cage Man
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:13:00 -
[321] - Quote
if i put a mining link's on my vulture, will I need to be or outside the force field? maybe add this to the original post as there are way to many posts to read them all for the answer. The thick plottens... |
Endeavour Starfleet
913
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:32:00 -
[322] - Quote
Another HUGE Stealth Nerf to Incursion fleets. AGAIN! What is it about hisec grouping content that has you so mad?
These nerfs will do little more than turn the game into Alpha this nao online while badly needed other features go ignored or delayed because of this.
If you are going to be changing aspects of the game. Why did you not spend your development time addressing how overpowered the ability to go AFK While cloaked is? Will we see any changes to that for 1.1? If links being inside a POS is so bad. Don't you think it would be a similar idea to make Cloaks slowly be able to be probed down to encourage people to be active at their clients while cloaked in enemy systems? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3942
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:46:00 -
[323] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MainDrain wrote:Obviously there won't be a navy version of the mining links, but will there be an Ore version of the mining links with the same increase in bonus as the Navy links? The navy links give the same bonus as the normal mindlinks, but they give it to multiple disciplines at once. We may add an Ore link at some point, if so it will probably give Mining Foreman and Siege Warfare bonuses.
Just don't forget the ancient tradition of remote hull tanking capsules. Since ORE ships place the emphasis on structure tanking, perhaps it is time to introduce proper logistics/leadership/link skills, modules and rigs to support hull tanking? Current hull repairers are crazily inefficient, even a 100% boost to repair amount would render them only mostly useless :)
I look forward to your ideas for rebalancing Rorquals to allow them to provide boosts outside POS shields. My preferred option would be moving the bonus from the core to the hull, leaving the opportunity to install different cores for ore compression, refining, or remote hull tanking (ie: triage rorqual). Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:50:00 -
[324] - Quote
Buhhdust Princess wrote:Congratulations Fozzie you have just:
1. Reduced the chances Soloers have actively fighting small gang. 2. Stopped Small gangs fighting Larger gangs without using bombers, or snipers @ 200km.
But heh, I guess no one cares about the small guys when you run a business, as they don't bring in so much revenue.
I actually thought when you first released these "ideas" that you were all high. Its a conspiracy maiin, i told you, its like damn fools trying to sell you a whole chicken but give you two of each side. Come on, when i want a chicken, i want one right side and one left side. CCP dont care about that, dolla dolla bill yo. kick them small pvp corps to the curb, support them large allainces, they bring the dough for thems sour dough bagel. F1, F2 warriors rule. Triple stack them links, give 4 logi to each link ship, who cares, when you got a fleet of 200+ or even 60+. Dolla Dolla bill yo. Conspiracy. I got friends in secret places. |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:51:00 -
[325] - Quote
Thank you so much for this nerf. It was incredibly unnecessary and we people in lowsec will love you forever.
Here's the thing, though; Boosts allow us to fight larger gangs or blobs coming along. It evens the field. Especially in lowsec, where you can't deny people access to stations and other system-protecting mechanics that null has. Who wan'ts to actively play the fleet booster? with the possible exception of nullsec, that's always the role of an alt. Let's be honest here. Nullblobs can spare 1-3 in 255 to sit in a command ship. Downsizing the active players in a gang of 4 by one to sit in an actively played booster ship makes you think if you want to take the engagement at all.
Also, T3 subsystem should get a bonus to be able to natively fit THREE (3) warfare modules (just as command ships do). If you want them probable and outside of a POS and you give them bonuses to different links (implicitly expecting more than one warfare link at the same time), then don't make them have to fit as many command processors and therefore a lowslot rack of co-processors. It's bad enough to have 10k ehp and being probable while roaming. now you have to be insta-poppable in your home system, too ? Bad design is just bad design.
Lastly, the nerf, sorry "balancing", is only hitting the links where people without links (i wonder why) complained about. Why did painter links not get hit? Because they are not overpowered in regards to painters or because little people use painters, hence noone complained yet?
