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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6830
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi
For Odyssey 1.1. we're going to be taking a swing at aspects of our warfare link features, as well as rebalancing command ships. We believe that the package of changes we've put together will be a significant step forward for the game, but it's definitely not the end of iteration on these features.
For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.
What we will be changing for 1.1 is: The strength of the bonuses provided by Warfare links The way that skills, ship bonuses and implants affect the strength of warfare bonuses The specific types of bonuses provided by the Information Warfare mindlink and Information Wafare: Sensor Integrity warfare link The method by which mindlink implants can be obtained The fitting requirements of warfare link modules, and their use within starbase forcefields Many aspects of Command Ship balance, including what bonuses they receive to warfare link strength The base rep amount of all armor repairers and most shield boosters I'm going to split our changes into three threads for 1.1 and one for a discussion of graphical model changes that will not be implemented in 1.1. but may come later this year. This thread will cover the changes to warfare link modules, bonuses, and effects, including the changes to mindlinks and strategic cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems.
The other threads are (hyperlinks to come): Command Ship Balancing Local armor and shield rep changes Command Ship model changes
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.
Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100. This goes alongside the balance changes to command ships, battlecruisers and strategic cruisers. We want to be able to balance a ship's fittings such that fitting choices allow people different tradeoffs for the choice of what to do with their unbonused "utility" highslots. Some may want to leave it empty or go with a small neut, some may want to fit a gang link fore 100 or 110 pwg, some may want to go with a medium neut at 175 pwg. All of those choices provide different benefits and will require different sacrifices.
Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information
Next we'll cover the changes to the link bonuses themselves. In 1.1 some links will be getting reductions in their maximum possible strength (although none of them are dropping below the maximum levels that were possible before the introduction of Strategic cruisers and Tech Two links). We are also smoothing out the advancement path for gang boosting gameplay, making the base links stronger and reducing the effect of the modifiers on that strength. This will make the training path for gang boosting more of a slope and less of a cliff.
Our changes to the modifiers to warfare link strength are: The four Warfare Specialist skill bonus changed from the current 100% bonus per level (after the first level) to 20% bonus per level. Mindlink bonus reduced from +50% to +25% T3 Warfare processor subsystem bonus changed to 2% per level. Command Ship link bonuses changed to a static 15% bonus. Orcas and Rorquals keep their 3% and 5% bonuses respectively. And below you will find the changes to the base strength of each warfare link, including the maximum available boost (with all skills and the mindlink and maximum ship bonuses) both before and after the patch.
All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
Mining Foreman: Laser Optimization and Harvester Capacitor T1: 5% T2: 7.5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 35.2% Former max bonus: 35.2%
Mining Foreman: Field Enhancement T1: 13.6% T2: 17% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 79.7% Former max bonus: 79%
We are also making some changes to the specific bonuses from the Information Warfare Skill, Information Warfare Mindlink and the Information Warfare: Sen... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
maybe first?
e: boom
e2:
Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe. Has this been considered? 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. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie: These need more sticky applied? Try T2 Sticky
Guess you caught it as I posted up. My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
226
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Awesome. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6838
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:maybe first? e: boom e2: Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe. Has this been considered?
It has been heavily considered and a similar idea (using sensor strength instead of sig radius) was actually a part of one version of this proposal. However we've decided to wait and see how these changes work out before doing something that could potentially make playing ongrid with these ships worse in the name of making offgrid use even worser. (I know it's not a word but it should be.) Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
The Great Leader
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Good night, sweet point and web range. RIP The voice of truth. |
Lexar Mundi
Aperture Harmonics K162
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
No links inside force field is the best aspect of this post. Reduction to defensive boosts is the worst. It will hit small fleets harder than it hits large fleets which can simply compensate by bringing another 20 logistics. Was this intentional? Fleet Bookmarks |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada Apocalypse Now.
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
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? |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
383
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Basically loving all of this, except:
A link for boosing insta-locking camps? Really not sure if want. |
|
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nice changes, probably not far enough but great to see. I'd love to see the buggers a bit easier to probe down too.
Please put boosters on kill mails if possible! Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Basically loving all of this, except: A link for boosing insta-locking camps? Really not sure if want.
It's just 2% per level with the skill, or a flat 15% instead if you have the mindlink.
We had some discussion about how it affects instalocking camps, and concluded that it's within reasonable levels, especially considering the recent nerf to remote SeBos. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
28208
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Finally you posted it.
Now I just have to link to this thread rather than explaining everything you said during the brunch.
But nice changes :) We will never forget you Saede!
I bet you dont see things like this so often in EVE |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:42:00 -
[15] - 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?
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, if so it will probably give Mining Foreman and Siege Warfare bonuses. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
619
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Can you go on a dev roam through the amarr-minmatar warzone spamming "Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield "
Post tears here pls |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
Interesting changes. I noticed that you've basically cut the bonus of all the "good" links (+EHP, point/web length, speed), which is unfortunate, but I suppose it was inevitable.
The capital local rep change is interesting. Do those bonuses "stack" with the bonus to local reps that is granted during siege and triage? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada Apocalypse Now.
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:46:00 -
[18] - 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.
My reading comprehension skill obviously needs some work.
But good to know that it may be considered |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
383
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Basically loving all of this, except: A link for boosing insta-locking camps? Really not sure if want. It's just 2% per level with the skill, or a flat 15% instead if you have the mindlink. We had some discussion about how it affects instalocking camps, and concluded that it's within reasonable levels, especially considering the recent nerf to remote SeBos. Ok, but are you sure BSs don't need a base scanres buff? Being as they really can't tackle anything that doesn't want to be tackled, through terrible scanres, being high mass, and then their weapons are still balanced so as to not easily be able to hit smaller things. Would there be an obvious problem if the scan res difference between classes were greatly reduced? |
Gneeznow
L'Avant Garde
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
All these changes look really good tbh, and that's coming from a CS pilot with 8 mil in leadership. The only gripe I have is maybe interdiction link being nerfed a little too hard, but in fairness, it's been abused to hell so I can see why the links are getting toned down a bit. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1023
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
this is sexy We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
There is a reason why you don't merge all 4 combat links in one and avoid people to destroy implants each time they want to change them and use/give bonus to other type? is not like we can change clones every hour... Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
Wow this is awesome! Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
I like it.
However, I don't fly a links pilot so I don't have a reason to whine.
This will come as a buff to small gang PVP, and it should be interesting to see what this does to the blobs of nullsec. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
255
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: And finally we're making some significant changes to the availability of mindlink implants:
Adding normal mindlinks (including mining mindlinks) to the Concord LP store for 20,000 Concord LP and 20m isk (~60-80m final product sale price).
Dear CCP Fozzie,
I just bought a Skirmish mindlink for 250 mil & plugged it in. Just want to let you know I love all the changes, but you cost me some isk..
Kyt
P.S. The mindlink prices are dropping fast, all you sellers get out while you can! R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Powers Sa
682
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
RIP 96~ km overheated RF warp disruptor on my arazu. lol |
Lexar Mundi
Aperture Harmonics K162
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[27] - 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.
That is understandable. ty for the fast response. |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:59:00 -
[28] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:RIP 96~ km overheated RF warp disruptor on my arazu.
Yeah. That kinda says it all. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1886
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield holy mother of god eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
250
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Not balanced at all: skirmish - 4 bonuses (all races) siege - 2 bonuses armored and information - 3 bonuses.
Swap skirmish bonus on Proteus with siege (there are shield fit gallente ships) to balance things out. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
|
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
226
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
Looks like a very promising start. |
monkfish1234
The Knights of Spamalot The Methodical Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mourn for the rourqual pilots... |
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Bastards Shadow Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:04:00 -
[33] - Quote
well on one hand tech3s wont be as good at boosting as command ships
on the other hand i can have just a single ship boosting all the good kinds of links
guess I can't really complain, and guess we'll never see any boosting tech3s that aren't lokis |
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
The end of stupidly crazy expensive Mining Foreman Mindlinks. Finally. Wait, I don't mine anymore. -á |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
813
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Basically loving all of this, except: A link for boosing insta-locking camps? Really not sure if want. It's just 2% per level with the skill, or a flat 15% instead if you have the mindlink. We had some discussion about how it affects instalocking camps, and concluded that it's within reasonable levels, especially considering the recent nerf to remote SeBos.
you mean the modules that anyone who knows how to actually camp doesn't ever use? |
Eminence Returned
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:06:00 -
[36] - Quote
so, some synthesis: Mindlinks are going to be super cheap, and will not be as soulcrushing if you don't have them. (if you own a stockpile of industry links, contact me so i may collect your tears)
orca/Rorqual, you can still sit in your pos and give mining bonuses.
