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) |

Endeis
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:01:00 -
[421] - Quote
Command processors could really do with a reduction in CPU fitting requirements in order to make a t3 fitting lots of different types of links viable. |

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
886
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:02:00 -
[422] - Quote
Good changes. The Tears Must Flow |

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
886
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:05:00 -
[423] - Quote
Just remove OGB. The Tears Must Flow |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8540
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:10:00 -
[424] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs
as if they ever did Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |

Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:29:00 -
[425] - Quote
Endeis wrote:Command processors could really do with a reduction in CPU fitting requirements in order to make a t3 fitting lots of different types of links viable.
Why bother doing that now? T3s are forced to same grid where fight is going on at some point anyway. You will want to use all available CPU/PG for tank so you (maybe) don't get alpha'd in seconds. |

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2107
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:55:00 -
[426] - Quote
Off-Grid Boosting is Pay To Win in the most crass and blatant form. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get massive performance boosts to your ships and modules.
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |

Colt Blackhawk
Inglorious-Basterds
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 08:40:00 -
[427] - Quote
Good changes concerning this complete gamebreaking mechanic. For example invisible superpowers for doubledamp condors get nerfed. Hopefully CCP will make boosting on grid soon. OGB is completely gamebreaking sh.... but this first step is good.
|

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:39:00 -
[428] - Quote
Part of the overpowered-links problem is Command Processors. There's a good argument for removing them entirely. |

Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
216
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:48:00 -
[429] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Off-Grid Boosting is Pay To Win in the most crass and blatant form. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get massive performance boosts to your ships and modules.
Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get a falcon alt that can make rage that will quake the universe. Just saying. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |

Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:52:00 -
[430] - Quote
One one hand I will say thank you. On the other hand I will say, you killed my sukkuvesta storyline lottery! You bad bad man!! |
|

Wizzard117
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 11:09:00 -
[431] - Quote
Just to clarify So there's no option CS's can fit 4 or more links using command processors post 1.1? |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 11:28:00 -
[432] - Quote
Command processors should be for T1 bc's only... so hard limit CS and T3 to 3 links only Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |

Unkind Omen
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 11:40:00 -
[433] - Quote
Hi, Fozzi
I am very happy that someone finally addressed this command ships progression problem. However I think that you should consider one more tweak to progression curve. According to my humble spreadsheet calculations training mindlink after finishing [xxx] warfare specialist 5 gives players slightly more efficiency per skillpoint than training WFSp 5 itself. That is the only flaw in a perfect progression line you have there. Probably you should make Warfare specialist requirement level 4 at least for the tech 2 mind links. That will help both to make them more viable in comparsion to navy and to fix the progression disorder.
The other thing for me to mention is that command ships are giving yet too small advantage over T3. I think it would be a better idea not to give T3 link strength bonus but to give them ability to activate aditional link per level of defense subsystem. That will make them trully versatile and much less conflicting in role with command ships.
Thank you for your attention to this problem. |

Cross Barret
Pod or be Podded
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:11:00 -
[434] - Quote
Dearest Fozzie,
May I be so bold and make a suggestion? First, even as someone with a fully trained t3 boost alt, I agree with these changes. However, might I suggest keeping off grid boosting for t3s going forward (not complaining about pos limitation, this can stay). Being in a VERY small corp it often allows us to get the little edge we need when fighting outnumbered when we dont have a dedicated boost pilot to spare. They are less effective than command ships, so i think this plays to the roles as well. Command ships fill the role of most effective booster in which the commander is on grid fighting with his fleet. This can be the goto when fighting large scale and max effectiveness is important. On the other hand, t3 fill the support role. Not as effective, but can move with a small gang more effectively. This can be the goto for small gangs that want that little bit of edge when engaging and cant dedicate a pilot to a command ship/a command ship doesnt fit in the fleet comp.
My two cents. |

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2110
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:27:00 -
[435] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Off-Grid Boosting is Pay To Win in the most crass and blatant form. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get massive performance boosts to your ships and modules. Pay an extra subscription and you and your buddies get a falcon alt that can make rage that will quake the universe. Just saying. Dual-boxing a falcon actually requires you to actually pay some attention to the second client though, and dividing your focus between multiple characters can work against a player in a tight combat. Parking an alt in a deep safe requires no such compromise. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |

Echo Mande
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:51:00 -
[436] - Quote
A nice set of changes, though some might not agree with me.
Two questions though. - Will there be any changes to the command processor? It's a big CPU hog currently. - Will there ever be a T2 or faction command processor? |

Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:54:00 -
[437] - Quote
I'm having issues comprehending why you think CCP needs to adjust game-play to allow "solo" pvp to work better for players who don't dual box.
EVE is a Massive Multiplayer Online game. You aren't meant to play it solo.
So instead of complaining about players dual boxing with a command ship alt, join a corporation, and have a corp mate fly with you. Two separate pilots working together will always be more efficient than a guy dual boxing.
And like some people have already pointed out, an OGB doesn't add dps, ewar, tackle, or anything to the battle besides his boosts. And if you use your head, you and your friend will have no problems dealing with the dual-boxing guy.
OGB are an issue, but CCP is working on them, and eventually they'll have to be on grid. Until then, play the game as it was intended, and work together. Complaining that you can't solo a dual-boxer is worse than useless, it's also sad that you expect to pvp on your own. I don't expect to be able to solo roam through lowsec or nullsec because I know I'll run into groups of people working together, so if I want to do roam there, I wait until I can bring a group of my own.
Take the time and effort to work on force multipliers. You can have a friend bring logistics, maybe an ewar ship, or maybe a brawler with some free mid slots for extra ewar. The answer isn't complaining that your setup doesn't work, perhaps you should take the effort to change your setup instead to match the situation. |

Ayana Mayuko
Mayuko Sisters' Trading Enterprises Ltd.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 18:57:00 -
[438] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are planning to extend the bonuses from the defensive gang links to local capital repair modules.
Not sure if this has already been asked but could we have some clarification; is this for 1.1 release or soonGäó? |

Eva Darke
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 04:43:00 -
[439] - 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. This. Absolutely, 100%, this ^
As it stands, link alts are a necessity to remain competitive in PvP. Every group and "solo" player will have one, and if they don't, they'll most likely lose.
Even if you force link ships on grid, it'll only be alts flying them because flying links is boring and doesn't get you on killmails. EVE has long since been known as a game of alts, and this is a major reason why. The only purpose links serve now is to maintain that entry barrier into competitive PvP. |

Balthazar Lestrane
Viziam Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 06:39:00 -
[440] - Quote
Quote:Let's start with some changes to the warfare link modules themselves:
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield People can still orbit just outside the forcefield I know, but they will at least have to keep an eye on that character so it's an improvement.
I really hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's utter bullshit that mining links aren't being changed. Why are Rorquals and Orcas allowed to sit inside POS shields boosting miners but not combat oriented links? I don't understand the difference nor why you are catering to carebearing Fozzie. Both affect the effectiveness of ships flying in space and should be subject to the same risk v. reward.
Edit: I'm all for the removal of off-grid boosting if that was unclear, I just don't see why mining links get the exception. Some consistency would be kind of nice, that's all. |
|

Blacksworth
Supreme Incursion Command Ops.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 06:58:00 -
[441] - Quote
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
People can still orbit just outside the forcefield I know, but they will at least have to keep an eye on that character so it's an improvement.
So now i need to buy 2nd monitor to watch all the time my tengu fleet booster/ GREAT! Guy that a mistake with forcefield . Do u think about low/null sec gang boosters ? Or u think that only mining link working in low/null sec ? Lets all be fair! Good tone is to make orbiting rorqual in null sec. That will be an improvement.
2nd point is ttaht from Odyssey 1.1 logi will no longer be so sexy as former. -10% reducing link efectivnes t2 ST will be like meta4 before omg Odyssey 1.1 Why touch that work great ?
I can close my eyes at many things but Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield a real mistake.
PS: Holy rage on u from all low/null sec fleet boosters
btw! Is titan bonuses to amount of shield/armor hp will be given to all fleet members if titan under forcefield? |

Mez Tek
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 07:04:00 -
[442] - Quote
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?
It would be fair to have Navy mining Link, so you could shield boost to discourage ganks and still maintain mining Links. I see nothing unfair about 2 boosts |

Mez Tek
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 07:07:00 -
[443] - Quote
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?
|