Solo PvP is a non-existent dream. Even when i go out alone, people don't engage me. I have to bloody shoot people hugging a station, and they *might* engage back, and only if they can reship in station and are having a 5v1 ratio in man-power. Hence, i bring links and make this party fun. I won't anymore, it seems. |
VioletRay
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:53:00 -
[326] - Quote
Sigras wrote:maCH'EttE wrote:This is one of the conspiracies forwarded by CCP to kill small gang pvp. Thank you CCP. Blob warfare = more cash for CCP small gang = who da f gives a damn. so by nerfing something that large fleets use, they have buffed large fleets? please tell me more about how you would balance ships . . .
You don't get it do you? Nerfing T3 links and buffing commandship links mean that the more number you have it's easy to pull one people to be in the commandship. When you have 3 people, putting one of them in commandship loses 1/3 of your entire dps. When you have 20? You lose 1/20.
So making commandship links superier to T3 links ends up to buff larger fleet and somewhat kill small fleet by giving even better links to the larger fleet and worse one to the small fleet. You get this? |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:56:00 -
[327] - Quote
Since I'm on the topic:
POS sitting boosters usually applied to "home" systems. We don't have SOV in lowsec. And in nullsec it didn't matter and people didn't complain because they come in blobs anyways.
So how to defend ourselves in lowsec, in systems we settled down? Lowsec corps/alliances already have less people than nullsec blobs and don't hold sov over systems. It's not like people took POS towers on a roam and anchored them for their T3 booster. so what was the problem?
Also T3s don't need another sensor strength / signature nerf. My maxed prober with virtues probes a boosting T3 in about 2-3 cycles MAX. L2Probe and skill your toon. you shouldn't be able to probe them with half-asssed probers. |
Mordorator
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:00:00 -
[328] - Quote
The Loki boost combination is terrible. |
Trinkets friend
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
1076
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:24:00 -
[329] - Quote
Linkhoars wrote:Waaah waah waaaaah our ability to "fight larger gangs"aka kite at 45km with Condors picking apart people at will forever and ever amen, is destroyed /sub.
Linkhoars Alts wrote: Blub blub I am in brosec and I rely on a POS booster. Now you're saying I have to put gunss on my POS to defend my 750M Loki booster and its clone?!?!
Tears? BUENO!
Here's the solution to the people whining about having to be outside the POS: pay attention to your alt. Put up 4 x ECM batteries, a scram, and 4 x small arties. It's only got to be a small POS to park a Claymore outside of it, or a boosting Loki. I mean, sheesh, what's that going to cost you? 120M outlay instead of, as it is now, 65M. Plus, of course, paying attention whereas now you just alt-tab and "fight outnumbered to even the odds" which has always, till now, been "gain superpowers for one character with no consequences to the other".
if you don't like leaving your alt cooling it's heels 500m outside the forcefield (I mean, seriously...it's just as invulnerable...no one can blap a Claymore before it gets inside) then do it on station, like you always can do. This whining is the least valid whining in EVE.
I also don't think the sensor res buff is good. It just means you can use one less alt to achieve instalock. The point made about upping BS scan res is a very, very valid one. Do that instead. I have never heard anyone complaining "that dude locked me from so far outside my lock range and point range that I died because I fully FORGOT TO WARP OFF" - it's always "I jumped gate and I was pointed and webbed before I even decloaaked".
in reality, the interdiction sub changes were the best bit. You can still achieve greatness with pimp and boosts - you just don't obsolete Arazus with, eg, a loki boosted faction point.
The info warfare link changes will require some going through in detail, as they aren't neccessarily currently the most abused, so I don't know whether there is a need to nerf them. Nor do i really see what kind of abuse one could get up to with 35% buffs to TP's versus 20% buffs. I guess it might be an issue in dread blapping but IMHO, Legion and Loki links are more used in those situations. YOLO is the Carpe Diem of Gen Y http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Tjo Sephagen
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:38:00 -
[330] - Quote
These mindlink and command ship changes are good enough to log Tjo in for a shopping spree in Jita.
When will the navy mindlinks seed?
All Vs across the board, baby. All that cross-training will truly pay off now that both links and CS support multiple bonus types. Hurrah! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |