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) |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:39:00 -
[451] - Quote
Three changes would make this work better:
1. Make it so that 1 CS from each race has decent tank bonuses for solo/small gang and the other is designed for larger fleet combat.
2. Limit the number of pilots who can be boosted by any CS to a squad. Thus, a full fleet would have 25+ command ships. Cannot find pilots? Tough. Eve is about choices.
3. For each level of the leadership skill, a pilot can boost another 50km range - regardless of grid. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:52:00 -
[452] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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%
Does anyone else think this is a better proposal than the OP?
TBH, no....
The cumulative benefit of defensive (Siege and Armor) has NO BUSINESS being more effective than pirate implants and drugs.
Full Crystal Set: +54% Shield Boosts. Standard / Improved / Strong Blue Pill: + 20% / 25% / 30% Shield Boosts.
Shield Harmonizing: 24% Resists = 1 / .76 = 31.5% Effective Increase to Shield Boosts. Active Shielding: 24% Rate of Boosts = 1 / .76 = 31.5% Effective Increase to Shield Boosting.
Cumulative Effect of the three Siege Links = 1.315*1.315 = 1.73 = 73% Effective Increase in Reps.
This is way to high!!!! Reduce Defensive links to 12.5% maximum bonus. This will put their cumulative rep bonus at 30%, which is pretty much where it should be, at least until Boosters are forced On Grid. |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:56:00 -
[453] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Harvey James wrote: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%
Does anyone else think this is a better proposal than the OP? TBH, no.... The cumulative benefit of defensive (Siege and Armor) has NO BUSINESS being more effective than pirate implants and drugs. Full Crystal Set: +54% Shield Boosts. Standard / Improved / Strong Blue Pill: + 20% / 25% / 30% Shield Boosts. Shield Harmonizing: 24% Resists = 1 / .76 = 31.5% Effective Increase to Shield Boosts. Active Shielding: 24% Rate of Boosts = 1 / .76 = 31.5% Effective Increase to Shield Boosting. Cumulative Effect of the three Siege Links = 1.315*1.315 = 1.73 = 73% Effective Increase in Reps. This is way to high!!!! Reduce Defensive links to 12.5% maximum bonus. This will put their cumulative rep bonus at 30%, which is pretty much where it should be, at least until Boosters are forced On Grid.
well 24% is lower than fozzies proposal in OP and the post was asking is it better than the OP version .. so the answer would be yes... it seems to me that the drugs/implants could do with a nerf aswell
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. |

derAxlhalt
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:09:00 -
[454] - Quote
Thanks Fozzie for finally do something about offgrid boosting, but u dramatically miss the point. They wont disappear coz u ban Warfare Link Modules from Force Fields ( Roquals are a dieing Race). PPL will still stick to this example Fit:
[Legion, Boni-Legion] Co-Processor II 'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I Warded Radar Backup Cluster I Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I Command Processor I Command Processor I Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I 100MN Afterburner II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II 50W Infectious Power System Malfunction Auto Targeting System I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Low Friction Nozzle Joints I
Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor Legion Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Legion Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Legion Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Legion Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
Guess why?? Coz its cheaper then fielding them.
The current ( after 1.1) Field Fit would/could look like this:
[Legion, Boni-Legion ongrid armor] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I True Sansha Armor EM Hardener True Sansha Armor Thermic Hardener Dread Guristas Co-Processor
10MN Afterburner II Command Processor I Command Processor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump II
Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network Legion Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Legion Offensive - Assault Optimization Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
But no FC will be willing to field that coz it lacks tank and is to expensive for its ablities. This fit is btw plain better then ure current Gallente CS post, so what ever u think a Fleet CS should look like, they (gal CS) cant do it.
U could solve that with 2 simple Solutions: 1.Erase the Warfare Link Modul Restrictions on all Warfare Processor Subsystems (can then Field 3 Warfare Links) once added cause of the 5% Bonus (after 1.1 2% so this problem of OP is solved too) BTW the restriction is/was the cause for Cloaky Nulli Offgrid Booster (PG and CPU problems) so u neglected us the Opportunity to field them. 2. Add an CPU Multiplier of 200% to both Nullifier and Covert Subsystems after the first Warfare Link modul is fitted.
After that they could look like this:
[Legion, Boni-Legion ongrid armor] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
10MN Afterburner II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump II
Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network Legion Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Legion Offensive - Assault Optimization Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
What u get from this is an more reliable Mini CS that would perfectly fit in Cuiser/AHAC/ShieldHAC isnt OP still no match for real CS more agile as those sitting ducks. Enough CPU left to fit a 4. Warfare Link and a Command Processor(gets weaker but is more flexible [something u want why else would u give them the opportunity to fit 3 different kinds of links] ) And the Officer mod, Slave set discussion is a joke for example the Damnation is an Mini Carrier when ure willing to sacrifice isk.
ATM Damnation is/could be this:
[Damnation, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II True Sansha Energized EM Membrane Armor Thermic Hardener II
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I Shadow Serpentis 10MN Afterburner Command Processor I
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Information Warfare Link - Recon Operation II Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
But there the trouble starts! U cant copy this setup to the Gallente CS to get 2 additional Warfare Link in ure fleet by weakening an weak ship further or ure entire fleet ( Gal CS gets blaped faster-> skirmish boni gone fleet more or less over) . Why then adding different kinds of link possibilities when we cant us them in a proper way? Why will we be forced to go offgrid again with this ship to get our fleetboni alive? Why cant u add 10% Armorhp per lvl instet of this useless tracking Boni idea and iterate the rep boost down to prevent this ship to be an OP Small Gang ONLY , Fleet useless dustkeeper?
Thanks for ure time. U dont belief me, check it out there: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?11380-Odyssey-Changes-Rebalanced-Navy-Cruisers-T1-Cruisers-
The options are there, please shape them in the right direction.
|

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:29:00 -
[455] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: D. Minmatar - Sleipnir gets passive/buffer bonus for shield with tracking and damage for turrets.
Hell no. Some of the ideas sounded ok, but completely change a ship as fun as the Sleipnir so you can go blobbing around null? Nah. You can buffer up the claymore instead please.
I say keep the current Fleet command ships as the ones for big blob warfare, with buffer bonuses. The Damnation and Vulture to some extent do this pretty well. Add buffer bonuses to the Claymore and the Eos. |

Regan Rotineque
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober
149
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:04:00 -
[456] - Quote

I seem to remember during a fanfest presentation the talk about making the mindlinks and such items that would be created and made by players.
Perhaps instead of LP store items - you add the parts and prints to the lewt pinatas in the data/relic sites.
Let players work and build and make these things, not just buy them with carebear dollars at an LP store.
Just my 2 cents.
I had been looking forward to more iterations on the exploration part and this was a good example that fit with adding more things to that area of the game.
~Regan~ |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:29:00 -
[457] - Quote
Fozzie
you need to make some T1 mindlinks before adding navy version surely and T2 should be the best clearly 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. |

Sigras
Conglomo
490
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:07:00 -
[458] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Fozzie
you need to make some T1 mindlinks before adding navy version surely and T2 should be the best clearly in what way is it clear that T2 should be better than faction?
You mean like the T2 webs are better than faction? Or like the T2 hardeners are better than faction? Or like the T2 damage mods are better than faction? |

Scrutt5
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:36:00 -
[459] - Quote
Fantastic start, off grid boosting being eliminated all together is probably the wish of every solo pilot or small roaming gang. For far to long mini game pilots have taken a far superior edge using the often heard excuse of "we'll you come into my home system".
Having said that, are we likely to see frigate and cruiser boosting variants in the future ? With FW gang combat traditionally orientating towards plex size restriction, it would be great to incorporate a means of providing boosts that are visible on grid. |

Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1427
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:40:00 -
[460] - Quote
I have to agree with whoever suggested that command processors be turned into rigs. That would give: Command ships 5 links T3 4 links Battle cruisers 4 links
I don't think there would be a need for a penalty for them as they are a very specific module. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|

Scrutt5
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:52:00 -
[461] - 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.
Your NOT solo using an off grid booster !
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:55:00 -
[462] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I have to agree with whoever suggested that command processors be turned into rigs. That would give: Command ships 5 links T3 4 links Battle cruisers 4 links
I don't think there would be a need for a penalty for them as they are a very specific module.
+1 |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:03:00 -
[463] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Harvey James wrote: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%
Does anyone else think this is a better proposal than the OP? TBH, no.... The cumulative benefit of defensive (Siege and Armor) has NO BUSINESS being more effective than pirate implants and drugs. Full Crystal Set: +54% Shield Boosts. Standard / Improved / Strong Blue Pill: + 20% / 25% / 30% Shield Boosts. Shield Harmonizing: 24% Resists = 1 / .76 = 31.5% Effective Increase to Shield Boosts. Active Shielding: 24% Rate of Boosts = 1 / .76 = 31.5% Effective Increase to Shield Boosting. Cumulative Effect of the three Siege Links = 1.315*1.315 = 1.73 = 73% Effective Increase in Reps. This is way to high!!!! Reduce Defensive links to 12.5% maximum bonus. This will put their cumulative rep bonus at 30%, which is pretty much where it should be, at least until Boosters are forced On Grid. well 24% is lower than fozzies proposal in OP and the post was asking is it better than the OP version .. so the answer would be yes... it seems to me that the drugs/implants could do with a nerf aswell
You are right, that 24% is a better number than 25%. but still way, way too high...
As for Drugs: Drugs have some major drawbacks that are chance based, and can gimp your ship far more than boost it. I don't think they need any nerfs to their effectiveness.
As for Implants: I have mixed feelings, but they are at least on field, and potentially a big loss mail. TBH, I live in nullsec where Pods die regularly, so blingy implants have a reasonable risk of being lost. The only downside, there is no chance for a crystal/snake/slave set to drop as loot. |