Sollis Vynneve
I.I.I
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 12:37:00 -
[444] - Quote
ogb evening the gap between lower sp toons and higher sp toons. lol. removing ogb would be stupid ccp would have to fix grids and completely rework t3s so they can have a tank and be ongrid. so remove the need for command processors and lower the fitting requirements for links. why not just add a new bonus to fleet command skills level 1 boosts within 1au level 2 2 aus and so on |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 13:23:00 -
[445] - Quote
Fozzie
Have you tried to fit links on all T1 bc's ships? you will notice brutix/navy requires Ions to fit even a T1 link with your change to pg drake lacks cpu to fit a link
Bottom line is unless you give them the similar fitting requirements as medium neuts then they are still too hard to fit especially the T2 links.. And it seems most people agree that you could nerf links further .. i think more in the form of reducing skills and mindlink strength rather than nerfing the links themselves as this would benefit T1 bc's too. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |

Sgt Ocker
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 13:27:00 -
[446] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Mining Foreman: Laser Optimization and Harvester Capacitor T1: 5% T2: 7.5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 42.2% Former max bonus: 42.2%
Mining Foreman: Field Enhancement T1: 13.6% T2: 17% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 95.7% Former max bonus: 95%
We are planning to extend the bonuses from the defensive gang links to local capital repair modules.
And finally we're making some significant changes to the availability of mindlink implants:
Adding normal T2 mindlinks (including mining mindlinks) to the Concord LP store for 20,000 Concord LP and 20m isk (~60-80m final product sale price).
Adding Navy Mindlinks with the 25% bonus to two different disciplines at once (matching racial command ship bonuses) to the normal racial LP stores at 150,000 LP and 50m isk (~200m isk final product sale price).
Links at the top lead to the threads for Command Ship and local repair module changes, and we're very interested to hear your feedback on these changes in the thread below. Mining Foreman Harvester Capacitor, since the changes to mining barges and T2 variants I haven't found a need for this link as cycling lasers no longer sucks cap dry.. Any chance of giving Orcas and Rorquals a small bonus to Siege links? Giving local only boosts to capitals is somewhat a shame as a lot of fleet fits use buffer tank and remote reps. T2 mind links available via Concord LP is good, not sure about your "final product sale price", did anyone look to see what T1 mind links are selling for? At 60-80mil per; that would make it over 1bil cheaper than the T1 mining mindlink sells for now.
|

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 14:58:00 -
[447] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 14% T2: 16% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 24% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 16% T2: 18% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 27% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 10% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 18% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 16% T2: 18% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 27% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 20% T2: 22% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 33% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 17% T2: 19% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 28.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 17% T2: 20% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 14% T2: 16% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 24% Former max bonus: 35%
The four Warfare Specialist skill bonus changed from the current 100% bonus per level (after the first level) to 5% bonus per level. Mindlink bonus reduced from +50% to +15% Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100.
This is more like what i would like to see and think is much more balanced at least until OGB is removed anyway. And its much easier to understand how you get the end result on the bonus 15% CS ..15% mindlink... 20% from skills
T1 mindlink - 10% T2 mindlink -15% Navy mindlink - 12% bonus to the two racial links
Does anyone else think this is a better proposal than the OP? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |

Blacksworth
Supreme Incursion Command Ops.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 16:08:00 -
[448] - Quote
How about null sec claim war`s ? where da booster gonna be? i tell u where! in primary ))))) |

Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:05:00 -
[449] - Quote
Blacksworth wrote:How about null sec claim war`s ? where da booster gonna be? i tell u where! in primary )))))
And you think nobody is aware of this? How about reading the thread thoroughly?...
This is precisely the point and please, learn to English. |

Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:31:00 -
[450] - Quote
Sollis Vynneve wrote:ogb evening the gap between lower sp toons and higher sp toons.
Yes, or they make the gap much bigger if the other side has them. Apart from this, I don't think this was the main aim of boosters and - of course - on-grid boosters will do the exact same job.
Sollis Vynneve wrote:removing ogb would be stupid ccp would have to fix grids and completely rework t3s so they can have a tank and be ongrid. so remove the need for command processors and lower the fitting requirements for links
While you are correct about the grids needing to be fixed before removal of off-grid boosting, you are wrong about everything else: 1. It wouldn't be stupid. 2. They wouldn't have to do anything to the T3's. You can have a boosting T3 on grid, tanked and fully combat-capable, but you can only run one link. As with everything in eve, you want more than the default fitting? You need to sacrifice something. If you want to run 3 links - you need to sacrifice 2 mid-slots, it's your problem and nobody else's how you are going to fit other necessary modules - nobody's forcing you to fit more than one link, get it? The fact that T3's are better at boosting than dedicated command ships is ridiculous, this needs to be fixed and not made worse, and on the other hand, Command Processors are also a part of the problem (I'd remove them entirely, but that's my opinion...). |
|
|
|
|
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 |