-1 huggin pilot
I don't love the changes to defensive bonuses. In fountain, we had enough problems getting alpha'd off the field by whatever was floating by. The fleets out there were so large it really wasnt worth it to bring more logi, everything died as fast as you could lock it, even with max tank armor BS double plated and all 4 hardeners and eanm. You still died as soon as redbox, with defensive bonuses.
I see how this is great for small gang warfare, but us sov idiots are going to hate losing more tank.
I love the changes to Command ships themselves, I'm an eos/claymore pilot. <3 |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2201
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
Making mining links usable in a FF is pure pandering nonsense. That change should be all or nothing. |
Powers Sa
682
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:08:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Looks like a very promising start. To what? we started this debate on themittani.com a long time ago. Actually 11.5 months ago to be exact. For off-grid boosting by Andski: http://themittani.com/features/grid-boosting-argument For on-grid boosting by Grath: http://themittani.com/features/case-against-boosters In the world of CCP "looking at" stuff, and giving a fix, this is pretty amazing. Thanks fozzie for taking well constructed player arguments into account and working hard on a fix even though at first you guys said it broke a lot of things.
I will miss my long-**** arazu, lachesis, huginn, rapier, and lokis though. lol |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:09:00 -
[39] - Quote
Will these navy mindlinks be available from level 5 LP stores? These LP stores are quite deficient in ways to cash out, and I wouldn't mind a boost to these. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
Eminence Returned wrote:I don't love the changes to defensive bonuses. In fountain, we had enough problems getting alpha'd off the field by whatever was floating by. The fleets out there were so large it really wasnt worth it to bring more logi, everything died as fast as you could lock it, even with max tank armor BS double plated and all 4 hardeners and eanm. You still died as soon as redbox, with defensive bonuses.
I see how this is great for small gang warfare, but us sov idiots are going to hate losing more tank.
I love the changes to Command ships themselves, I'm an eos/claymore pilot. <3
Well if you died immediately with the old stats, your fear is that you'll die faster than immediately with the new reduced stats?
I know what your saying (just have to poke some fun).
Yea the hit point loss will suck... but the option to have more than just a damnation/legion helps. |
|
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
256
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote: guess I can't really complain, and guess we'll never see any boosting tech3s that aren't lokis
I would disagree there.
The Legion & Proteus will be used for armor fleets
The Tengu will be used for shield fleets
The Loki will be used for Kitchen Sink fleets
R.I.P. Vile Rat |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
YES!!!!!
thank you fozzie!! IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
CM Silma- Paar
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:15:00 -
[43] - Quote
WTH? Now you making booster alts pointless. So I trained my alts long time just for nothing??? Now you have to reimburse my skills and skirmish link implant ISK! This is so unfear!!! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
808
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:17:00 -
[44] - Quote
They're still massively overpowered. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:17:00 -
[45] - Quote
Good change imo. |
Ltazza
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
Can we get the wing commanders not getting fleet commander's bonuses bug fixed any time soon?
Do you see any problems with armor fleet's getting a really easy 4th link fit while shield fleet command ships have to sacrifice a lot of tank for extra link. In the world of DAMP Online it's really useful to have for example armor links+ewar effectiveness on FC and skirmish+ewar range on WCs. Shield fleets have to do without ewar bonuses. Also tanked armor tech 3 boosters that are on grid are insanely better than their shield cousins. Currently pretty much the whole EVE except for the russians have switched to armor bs doctrines. All these changes just promote armor fleets more... |
Engad Tanon
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:18:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Can You please leave the ships alone what is already balanced and working well. Go and improve titans!!!
thnx,
/ET |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
not sure if giving local capital reps access to defensive bonuses is a good idea, otherwise looks good IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
BigSako
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:19:00 -
[49] - Quote
-1. |
Joan Greywind
Temnava Legion No Holes Barred
104
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:21:00 -
[50] - Quote
Is there a special food they feed you in Canada Fozzie? So you do these changes + torunament all weekend, and answer every post?
Dam that is dedication.
I must say things are definitely going for the better.
And just a late advice, unload all the mindlinks. |
|
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
252
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:21:00 -
[51] - Quote
Quote:The Info Warfare skill and mindlink will now give a bonus to scan resolution instead of lock range
Stealth nerf to all interceptors (stiletto). It is almost mandatory to fit lock range rig already and you decrease lock range even more with this change. Please reconsider. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
622
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quote:The Info Warfare skill and mindlink will now give a bonus to scan resolution instead of lock range Stealth nerf to interceptors (stiletto). It is almost mandatory to fit lock range rig already and you decrease lock range even more with this change. Please reconsider.
I would wait for ceptor changes |
CM Kaamel
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:22:00 -
[53] - Quote
Wow! Yeah lets **** up more stuf that working! You should listen more people who have no bonus ships/alts like you did with titans and supercariers! If you going to implement those changes then you have to reimburse my booster alt skills and links ISK!!!!!!!
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
610
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
Obama's war on kiting |
Powers Sa
683
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:25:00 -
[55] - Quote
Engad Tanon wrote:Dear CCP,
Can You please leave the ships alone what is already balanced and working well. Go and improve titans!!!
thnx,
/ET haha get out, titans are fine. lol |
Capqu
Love Squad
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:25:00 -
[56] - Quote
CM Silma- Paar wrote:so unfear!!!
so unfear indeed http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1130
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Wow fozzie....you really managed to kick in the teeth of high today.
Those rare mission storyline drops worth anything...see ya. You just destroyed that. Incursions, well, anyone who flew static armour fleets is finished. That entire doctrine is done.
Shield doctrines, dunno yet, but first glance looking bad.
Basically, now need 3 logis to do the work of 3, so a direct nerf to income in high sec, making the cartel's moon goo income that more valuable
But I why should that be any different in anything else you do? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
551
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:27:00 -
[58] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:maybe first? e: boom e2: Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe). Has this been considered?
Just a few weeks ago I scanned a Loki down that head 5 ECCM modules :P Go out and try it.
Awesome changes, especially the POS part. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
474
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:27:00 -
[59] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:They're still massively overpowered.
Wont be the day they are forced to stay in grid.... |
Setsune Rin
Bite Me inc Bitten.
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:28:00 -
[60] - Quote
jikes.....that interdiction maneuver change is going to hurt >.< |
|
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Yulai Federation
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:29:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We are also making some changes to the specific bonuses from the Information Warfare Skill, Information Warfare Mindlink and the Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link:
The Info Warfare skill and mindlink will now give a bonus to scan resolution instead of lock range Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link will provide its bonus to both sensor strength and lock range.
Warning, you are breaking mining! :) Currently the mining barges and exhumers are only able to reach to their strip range, if they recieve that 10% lockrange boost from infowarfare. If you are removing this, then they'll have a longer strip range than lockrange. The orca is problematic here, because it can't fit 4 boosts for an additiona module to compensate this. So, please fix this.
|
William Wormhole
William Wormhole Services
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
everything is awesome here apart from the nerf to Siege/armor/Skirmish that's ******** please don't do that... |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
253
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:31:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Our changes to the modifiers to warfare link strength are:
The four Warfare Specialist skill bonus changed from the current 100% bonus per level (after the first level) to 20% bonus per level. Mindlink bonus reduced from +50% to +25% T3 Warfare processor subsystem bonus changed to 2% per level. Command Ship link bonuses changed to a static 15% bonus. Orcas and Rorquals keep their 3% and 5% bonuses respectively. Still not enough nerf to mindlink implant. I find it strange that single implant overshadows whole bonus of specialized ship. Make role bonus on CS 25%, 4% on warfare subsystems for T3 but reduce implant bonus to 15%. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
No Nii Nahhui
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
I TRAINED MY SELF A BOOSTER ALT WHO IS GOOD ONLY FOR BOOSTING AND FLY STRATEGIC CRUISERS. SO I-¦D SAY MY 30MIL IP TOON IS USELESS. WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME POSSIBILITY TO GET BACK ALL THAT USELESS IP E.G RESET ALL MY IP!!!! |
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:32:00 -
[65] - Quote
Behold, the game destroyer is back with a vengeance... What does this improve pretty please? It might change a lot, but i don't see the improvement. Will hit small gangs. Will hit large gangs. Will hit fleet fighting. Will kill large engagement, because they simply want more ships to be destroyed for you to win a battle. Will hit everybody except CCP's goal to scoop isk out of game. *** Once again, what patch will bring us black screens and weapons shooting backwards when engaging combat? Caldari Navy Confetti Launcher? Gallente Navy M&M Railgun? Amarr Fleet Mag-Lite Latern Turret? Matari Republic Haribo Projectyle Turret? omg CCP Fozzy |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
611
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:34:00 -
[66] - Quote
The positives:
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.
Quote: 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). |
Zoneras
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:35:00 -
[67] - Quote
Mining Links still work in forcefields? What is this ****? If you want mining links get the **** out of your forcefield. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
209
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[68] - Quote
This entire post looks perfect.
Good job you, give yourself a pat on the back.
The boost to triage is welcome in the face of dreadoclock. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
6863
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
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. |
Anharat
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:38:00 -
[70] - Quote
Am i reading this right, that you just not only buffed the amount of hp that local shield boosters/armor repairers on capitals rep, but you also let them be effected by the -cycle time ganglink ?
Stealth nerf to supers by buffing carriers and dreads ? |
|
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
215
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:39:00 -
[71] - 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.
Um, you do know the definition of "solo" don't you? Cause I'm thinking you don't right now. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Lord Peetri
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:39:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:"...for years one of the most hotly discussed issues..."
Not that i really care, cos i don't do Command Ships, but hotly discussed among whom? I don't know anyone, who knows someone, who has discussed this matter...
Caracal pilots are not getting PvP cos the other guys have a loki or a legion in safespot?
Or you expect command ship pilots to start doing pvp? This is like sending some random guy to iraq and telling him that he's father was Chuck Norris. There's a reason why these ships are called Command Ships - they should be better than anything else out there... in commanding the fleet, not joining the fight.
I don't understand what is the deeper meaning behind the bonus changes? |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
809
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:39:00 -
[73] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Gypsio III wrote:They're still massively overpowered. Wont be the day they are forced to stay in grid....
Nah, the sheer magnitude of the bonuses and the number of people that they apply to make them overpowered.
People pay 120 mill to increase your point range by 25% (RF over T2) on a single ship. A link is over 50% more powerful and affects vastly more people, and yet costs a pittance. It's crazy.
The sig radius link is massively overpowered, 34.5% sig reduction is a huge bonus, a module that provided that to a single player would be regarded as absurd, and yet this applies to the entire fleet? Even the electronic superiority link is massively OP, and that's been boosted! Rapid Deployment gives 30% to all ships' MWD speed, when an ODI gives 12.5% to a single ship - this is crazy OP.
The sheer magnitude of these bonuses, and their ease of fitting, makes them close to mandatory, leaving a chasm between the haves and anyone stupid or new enough to be a have-not. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:40:00 -
[74] - 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%
This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls.
Also mining links out of POS shields! BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Las Minna
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:43:00 -
[75] - Quote
LOL! At the beginning I somehow I thought you going to make booster (command/strategic cruisers) usable in fleets but at the moment you just making them pretty useless.
FOZZIE I think you are smart guy and you underestand that the boost are quite OK only how they were use so far was incomplete. Its good point that you shouldnt be able to use boost ships inside the POS shield even the mining boosters. Now smart thing would make strategic cruisers viable on the battlefield as well. No need to nerf boosting! |
Lord Peetri
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:46:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: The sig radius link is massively overpowered, 34.5% sig reduction is a huge bonus, a module that provided that to a single player would be regarded as absurd, and yet this applies to the entire fleet? Even the electronic superiority link is massively OP, and that's been boosted! Rapid Deployment gives 30% to all ships' MWD speed, when an ODI gives 12.5% to a single ship - this is crazy OP.
Something can be overpowered only in comparison to something else. So tell me why is is 30% to mwd or 34,5% to sig massive?
Because it would be so much nicer when some random interceptor does not catch your alts badger? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
474
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:51:00 -
[77] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Gypsio III wrote:They're still massively overpowered. Wont be the day they are forced to stay in grid.... Nah, the sheer magnitude of the bonuses and the number of people that they apply to make them overpowered. People pay 120 mill to increase your point range by 25% (RF over T2) on a single ship. A link is over 50% more powerful and affects vastly more people, and yet costs a pittance. It's crazy. The sig radius link is massively overpowered, 34.5% sig reduction is a huge bonus, a module that provided that to a single player would be regarded as absurd, and yet this applies to the entire fleet? Even the electronic superiority link is massively OP, and that's been boosted! Rapid Deployment gives 30% to all ships' MWD speed, when an ODI gives 12.5% to a single ship - this is crazy OP. The sheer magnitude of these bonuses, and their ease of fitting, makes them close to mandatory, leaving a chasm between the haves and anyone stupid or new enough to be a have-not.
A bonus that will be easily erasable when they must stay in grid. A ECM boat or a Dampener boat can do as much effect on a small gang as a commadn ship. THe command ships only become VERY powerful when on large fleets. And that is EXACLTY their main purpose.. otherwise no one woudl ever use them if their final bonus was pathetic 5% |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:51:00 -
[78] - Quote
While I am slightly concerned how this will effect large scale engagements and the general survivability of ships in high alpha environments I am ok with these changes.
Also yay no more POS boosting. |
Tetania
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[79] - Quote
I think bonuses overall could have been hit with bigger nerf bat especially in terms of the sig bonuses and giving a universal sensor strength bonus seems odd but overall good changes.
I would ask you take another look at the minmatar command ships tho. With no resist or flat HP bonus I'm not looking forward to being a wing booster on grid when the on grid boosting changes finally come in. Survivability will be a serious problem in large fleets. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[80] - Quote
Are T2 mindlinks going away, or are they just being supplemented with T1 and Navy mindlinks? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Alice Saki
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
77025
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[81] - 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.
+1
We knew this was coming we warned them not too do it... but meh... they only care for the big Entity
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
624
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[82] - 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.
Suddenly spaceships talking about solo |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:54:00 -
[83] - Quote
Quote: Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100.
That is both good. What is bad is that Information Warfare links still suck and you addressed that only by giving bonuses to more than one type of links for T3s and Command ships. What prevents you from introducing more Warfare links to game? I think that a Warfare link giving bonus to Drone control range would fit well within Gallentean philosophy. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2397
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:56:00 -
[84] - Quote
Frozzie, I like the direction of the changes, but feel that gang boosts are still too potent.
For example: A 5 Link Claymore (which is much easier to fit, still easily tanked with over 80k EHP, and able to fit all 3 Siege links and 2 Skirmish links (Rapid Deployment & Interdiction Manuevers), both with mindlinked-quality boosts (when implanted with the corresponding Navy Implant).
That will give every ship in fleet: 25% better resists across the board 25% faster armor repair, across the board. 39% more tackle range 30% more speed.
So, my < insert shield repping ship > now effectively reps 50-70% more effectively than my opponent, travels as if I have 3x Overdrive II's added to my hull, and all t2 webs, pts, and scrams function as if they are best navy faction versions.
To get similar boosts without a fleet booster, I would need to pimp out my ship with blingy tackle mods, install a bunch of extra overdrives in lowslots I don't have, and use a full set of crystal implants, and take a standard blue pill to boot. And all that will effect one ship, while the fleet booster boosts everyone in fleet.