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1073
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:25:00 -
[464] - Quote
Jooksupoiss Ise wrote:Dear CCP Fozzie! By me nerf it to null but please reimburse my booster alt IP.
CCP Fozzzie is not nerfing your tr+ál+ál+á, he's boosting your social abilities to actually play with other players in this space ship MMO.
If something he's not going far enough on the nerf, as someone proposed sooner make command processor rigs instead of modules with high calibration cost, reduce all links effects or give a drawback when several running so after the first link running all others give ONLY at best 25% ship stats bonus, even then it's still far too powerful in a game where 1% makes the difference.
Once you get free of your dependency of invulnerable alts requiring no attention you actually start thinking a bit more and get more piloting skill, you even get to play with more people and meet really awesome ones.
I've already proposed this a long ago, CCP Fozzie, just scrap those link modules from database, reimburse those SP with a little extra so wynnie kiddos stop complaining. Reinforce navigation, tanking (mechanics/engineering), electronics, drones, cap skills with new set of specialization skills.
Change command ships for new heavy attack/combat battlecruisers.
Balance done, database cleaned up of one of the worst mechanics in the game and reinforce players decision/skilling choices. Make this game more dynamic by increasing individual player abilities, not by adding or tweaking a stupid "I win" mechanic, just get rid of it.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:03:00 -
[465] - Quote
First, I want to go through an example of how the new warfare links will be calculated: This purely an example post, so anyone that doesn't know can follow with the follow up posts that are about to follow:
bonus of gang link = [base bonus of gang link] x [ 1+ 0.1 x (level warfare link specialist) ] ( == 1.5 for Warfare Link V Pilots) x [ 1+ 0.2 x (level in warfare specialist) ] (== 2 for a Warfare Spec V pilots) x [ mindlink bonus] ( == 1.25 for new Mindlinks ) x [ 1+0.02x(level in t3 ships)] or 1.15 for CS ( == 1.1 for LvL 5 T3 Pilots and 1.15 for CS pilots )
Using Rapid Deployment in a Claymore as an Example: All V, mindlinked Pilot:
Quote:Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
Bonus of gang link = 7% x 1.5 x 2 x 1.25 x 1.15 = 30.19
Which matches your results.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:07:00 -
[466] - Quote
Quote:Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
So, a CS gives 30.2%, a t3 gives 28.9%, a Mindlinked BC gives 26.2%, and a non-mindlinked BC will give give a 21% boost
A high-grade snake set provides 24.73% increase in Velocity. A low-grade snake set provides a 16.02% increase in velocity.
In this example, a single T3/CS link is 20% more effective than giving every member of your fleet a full snake set.
If that booster ship is off grid, how can you possibly justify this imbalance?
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:25:00 -
[467] - Quote
Quote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
So, a CS gives 25.875%, a t3 gives 24.75%, a Mindlinked BC gives 22.5%, and a non-mindlinked BC will give give a 18% boost.
The most straight forward comparison: An EANM, with all V's, gives a 25% boost to resists. Initially, these numbers don't seem crazy broken.
In terms of repping, a 25% decreased cycle time = 1 / .75 = 33% boost to reps.
So, a CS gives 34.9%, a t3 gives 32.9%, a Mindlinked BC gives 29.0%, and a non-mindlinked BC will give give a 22% boost to repping with a SINGLE link.
Using all three links squares the bonus so a CS gives 82.0%, a t3 gives 76.6%, a Mindlinked BC gives 66.5%, and a non-mindlinked BC will give give a 48.7% boost to all self repping power, and all remote repping power.
A high-grade crystal set provides 53.63% increase in shield boosting. A low-grade snake set provides a 33.83% increase in shield boosting. A Standard/Improved/Strong Blue/Exile Pill gives a 20/25/30% boost in Shield/Armor boosting.
If you could only run 1 defensive warfare link, these numbers would seem inline with each other. But the reality is all 3 get used, and then their net boosting effect is simply overpowered. How do you justify this level of imbalance for an off grid ship? |

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:29:00 -
[468] - 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  |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2434
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:33:00 -
[469] - Quote
Quote:Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
So, a CS gives 38.8%, a t3 gives 37.125%, a Mindlinked BC gives 33.75%, and a non-mindlinked BC will give give a 27% boost.
The standard web increases from 10 Km's to 13.88 km's. A Fed Navy web is 14 km's.
The standard scram increases from 9 km's to 12.5 km's. A Domination scram is 11.25 km's.
The T2 point range is increased from 24 km's to 33.3 km's. A Domination point is 30 km's.
So, the single Mindlink is again more effective than giving every pilot in fleet the best faction tackle modules. In terms of risk & effort vs reward, is this not out of line?
|

Verity Sovereign
Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 10:59:00 -
[470] - Quote
Seems to me that this is a nerf to fleets that would use two boosters, and a buf to fleets that would use only 1 booster.
If you were, for example, running an incursion fleet with 1 dedicated mindlinked siege booster and 1 dedicated mindlinked skirmish booster - you will see a significant nerf to your fleet.
If you were running a fleet with only 1 booster... now it can run 6 or even 7 types of links, with 6 of them getting a mindlink and hull bonus.
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. |
|

Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:39:00 -
[471] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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 
This is a MMORPG, if your able to organize 256 People it should have an advantage for this bunch of Players!
I highly disagree with your opinion, think how long sklling is needed to get, 1 Fleet Commander at V, 5 Wing Commander at V and 25 Squadleaders to V and have Boosters with the skills for Warefare Links... its a !!Year!! |

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:48:00 -
[472] - 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.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2437
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:36:00 -
[473] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote: This is a MMORPG, if your able to organize 256 People it should have an advantage for this bunch of Players!
I highly disagree with your opinion, think how long sklling is needed to get, 1 Fleet Commander at V, 5 Wing Commander at V and 25 Squadleaders to V and have Boosters with the skills for Warefare Links... its a !!Year!!
Perhaps the Potency of Warfare links should be related to the number of people in fleet with you.
Really, if you are in a fleet of 250+ players going out to shoot something, then generally you'll be facing an opponent of similar size. At this level of fighting, the firepower, ewar, and tactics utilized by both sides allows for decent battles even with massive booster bonuses.
However, at the 2-10 man gang size, the boosts from a booster are much more imbalancing. Essentially, the "less" players that are involved in the fight, means there is less ships to overcome the benefits boosts provided.
So, Perhaps boosts should be more akin to: Base boost * Mindlink Boost * hull bonus * Fleet Bonus.
Fleet bonus = (1 + .002 * Link Specialist Level + .001 * Warfare Link Spec Level) * ( # of pilots in fleet).
Using 1.15 for Hull bonus (CS) and 1.25 for Mindlink bonus, then the evasive maneuvering II (8% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size: 5 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 12.36% reduction in Sig Size 10 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 13.23% reduction in Sig Size 15 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 14.09% reduction in Sig Size 20 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 *20 ) = 14.95% reduction in Sig Size 30 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 16.68% reduction in Sig Size 50 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 20.13% reduction in Sig Size 75 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 24.44% reduction in Sig Size 100 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 28.75% reduction in Sig Size 150 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 37.38% reduction in Sig Size 200 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 46% reduction in Sig Size 250 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 54.63% reduction in Sig Size
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size: 5 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 10.82% increase in speed 10 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 11.57% increase in speed 15 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 12.33% increase in speed 20 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 13.08% increase in speed 30 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 14.59% increase in speed 50 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 17.61% increase in speed 75 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 21.38% increase in speed 100 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 25.16% increase in speed 150 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 32.7% increase in speed 200 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 40.25% increase in speed 250 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 47.8% increase in speed
And now, for the important defensive links I (6% base): 5 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 9.27% Resists/Repair Rate 10 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 9.92% Resists/Repair Rate 15 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 *15 ) = 10.57% Resists/Repair Rate 20 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 11.21% Resists/Repair Rate 30 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 12.51% Resists/Repair Rate 50 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 15.09% Resists/Repair Rate 75 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 18.33% Resists/Repair Rate 100 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 21.56% Resists/Repair Rate 150 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 28.03% Resists/Repair Rate 200 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 34.5% Resists/Repair Rate 250 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 40.97% Resists/Repair Rate