Props on the CS needing to be out-of-a-POS, but it can still hug a POS, where it can get safe pretty fast. Not to mention, I could alternatively hide it inside a deadspace pocket (like inside a gated plex, or say, 400 km's off the plex entry gate, which makes it immune to being probed because anyone warping to the probe result will land on the gate instead of the CS). I could alternatively put it next to a station, where it can dock up if danger comes (and while I applaud the fact I can now effect these boosters, the boosts are still sooo potent that those with boosts have an overwhelming, obnoxious benefit over those without.
How is this balanced?
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:57:00 -
[85] - Quote
the numbers on max bonuses with max skills ect. are they listed for t3 boosts? or for CSs? IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:57:00 -
[86] - Quote
Looks like a good 1st step |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
625
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[87] - Quote
Fozzie, why did you make such a tiny nerf to tds a few months ago, only do undo the nerf now with a boost to the ewar strength link? |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
268
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[88] - 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.
1. It is not really soloing if you are using two characters. 2. Get better fleet mates. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
551
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[89] - Quote
As a small scale pvpler .. THIS IS AWESOME! For my personal play style and offgrid booster fitting this is good :) German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Hanssollo
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[90] - Quote
NERF IT MORE
About effin time something is happening in this direction.
+1
PS:Nerf it more |
|
Kali Omega
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
135
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
Edit: no more boosting from a pos...best news ever |
Arrgthepirate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[92] - Quote
This is ******* horrible. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[93] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Gypsio III wrote:They're still massively overpowered. Wont be the day they are forced to stay in grid.... Yeah, 'cause CCP has 100% Follow up on **** they mention no ETA for. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2397
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:03:00 -
[94] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote: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% This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls. Also mining links out of POS shields!
Two comments:
All those who think you can't compete without gang links are spoiled little brats. The "blob" can just as easily bring gang links as you can, and generally they are more likely to have them. Also, people were out soloing and partaking in asymetric warfare long before gang links became so ubiquitously used. You just need to learn to employ tactics, learn how to engage, and do so without having stupidly potent enhancements to your ship.
As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system!
|
Crash Me
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:05:00 -
[95] - Quote
I dont underestnd what are you trying to do with this game. Do you want all the ships have about the same strenght? We already dont have any good ships left in this game. All the ships are soon like garbage ships only the price is different.
WHY you improving cheap ships and nerfing good ships? Isit because noobs whine too much and you can thing with your own head? Supers are now only for structure shooting. strategic cruisers still costl alot but not so. Its much smarte to use t1 as they doing very well atm. t2 ships are almost at the same level as t1 but more expensive. No point to use t2 or faction BS anymore as t1 is so good. Maybe you should just remove t2 and t3 let us have only garbage ships. Oh yeah then it prob. boring for players that have played that game abit!
I-¦d better see very expensive and very good ships which would make that game intresting. Oh this game getting rediculous. |
Luiji Vampa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:06:00 -
[96] - Quote
This nerf is very bad idea.
-1 |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1389
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:06:00 -
[97] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system!
It would be easier to just let the Rorqual give bonused mining bonuses without needing to deploy. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2397
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:07:00 -
[98] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:the numbers on max bonuses with max skills ect. are they listed for t3 boosts? or for CSs?
Those are for Command ships. T3's would be less effective, providing a max 1.1 modifier, rather than the 1.15 modifier of a CS.
So, a 25% max boost for a CS would be 25% * 1.1 / 1.15 = 23.9% |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2397
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system!
It would be easier to just let the Rorqual give bonused mining bonuses without needing to deploy.
That would be a pragmatic approach... |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
299
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:09:00 -
[100] - Quote
navy mindlinks? are you kidding me? hell yeah!!!!
|
|
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
228
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:09:00 -
[101] - Quote
The nerf to POS boosting is good, but it will be circumvented by having heavily tanked linkships right on the edge of the forcefield so they can duck inside to safety if threatened. It might be good to have the link-suppressing effect extend out to say 40 km from the tower to prevent that sort of thing. |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
6865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:10:00 -
[102] - Quote
Zappity wrote: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. Um, you do know the definition of "solo" don't you? Cause I'm thinking you don't right now.
What, you think Solo is buzzing around highsec in an incursus? I think you need to start getting real, especially if you actually think RvB is :goodpvp: because let me enlighten you:
it isn't. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6908
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:11:00 -
[103] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Are T2 mindlinks going away, or are they just being supplemented with T1 and Navy mindlinks?
By mindlinks I mean the slot 10 implants, not the warfare link modules.
Technically there are no T1 mindlinks, the normal ones are T2. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1130
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:12:00 -
[104] - Quote
Alice Saki wrote: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. +1 We knew this was coming we warned them not too do it... but meh... they only care for the big Entity
You have to remember what ingame group he came from. Is it any surprise he ruins the game for all others?
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:12:00 -
[105] - Quote
Hey, we gotta do something with our time between BLopsing your stuff.
The answer to Links isn't to Nerf the existing links.
If anything it was to BUFF T1 links, and definitely add in those navy and T1 mindlinks
If I'm going to be in a ship that is going to have SHOOT ME!!!! All over it, I better be doing it for a good reason. Nerfing T2 links takes away a good portion of that reason. So... command ships will still be used about as much as they already are. Why? T1 BC with navy Mindlink. Job's good.
The Law is a point of View |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
611
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:The nerf to POS boosting is good, but it will be circumvented by having heavily tanked linkships right on the edge of the forcefield so they can duck inside to safety if threatened. It might be good to have the link-suppressing effect extend out to say 40 km from the tower to prevent that sort of thing.
Much like off-grid T3s, just being able to probe them out, or warp in on them to force the links off is huge improvement. |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
216
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:14:00 -
[107] - Quote
Buhhdust Princess wrote:Zappity wrote: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. Um, you do know the definition of "solo" don't you? Cause I'm thinking you don't right now. What, you think Solo is buzzing around highsec in an incursus? I think you need to start getting real, especially if you actually think RvB is :goodpvp: because let me enlighten you: it isn't.
Nope, I think buzzing around lowsec is. Until you get to Kourm. or similar and run into 40km point Condors. Just pathetic. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2397
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:15:00 -
[108] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Hey, we gotta do something with our time between BLopsing your stuff. The answer to Links isn't to Nerf the existing links. If anything it was to BUFF T1 links, and definitely add in those navy and T1 mindlinks If I'm going to be in a ship that is going to have SHOOT ME!!!! All over it, I better be doing it for a good reason. Nerfing T2 links takes away a good portion of that reason. So... command ships will still be used about as much as they already are. Why? T1 BC with navy Mindlink. Job's good.
I personally don't think they nerfed them enough!
As for the BC with a gang link... it would be a very welcome change if they became widely used! And I think that's what CCP wants!
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
611
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:15:00 -
[109] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Alice Saki wrote: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. +1 We knew this was coming we warned them not too do it... but meh... they only care for the big Entity You have to remember what ingame group he came from. Is it any surprise he ruins the game for all others?
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
812
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:17:00 -
[110] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:A bonus that will be easily erasable when they must stay in grid. A ECM boat or a Dampener boat can do as much effect on a small gang as a commadn ship. THe command ships only become VERY powerful when on large fleets. And that is EXACLTY their main purpose.. otherwise no one woudl ever use them if their final bonus was pathetic 5%
There's more to links than CS. A T1 BC in a small-gang environment can fit a link without any great difficulty or significant compromise, and can realistically expect to survive on-grid. This ease of use, combined with the sheer magnitude of the bonuses, makes them as close to mandatory as any module.
On the fleet scale, defining the argument in terms of erasing link ships easily, thereby emphasising the importance of getting rid of them, is a tacit acknowledgement of their power. It causes a bad, binary mechanic, with the gulf between having links and not having them so large that it's absurd not to primary them in fleet. If the bonuses were small (not 5%, that was your number, let's just say 50% of current bonuses), then the decision to primary link boats would not nearly be so obvious and predictable, resulting in a less binary mechanic and less of a difference in fleet power between the haves, the have-nots and the hads. |
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Stay Frosty.