With one link, this is an effective repair/HP bonus of: 5 in fleet: = 10.22% Effective Repair Boost 10 in fleet: = 11.01% Effective Repair Boost 15 in fleet: = 11.81% Effective Repair Boost 20 in fleet: = 12.63% Effective Repair Boost 30 in fleet: = 14.29% Effective Repair Boost 50 in fleet: = 17.78% Effective Repair Boost 75 in fleet: = 22.44% Effective Repair Boost 100 in fleet: = 27.49% Effective Repair Boost 150 in fleet: = 38.95% Effective Repair Boost 200 in fleet: = 52.67% Effective Repair Boost 250 in fleet: = 69.4% Effective Repair Boost
With all repair links running, this is an effective repair bonus of: 5 in fleet: = 21.48% Effective Repair Boost 10 in fleet: = 23.23% Effective Repair Boost 15 in fleet: = 25.02% Effective Repair Boost 20 in fleet: = 26.85% Effective Repair Boost 30 in fleet: = 30.63% Effective Repair Boost 50 in fleet: = 38.71% Effective Repair Boost 75 in fleet: = 49.92% Effective Repair Boost 100 in fleet: = 62.54% Effective Repair Boost 150 in fleet: = 93.07% Effective Repair Boost 200 in fleet: = 133.09% Effective Repair Boost 250 in fleet: = 186.97% Effective Repair Boost
In small gang (<10), the warfare link boosts are appropriately sized... game influencing without totally breaking game balance between the boosted and not-boosted.
In medium gang (<30), the links become more effective, and more important. This is fair.
In large gangs (>50), links become incredibly important... even encouraging redundant members.
Note: Fleet members probably need to be in system, in space, to limit afg in station game-the-system stuff. And AWOXers will take care of the AFG in space in fleet crowd! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2437
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:44:00 -
[474] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote: This is a MMORPG, if your able to organize 256 People it should have an advantage for this bunch of Players!
I highly disagree with your opinion, think how long sklling is needed to get, 1 Fleet Commander at V, 5 Wing Commander at V and 25 Squadleaders to V and have Boosters with the skills for Warefare Links... its a !!Year!!
Perhaps the Potency of Warfare links should be related to the number of people in fleet with you. Really, if you are in a fleet of 250+ players going out to shoot something, then generally you'll be facing an opponent of similar size. At this level of fighting, the firepower, ewar, and tactics utilized by both sides allows for decent battles even with massive booster bonuses. However, at the 2-10 man gang size, the boosts from a booster are much more imbalancing. Essentially, the "less" players that are involved in the fight, means there is less ships to overcome the benefits boosts provided. So, Perhaps boosts should be more akin to: Base boost * Mindlink Boost * hull bonus * Fleet Bonus. Fleet bonus = (1 + .002 * Link Specialist Level + .001 * Warfare Link Spec Level) * ( # of pilots in fleet). Using 1.15 for Hull bonus (CS) and 1.25 for Mindlink bonus, then the evasive maneuvering II (8% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size: 5 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 12.36% reduction in Sig Size 10 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 13.23% reduction in Sig Size 15 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 14.09% reduction in Sig Size 20 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 *20 ) = 14.95% reduction in Sig Size 30 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 16.68% reduction in Sig Size 50 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 20.13% reduction in Sig Size 75 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 24.44% reduction in Sig Size 100 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 28.75% reduction in Sig Size 150 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 37.38% reduction in Sig Size 200 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 46% reduction in Sig Size 250 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 54.63% reduction in Sig Size In small gang (<10), the warfare link boosts are appropriately sized... game influencing without totally breaking game balance between the boosted and not-boosted. In medium gang (<30), the links become more effective, and more important. This is fair. In large gangs (>50), links become incredibly important... even encouraging redundant members. Note: Fleet members probably need to be in system, in space, to limit afg in station game-the-system stuff. And AWOXers will take care of the AFG in space in fleet crowd!
The numbers probably need more "tweaking" to make the gradient more appropriate, but I really think this is a much, much better result than the static boosts we have now. Hell, we could even skip the "force boosters on grid" mantra, and leave OGB'ing (ideally outside of a POS) functioning as it is now.
|

Sgt Ocker
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:07:00 -
[475] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Making mining links usable in a FF is pure pandering nonsense. That change should be all or nothing. Yeah have a rorqual that has no way to defend itself forced out of shields for every 2 bit ganker to come along and shoot at.. Great idea.. As long as you have the money ($ that is not isk, eventually unless you are an isk trillionare $ will be the main currency in eve) to start buying plex to pay for your T1 cruiser losses. Orcas and Rorquals need a massive boost to self defence capabilities before being forced out of shields. |

Ayana Mayuko
Mayuko Sisters' Trading Enterprises Ltd.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:10:00 -
[476] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Making mining links usable in a FF is pure pandering nonsense. That change should be all or nothing. Yeah have a rorqual that has no way to defend itself forced out of shields for every 2 bit ganker to come along and shoot at.. Great idea.. As long as you have the money ($ that is not isk, eventually unless you are an isk trillionare $ will be the main currency in eve) to start buying plex to pay for your T1 cruiser losses. Orcas and Rorquals need a massive boost to self defence capabilities before being forced out of shields.
Rorqual has a FAR better defence capability compared to a command ship, in active tank, EHP and DPS.
Just saying. |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
419
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:36:00 -
[477] - Quote
does anyone else think mind-links shouldn't have a stronger bonus than Command ships? 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. |

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1079
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:38:00 -
[478] - Quote
Ayana Mayuko wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Making mining links usable in a FF is pure pandering nonsense. That change should be all or nothing. Yeah have a rorqual that has no way to defend itself forced out of shields for every 2 bit ganker to come along and shoot at.. Great idea.. As long as you have the money ($ that is not isk, eventually unless you are an isk trillionare $ will be the main currency in eve) to start buying plex to pay for your T1 cruiser losses. Orcas and Rorquals need a massive boost to self defence capabilities before being forced out of shields. Rorqual has a FAR better defence capability compared to a command ship, in active tank, EHP and DPS. Just saying.
That's why they survive a couple seconds to a hot drop blops/bomber wing. Indeed they have too much useless HP. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |

Sgt Ocker
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:51:00 -
[479] - Quote
Ayana Mayuko wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Making mining links usable in a FF is pure pandering nonsense. That change should be all or nothing. Yeah have a rorqual that has no way to defend itself forced out of shields for every 2 bit ganker to come along and shoot at.. Great idea.. As long as you have the money ($ that is not isk, eventually unless you are an isk trillionare $ will be the main currency in eve) to start buying plex to pay for your T1 cruiser losses. Orcas and Rorquals need a massive boost to self defence capabilities before being forced out of shields. Rorqual has a FAR better defence capability compared to a command ship, in active tank, EHP and DPS. Just saying. Do you really think a boosting rorqual has the same chance of survival - escape as a command ship?? In industrial mode (boosting) the rorq is stuck in position until cycle ends, 5 mins, can field a whopping 5 large drones (T2 sentries, around 500dps) around 900k EHP with shield rigs (uncommon) 650k fitted for storage (more common) takes around 46 seconds to align and warp (after dropping out of boosting mode). A vulture, around 400dps, around 110k EHP and (with my skills) 9 seconds align warp time. Vulture is going to be with a pvp fleet, rorqual with a mining fleet.. I know which I would rather find myself facing 20 or 30 battleships in.
Just Saying.,.
|

Ayana Mayuko
Mayuko Sisters' Trading Enterprises Ltd.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:52:00 -
[480] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Ayana Mayuko wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Making mining links usable in a FF is pure pandering nonsense. That change should be all or nothing. Yeah have a rorqual that has no way to defend itself forced out of shields for every 2 bit ganker to come along and shoot at.. Great idea.. As long as you have the money ($ that is not isk, eventually unless you are an isk trillionare $ will be the main currency in eve) to start buying plex to pay for your T1 cruiser losses. Orcas and Rorquals need a massive boost to self defence capabilities before being forced out of shields. Rorqual has a FAR better defence capability compared to a command ship, in active tank, EHP and DPS. Just saying. That's why they survive a couple seconds to a hot drop blops/bomber wing. Indeed they have too much useless HP.
If I found a boosting T3/command ship in a safespot I would (and do) drop it and kill it, just as I would kill a Rorqual/Orca. The reason command ships aren't hunted as much as Rorquals are (ISK value aisde, obviously that is a factor) because they fly with combat capable fleets. Rorquals do not. There isn't a reason why Rorquals shouldn't have PvP ships defending them just as command ships would have apart from maybe the fact that PvPers have no real incentive to protect these ships which really comes down to the alliance/corp rather than game mechanics. |
|
|
|
|
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 |