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:18:00 -
[111] - Quote
Fozzie has done more to help newbros compete in EVE than anyone. Just wow. I am nervous about the boost to gate camps coming, though. Also, interceptors now more than ever will need some love.
Also, the tears in this thread are already glorious. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:19:00 -
[112] - Quote
Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1360
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:21:00 -
[113] - Quote
I think these are a great set of changes.
Where I am. |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
6865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:22:00 -
[114] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Buhhdust Princess wrote:Zappity wrote: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. Um, you do know the definition of "solo" don't you? Cause I'm thinking you don't right now. What, you think Solo is buzzing around highsec in an incursus? I think you need to start getting real, especially if you actually think RvB is :goodpvp: because let me enlighten you: it isn't. Nope, I think buzzing around lowsec is. Until you get to Kourm. or similar and run into 40km point Condors. Just pathetic.
..this confirms everything for me lol |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:22:00 -
[115] - Quote
Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Hopefully they will be moved to being ongrid still Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6920
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:23:00 -
[116] - Quote
Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid?
Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:23:00 -
[117] - 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. Oh ok, good. It wasn't clear, because in the post you mentioned you were having "normal" mindlinks (and Navy ones). The "normal" mindlinks language (and the "more of a slope" language) made me think you were adding a T1 variant (for cheap and less-than-Cybernetics V) in addition to the currently existing ones and new Navy variants. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
6866
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:26:00 -
[118] - Quote
If you are going to do this, then you really have to look at the claymore as an armour tanker AS WELL AS a shield tanker, without making it too OP. Otherwise Loki/Claymore links are going to be utter shite, and you're just going to have the Nano age back again where everyone kites everything with no big deal. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2399
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:26:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
QFT!!
|
Ziv Erth
Task Force Proteus Protean Concept
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:27:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We may add an Ore link at some point, if so it will probably give Mining Foreman and Siege Warfare bonuses.
Yes. Yes, please. |
|
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
218
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:28:00 -
[121] - Quote
Buhhdust Princess wrote:Zappity wrote:Buhhdust Princess wrote:Zappity wrote: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. Um, you do know the definition of "solo" don't you? Cause I'm thinking you don't right now. What, you think Solo is buzzing around highsec in an incursus? I think you need to start getting real, especially if you actually think RvB is :goodpvp: because let me enlighten you: it isn't. Nope, I think buzzing around lowsec is. Until you get to Kourm. or similar and run into 40km point Condors. Just pathetic. ..this confirms everything for me lol
Hehe, yeah well you're getting nerfed and I'm not so there Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:31:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot. You know just what to say to me. |
Admiral Douros
aWc Heavy Industries
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:31:00 -
[123] - Quote
Armor and web nerfs are going to hit wormhole groups pretty hard. Capital escalations are already fairly difficult -- nerfing armor resistances and rep amounts is going to make them even harder, and going with a Damnation for max armor boosts means that a Loki is only going to be able to web to ~40km (maybe less, I haven't run the numbers yet).
Have you considered maybe giving a bonus to warfare links in wormholes? It seems like these changes were designed without wspace in mind, and I'm a big fan of them for kspace PVP and PVE, but I think some attention needs to be paid to wspace implications. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
613
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:31:00 -
[124] - Quote
I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
628
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:32:00 -
[125] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps.
And all the gatecampers (particularly the ones on highsec gates), just sit their slaved damnation orbiting the gate.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2399
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:33:00 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
Does this imply, that at some later date when the fleet boost background mechanics are re-written, we can expect to see fleet booster ships to be moved to "on-grid"? |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:35:00 -
[127] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps. And all the gatecampers (particularly the ones on highsec gates), just sit their slaved damnation orbiting the gate.
That or pre-aligned under webs of a T1 frig so 'click-----> Warp!' The Law is a point of View |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:38:00 -
[128] - Quote
Another way to prevent some of the risk-reducing tactics used to protect link alts would be to have them inherit the aggression/suspect/criminal/weapons flags of the people they're boosting, in the same way that logistics pilots do. That'd prevent people from just keeping their linkships parked on a gate or a station undock where they can contribute to a fight but still instantly get to safety if threatened. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:39:00 -
[129] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps. And all the gatecampers (particularly the ones on highsec gates), just sit their slaved damnation orbiting the gate. That or pre-aligned under webs of a T1 frig so 'click-----> Warp!' Can't boost while you've been forced to warp. On grid scanning is a thing. This wouldn't work out so well. Having to use tanked command ships is a good thing. No they won't be easy to kill, but neuts can keep turning the links off, so there will be options to deal with them. Untanked tech 3 boosters will be gone, not sad at all. |
Rainbow Prism Colorblind
Deep Space Equinox The Nightingales of Hades
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:40:00 -
[130] - Quote
I have not much complains on the ship shanges or the out of pos bosting shanges.
My consern is more about havint implants/items easybly acceble and cheaper to get.
I dislike that it becomes a grind incutions to get all items game.
long work for special epic/soryline misson for good lot may soon not serve a purpus if you can just do incurtion grinding to get evertying you need cheaply and safely.
I would want to see a more hard to get items that you need to get as drop not just get evertying you need from LP stores.
Just my point of view, also seeding easy to get items into a working market will make it unstable and some items may even disepear from the market becorse there to easy to get from LP stores.
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2400
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:40:00 -
[131] - Quote
Admiral Douros wrote:Armor and web nerfs are going to hit wormhole groups pretty hard. Capital escalations are already fairly difficult -- nerfing armor resistances and rep amounts is going to make them even harder, and going with a Damnation for max armor boosts means that a Loki is only going to be able to web to ~40km (maybe less, I haven't run the numbers yet).
Have you considered maybe giving a bonus to warfare links in wormholes? It seems like these changes were designed without wspace in mind, and I'm a big fan of them for kspace PVP and PVE, but I think some attention needs to be paid to wspace implications.
You know, you could use more than one fleet boosting ship... A Damnation for Info & Armor, and a Claymore for skirmish and siege. Additional, with the Navy Mindlinks, you'll get the max boosts on all 12 links!!!! Then you get your bonused webs, bonused paints, bonused Armor, and bonused shields to boot!
|
Asher Elias
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:41:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
I guess the thing is that I can't envision a way to make bonus characters "fun" if they were on-grid. As it is every bonus character in the game is someone's alt so they are presumably having fun doing something else. Personally I wouldn't mind bonus ships being removed completely, but unless you actually have a way to make them enjoyable to fly I wouldn't force them on-grid. |
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:42:00 -
[133] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:navy mindlinks? are you kidding me? hell yeah!!!!
What do you think, sir, Navy Links will be better because they Faction Stuff? Rofl, don't even dream about, i bet we will get the overpriced old stuff renamed, just like they did to battlecruisers, and this all after the shitload of imbalance hypochrisy.
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:44:00 -
[134] - Quote
Fewell wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps. And all the gatecampers (particularly the ones on highsec gates), just sit their slaved damnation orbiting the gate. That or pre-aligned under webs of a T1 frig so 'click-----> Warp!' Can't boost while you've been forced to warp. On grid scanning is a thing. This wouldn't work out so well. Having to use tanked command ships is a good thing. No they won't be easy to kill, but neuts can keep turning the links off, so there will be options to deal with them. Untanked tech 3 boosters will be gone, not sad at all.
L2Eve.
It'd only warp when it had to, and would be within warp range of the rest of it's fleet.... GG. Gate camping works on the premise of 'Can I kill it? Y/N? Warp/Kill' The Law is a point of View |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:45:00 -
[135] - Quote
Hey, this is a good start. I'd still say the bonuses are a bit large compared to the scale on which the rest of the game operates, though.
Fozzie, does CCP have any plans to allow ganglinks on ships other than battlecruiser/tech 3 hulls? |
Starfall Achura
Angels of Achura
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:46:00 -
[136] - Quote
Get rid of target painting as the racial ewar for (make it a universal skill) and give them an ewar that degrades link bonuses. The further out the booster is the more of a percentage the gang loses. Should hinder off grid boosting and force boosters closer to e fight. The ewar would have to do something else I guess to be relevant in non boosted gangs but it would be something minor. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:46:00 -
[137] - Quote
The powergrid reduction is a nice start but still too little for most T1 bc's to fit them without pg implants and rigs.
some of the potential numbers still seem a little excessive 50% .. 35%
Mindlink implants are still far too high at 25% no other implant in the game comes close to this in anyway .. and you are making them cheaper and more readily available by the sounds of it. especially with OGB still available..
Also disappointed that the Proteus doesn't get access to siege warfare gallente shield tank too you know..
I would certainly prefer more of the strength of the bonus coming from the module rather than implants to simplify where the bonuses is coming from as it can be hard to work out how a link goes from 9% to 50% ...seriously you need to simplify the calculations 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. |
Sante Ixnay
University of Caille Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:maybe first? e: boom e2: Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe. Has this been considered? It has been heavily considered and a similar idea (using sensor strength instead of sig radius) was actually a part of one version of this proposal. However we've decided to wait and see how these changes work out before doing something that could potentially make playing ongrid with these ships worse in the name of making offgrid use even worser. (I know it's not a word but it should be.)
Maybe another good reason to have a distinct Probeabilitudity attribute, separating it from signature and sensor strength.
I too enjoy making up words. :)
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:47:00 -
[139] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Mole Guy wrote:navy mindlinks? are you kidding me? hell yeah!!!!
What do you think, sir, Navy Links will be better because they Faction Stuff? Rofl, don't even dream about, i bet we will get the overpriced old stuff renamed, just like they did to battlecruisers, and this all after the shitload of imbalance hypochrisy.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Adding normal 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).
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Marc Callan
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:48:00 -
[140] - Quote
Waah! I bought my alt a Mining Foreman Mindlink and now I want a refund!
Just kidding. I paid my early adoption tax, and I accept that I'm stuck with it, but it's nice that there'll now be a source for the mindlinks aside from random drops.
Wonder how hard it would be, programming-wise, for a fleet booster to get tagged with aggression flags for any ship it's boosting? (IE: fleet boosters are treated as commanders, so they bear responsibility for anything their fleetmates do, so if an out-of-corp Damnation is boosting someone who does something that would give the Damnation a suspect flag or get the Damnation CONCORDed if it did it itself...) "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..." - Niccolo Machiavelli-á |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
326
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:48:00 -
[141] - Quote
The reduction in command bonuses is really disappointing. I was thinking you'd be sensible and cut them by 1/2 to 2/3. This is way too much for a ship to give to an entire fleet, the bonuses should be tiny. |
Naoru Kozan
The humbleless Crew
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:50:00 -
[142] - Quote
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of LML Condor pilots suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
Very nice changes |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:51:00 -
[143] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:The reduction in command bonuses is really disappointing. I was thinking you'd be sensible and cut them by 1/2 to 2/3. This is way too much for a ship to give to an entire fleet, the bonuses should be tiny.
QFT!!!! |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:53:00 -
[144] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:The reduction in command bonuses is really disappointing. I was thinking you'd be sensible and cut them by 1/2 to 2/3. This is way too much for a ship to give to an entire fleet, the bonuses should be tiny. This plus the eventual removal of OGB puts links in a very good spot, not OP but not so underwhelming they are useless. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:58:00 -
[145] - Quote
Are you going to change the base number of warfare links on strategic cruisers from one to three and/ or reduce the fitting requirements command processors? |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1033
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:00:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
This is the best part of the thread.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:01:00 -
[147] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:The reduction in command bonuses is really disappointing. I was thinking you'd be sensible and cut them by 1/2 to 2/3. This is way too much for a ship to give to an entire fleet, the bonuses should be tiny. This plus the eventual removal of OGB puts links in a very good spot, not OP but not so underwhelming they are useless.
When OGB'ers are moved to On grid, I think the current boost levels are reasonable! Until then, please nerf them a bit more! |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
330
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[148] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot. This is the best part of the thread.
I had to read the OP several times before realising that they aren't even fixing this. |
Aria Ta'Rohk
Reckless Ambitions
132
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
YES! FINALLY! OH GOD YES THANK YOU I'll take 2 carebears to go, with extra tears |
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:03:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Looks like a typo somewhere in here. Proteus and legion are the same.
|
|
HerrBert
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:06:00 -
[151] - Quote
Dear Fozzie,
I think the changes are great and totally endourse your product. Esspecially since the old titans (Vulture and Claymore) are getting new life in them besides being possed up slaves. I think making the EOS the new King of Boosters for Armor-based PvP is kinda wierd, then again it puts it back into its former glory. Back when EOS was a cool ship.
That being said, with the 2% Bonus on the Tech3 Subsystem you could also call that a castration. To be blunt yes you could go for the overpriced Sleipnir Version but you get inferior boost.. so thats bad. Why not scrap boosting Tech3s in total.
I would suggest you replace the "Fleetcommand Subsystem" with a Salvaging Subsystem,
50% Increase for Tractor Beams per Subsystem Level
Racial Modifier: 5% Increase of Yield (Minmatar Hacking / Caldari Analysis / Gallente Salvaging / Amarr Gas Cloud Harvester)
This would get it next to its carebearing marauder brothern... My mind does not reflect my corp ... it just shows you what they care about...
Super serious Wormhole Guy http://www.youtube.com/user/HerrBertism |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1886
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:08:00 -
[152] - Quote
Quote:"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi
Quote:There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.
my interpretation: they can't say when they can force links on grid for technical reasons. So i read the entire post in context of this, they have to make boosting ships useful in combat FIRST, otherwise you would have a kiting brick on grid etc... and thats what they are doing, beside other adjustments and quick fixes (POS rule).
eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Liam Inkuras
Justified Chaos
360
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:11:00 -
[153] - Quote
YEEEEEHAWWWW I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
386
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:13:00 -
[154] - Quote
Alexander the Great wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Looks like a typo somewhere in here. Proteus and legion are the same. The missing Armour, Siege, Info doesn't fit Amarr or Gal better than the listed combos. Skirmish is too powerful to nerf one of them by not having it, while also giving them siege instead. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:16:00 -
[155] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote: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% This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls. Also mining links out of POS shields! Two comments: All those who think you can't compete without gang links are spoiled little brats. The "blob" can just as easily bring gang links as you can, and generally they are more likely to have them. Also, people were out soloing and partaking in asymetric warfare long before gang links became so ubiquitously used. You just need to learn to employ tactics, learn how to engage, and do so without having stupidly potent enhancements to your ship. As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system!
Obviously you don't understand how eve works, or you do but your actual small gang experience is close to 0. Not all fleets in EVE are kiting and sniping fleets. In eve u can fight both at range and brawling, you know? If fighting at range you need skirmish links, if brawling you might need defense bonuses. If brawling outnumbered you100% need or huge amount of logis or those defense bonuses.
So if our most often 10-20 T2 or T3 man fleet go out in a roam, we will ofc avoid 30-60 T2-T3 fleets. But we will go at T1 or mixed T1-T2 fleets with those numbers. Because those defense bonuses mean much more for us than for T1 hulls.
Numbers (blobs) these days are just OP. But specialized fleets (T2,T3) or higher tier ships like BS on BC and lower, with the addition of bonuses gives you a chance to fight against blobs even tough their fleets having the bonuses also.
Our 20 man fleet being able to fight against 40-50 man fleets will drop to 30-40. And because of that we ll need to bring + 1 T2 logi to our fleet than we used to and it still might not be enough. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
299
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:20:00 -
[156] - 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. WHAT??? holy bat shyt rat man! did you say ore links for the rorqual and orca for shield? kick ass!!!! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:22:00 -
[157] - Quote
Also curious to know Fozzie .. in the future when OGB is removed what kind of ranges do you have in mind for links? and have you factored that into the CS rebalance? 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. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
384
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 -
[158] - Quote
I'm a bit concerned that the legion and Proteus get the same bonuses. Frankly it seems pretty lazy.
Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information
So each race doesn't get one of the four, okay, so give the Proteus Siege instead of Information or Skirmish, not a bit deal, but making the same seems pretty lazy. If that is because they are optimal than you should change it so that one set isn't inherently the best for a certain type. |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 -
[159] - Quote
I think there should be a little more to differentiate the strategic cruisers from one another. Loki specializes in Skirmish so make the Skirmish boost 3% and the other two leave at 2% and specialize the others as well, Tengu - Siege, etc.
Also, not sure if the current breakdown of the three different bonuses applied to T3s makes much sense. It will require very particular circumstances to choose anything over the Loki. I think if we add a little more incentive like the example I suggested above with the 3% specialization you would see more uses of other ships besides Loki.
|
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
299
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:25:00 -
[160] - Quote
Kyt Thrace wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: And finally we're making some significant changes to the availability of mindlink implants:
Adding normal mindlinks (including mining mindlinks) to the Concord LP store for 20,000 Concord LP and 20m isk (~60-80m final product sale price). Dear CCP Fozzie, I just bought a Skirmish mindlink for 250 mil & plugged it in. Just want to let you know I love all the changes, but you cost me some isk.. Kyt P.S. The mindlink prices are dropping fast, all you sellers get out while you can! i didnt really need to see this post about losing chump change. i have a t2 mining foreman implant.
now, i have to go buy all the navy ones (i fly all command ships on 2 toons) |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:26:00 -
[161] - Quote
Also a little confused the mindlinks are T2 atm and you are adding T1 links what will the difference be? 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. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
571
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[162] - Quote
Great changes.
Are there any notions of requiring Titans to be outside of POS shields when they bridge? |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[163] - Quote
I love these changes. A welcome relief from the HAC thread.
Oh, but kick the mining bonuses out of POSes too. It's only fair. |
MarekCZE
The Chosen 0nes Mildly Sober
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:29:00 -
[164] - 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.
YEAH lets **** up EVE online totaly its always nice to see something why people quit with eve. Just curious this was born in your blond head or? I just wanna know if u r nerd or somebody else. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:32:00 -
[165] - Quote
what's with the increasing of lock ranges and scan resolution? do we need to boost all ships lock time and range for some reason? 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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:33:00 -
[166] - Quote
MarekCZE wrote: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. YEAH lets **** up EVE online totaly its always nice to see something why people quit with eve. Just curious this was born in your blond head or? I just wanna know if u r nerd or somebody else. Sorry your booster that stays safely inside of a POS forcefield will now have to come out and put his ship at risk in order to provide significant benefits to your "solo" pvp.
TBH, the boosts shouldn't be able to be activated within 2,000m of a POS forcefield. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:33:00 -
[167] - Quote
MarekCZE wrote: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. YEAH lets **** up EVE online totaly its always nice to see something why people quit with eve. Just curious this was born in your blond head or? I just wanna know if u r nerd or somebody else.
what is wrong with you STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Kozlack
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:34:00 -
[168] - Quote
Are you going to give capitals a static bonus to links? There are those of us that toss links on our cap alts while our mains do things btw. On vaction from hawk-eyeing local..... in empire |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:35:00 -
[169] - Quote
Also could you rename siege warfare to shield warfare please? like armoured warfare... 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. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:36:00 -
[170] - Quote
Armour hacs lose speed from the rapid deployment nerf but this isn't matched by a nerf to electronic superiority for painters meaning ahacs are going to be taking more damage as a result of this change.
Add the defence nerfs on top of that and it makes a fleet comp that is already very much on the edge of glory most of the time somewhat weaker against blobs.
Also IWAR is now far easier to run links for meaning more bonused painters which results in an effective further damage boost vs ahacs for a long of gangs (iwar strength often being run as 4th link).
Please don't nerf the ahac ;( |
|
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:37:00 -
[171] - Quote
Interdiction nerf is heavy. Will there be any changes to recons and EAF's to compensate? Or are these ships being nerfed on purpose? All that encouragement to build snipe HACs with the long range gun and HAC changes; counter pointed by forcing the lach and huggin out in front of the fleet. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1236
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:38:00 -
[172] - Quote
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
SUCK IT LINKFAGS
Now that; thats out of the way.
This isn't enough on the skirmish ones imo. Maximum achievable effectiveness of all skirmish/Siege and Armor links should have been reduced by 33-50%. Also you should make them give a sig bloom.
But this is still great.
CCP, Please go a bit further! BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Yankunytjatjara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:44:00 -
[173] - Quote
Please, consider the aggro issue: links help other ships in the same way logis did before the aggro mechanics changes. Neutral links are basically unfightable in empire. They should draw aggro in the same way as logi ships do now. Let us fight them!
Currently, even if you went to the length of developing whatever is needed to make them work on grid only, nothing would change in highsec apart from the fact of being able to see the link ship on grid for a little while - until its work is done and it cloaks... Let us fight it as soon as it draws aggro and there will be MOAR explosions, MOAR t3 stuff needed from wormspace, MOAR tears from pathetic "soloers", all Very Good Things! My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:45:00 -
[174] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote: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% This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls. Also mining links out of POS shields! Two comments: All those who think you can't compete without gang links are spoiled little brats. The "blob" can just as easily bring gang links as you can, and generally they are more likely to have them. Also, people were out soloing and partaking in asymetric warfare long before gang links became so ubiquitously used. You just need to learn to employ tactics, learn how to engage, and do so without having stupidly potent enhancements to your ship. As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system! Obviously you don't understand how eve works, or you do but your actual small gang experience is close to 0. Not all fleets in EVE are kiting and sniping fleets. In eve u can fight both at range and brawling, you know? If fighting at range you need skirmish links, if brawling you might need defense bonuses. If brawling outnumbered you100% need or huge amount of logis or those defense bonuses. So if our most often 10-20 T2 or T3 man fleet go out in a roam, we will ofc avoid 30-60 T2-T3 fleets. But we will go at T1 or mixed T1-T2 fleets with those numbers. Because those defense bonuses mean much more for us than for T1 hulls. Numbers (blobs) these days are just OP. But specialized fleets (T2,T3) or higher tier ships like BS on BC and lower, with the addition of bonuses gives you a chance to fight against blobs even tough their fleets having the bonuses also. Our 20 man fleet being able to fight against 40-50 man fleets will drop to 30-40. And because of that we ll need to bring + 1 T2 logi to our fleet than we used to and it still might not be enough.
Those bonuses don't mean any more to you than them..... In fact given you have the lower dps and will usually have better mitigation (depending what ships you fly) you will probably benefit with more breakable tanks facing you.
|
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
299
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:49:00 -
[175] - Quote
Lord Peetri wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:"...for years one of the most hotly discussed issues..." Not that i really care, cos i don't do Command Ships, but hotly discussed among whom? I don't know anyone, who knows someone, who has discussed this matter... Caracal pilots are not getting PvP cos the other guys have a loki or a legion in safespot? Or you expect command ship pilots to start doing pvp? This is like sending some random guy to iraq and telling him that he's father was Chuck Norris. There's a reason why these ships are called Command Ships - they should be better than anything else out there... in commanding the fleet, not joining the fight. I don't understand what is the deeper meaning behind the bonus changes? i have been in several discussiong about it ranging from new destroyer SubCommand ships to the effects of moving rorquals and orcas into the field as they are. tons of posts out there if u search it.
command can orbit the pos and be protected by the guns or orbit stations. myself, i will be ongrid busting things up. some of the new changes are wicked, especially the reduction in cost for links. its not the same losing a harby with a t1 implant vs a rorqual with a t2 mining implant. theres about a 4 bill difference.
once everything else gets balanced (rorquals and orcas), we will see how they work. but for only forcing the rorqual to be in seige mode to boost and not forcing all other command ships is wrong, so, as of now, they can still boost in pos.
these command ships run electronics. these modules interface with each other. they help with fire control solutions or whatever. we have them now in the navy. our ships link up to help from being jammed, help guild missiles if one of the ships becomes jammed and so forth. example: ship 1 is jammed ship 2 is not, but out of missiles ship 3 is a target and its radar is broke.
ship 1 can fire a missile, ship 2 control it to intercept the missile flying at ship 3. this is modern technology (not internet spaceships).
to do this though, they have to be within a certain range. the grid in eve is MUCH larger than the actual size of or the area needed to be occupied in rl. great...they have actually advanced over time.
the orca and rorqual are much larger and have far more power t put forth to control the mining fleets. these are cap ships not bc.
until we get other things changed, this is actually a great solution.
so sorry, no rorqual km for j00 today. this miner/pvper will collect YOUR tears today...
|
Nark Nalemir
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:49:00 -
[176] - Quote
Why dont you set Links to have stronger effects the less pilots in the gang. Enforcing small gangs negating blobs. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2403
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:49:00 -
[177] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote: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% This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls. Also mining links out of POS shields! Two comments: All those who think you can't compete without gang links are spoiled little brats. The "blob" can just as easily bring gang links as you can, and generally they are more likely to have them. Also, people were out soloing and partaking in asymetric warfare long before gang links became so ubiquitously used. You just need to learn to employ tactics, learn how to engage, and do so without having stupidly potent enhancements to your ship. As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system! Obviously you don't understand how eve works, or you do but your actual small gang experience is close to 0. Not all fleets in EVE are kiting and sniping fleets. In eve u can fight both at range and brawling, you know? If fighting at range you need skirmish links, if brawling you might need defense bonuses. If brawling outnumbered you100% need or huge amount of logis or those defense bonuses. So if our most often 10-20 T2 or T3 man fleet go out in a roam, we will ofc avoid 30-60 T2-T3 fleets. But we will go at T1 or mixed T1-T2 fleets with those numbers. Because those defense bonuses mean much more for us than for T1 hulls. Numbers (blobs) these days are just OP. But specialized fleets (T2,T3) or higher tier ships like BS on BC and lower, with the addition of bonuses gives you a chance to fight against blobs even tough their fleets having the bonuses also. Our 20 man fleet being able to fight against 40-50 man fleets will drop to 30-40. And because of that we ll need to bring + 1 T2 logi to our fleet than we used to and it still might not be enough.
We could compare killboards, show off our epeens, and the like, but I don't think that's necessary. I have a lot of small gang and solo experience, and am familiar with "how eve works". When taking on "larger numbers", force multiplication becomes extremely important: Logistics improve your ability to tank the enemy dps; EWAR reduces their effective DPS, increases your own, or removes ships from the fight; and boosters give significant boosts to your ship attributes to further reduce their dps, improve your own repping abilities, and give you some serious tactical advantages.
The truth is, a booster is far more potent than that +1 log, or +1 falcon. The bonuses it gives to everyone in fleet are simply way over the top, and are quite often pragmatically uncounterable! Add to that, your opponent is more likely to "discount' the extra benefits they give you, so the risk adverse PvPBears are more likely to engage as they think they have the upper hand. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that fleet boosters are in a balanced position. This is especially prevalent in FW space, where OGB'ing is so ubiquitious people think proper soloing involves a dps ship + a loki alt + a tengu/legion alt. At the small gang (<7) and solo level it becomes very difficult to compete without bringing your own boosts, because a single boosting ship essentially adds the equivalent of 10 free rigs (4x hardener rigs, 3x speed rigs, 4x rep rigs, and partridge in a pear tree), to every ship in the fleet. That is why it is boosts need nerfed, as you can't possibly justify that level of boosting without pissing the face of game balance!
A falcon, a Logi, or even a +1 dps on grid is counterable, attackable, and vulnerable. And while those are fare less subtle force multipliers (or additions), especially since real threats are likely to be primaried, they are very much within the scope of game balance. OGBers are NOT!!!!!
|
Random Woman
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:54:00 -
[178] - Quote
So when can i fit all these at the same time? Or insta clone change? Because the most anying thing about em is you have to know one day in advance which one you will need. Well or your internet space ship rich and live on a pile of the implants. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:02:00 -
[179] - Quote
And now i came... |
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:02:00 -
[180] - Quote
The changes look good.
Please consider the following:
- Allow Battlecruisers to fit two Gang Links without a Command Processor
- Allow T3 cruisers to fit no more than two Gang Links.
This would encourage wider use of Gang Links outside of cloaked T3s, which has become the norm, and provide BCs as a better stepping stone to flying Command Ships.
Thanks!
|
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1237
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:02:00 -
[181] - Quote
Ohh yea make link activation give you a weapons timer and a sig bloom. Preferably a npc log off timer too. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
614
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:03:00 -
[182] - Quote
Dunk Dinkle wrote:The changes look good. Please consider the following:
- Allow Battlecruisers to fit two Gang Links without a Command Processor
- Allow T3 cruisers to fit no more than two Gang Links.
This would encourage wider use of Gang Links outside of cloaked T3s, which has become the norm, and provide BCs as a better stepping stone to flying Command Ships. Thanks!
No. |
darius mclever
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:03:00 -
[183] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:I think there should be a little more to differentiate the strategic cruisers from one another. Loki specializes in Skirmish so make the Skirmish boost 3% and the other two leave at 2% and specialize the others as well, Tengu - Siege, etc.
Also, not sure if the current breakdown of the three different bonuses applied to T3s makes much sense. It will require very particular circumstances to choose anything over the Loki. I think if we add a little more incentive like the example I suggested above with the 3% specialization you would see more uses of other ships besides Loki.
+1 |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1034
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:11:00 -
[184] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot. This is the best part of the thread. I had to read the OP several times before realising that they aren't even fixing this.
Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs:
Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses
Making links much cheaper.
Power grid for links reduced
t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues.
Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps.
I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future.
Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:17:00 -
[185] - Quote
Cearain wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid? Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot. This is the best part of the thread. I had to read the OP several times before realising that they aren't even fixing this. Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs: Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses Making links much cheaper. Power grid for links reduced t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues. Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps. I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future. Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight.
You realise t3s went from 5 percent per level to 2 percent per level but across 3 races now?
You realise that if they didn't have a t3 they'd have a falcon - they won't just unsub their character. But then you'd be here whining about falcons again.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1238
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:24:00 -
[186] - Quote
Quote:T2 point range: 24 km (unheated) With current Loki links: 36.7 km With current Claymore links: 35.6 km With new Loki links: 33 km With new Claymore links: 33.3 km
I stole this from failheap.
Is this true?
Because if this is true then that is massively ******* ****. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Sable Blitzmann
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
67
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:27:00 -
[187] - Quote
Which LP stores will these new Navy Mindlinks be introduced into? Will they be available in all of them? Is there any criteria? Will the FW store get them in a discount (if they get them at all?) |
Keith Planck
League of Extraordinary Equines
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:29:00 -
[188] - Quote
Although I do believe off-grid boosters need a nerf. (Free fleetwide caldari navy invulns are OP).
Dropping the boosts by ~9% seems to be a bit overkill for a first balance? |
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:29:00 -
[189] - Quote
I'm not going to complain much about the changes. Would like to ask some questions, though.
Why was it decided that increased lock range was undesirable on the info warfare skill? Will the leadership skill itself continue to give a bonus to scan resolution? If yes, why have you chosen to have 2 basic leadership skills that both give the same bonus?
Will the resist increasing warfare links continue to be stack nerfed with other resists? I assume yes, but best to ask to be sure.
When/If you solve the hurdles to get links on grid, will this also apply to titan hull bonuses? If so, have you considered the use cases for the rag bonus vs when it would be reasonable to bring it on grid?
When/if you solve the hurdles to get links on grid, will you consider adding the ability to fit links to smaller hulls to allow frig/dessie gangs or nano gangs to bring links along?
Being to lazy to run the numbers myself, how much of a change to triage carriers/sieged dreads is this considering both the resist lost, and the rep gained from links/module changes?
Have you considered adjusting the fitting requirements of command coprocessors?
Have you considered adding a low slot version of the command coprocessor to help balance between shield and armor? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2403
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:30:00 -
[190] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Cearain wrote:
I had to read the OP several times before realising that they aren't even fixing this.
Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs: Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses Making links much cheaper. Power grid for links reduced t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues. Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps. I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future. Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight.
You realise t3s went from 5 percent per level to 2 percent per level but across 3 races now?
You realise that if they didn't have a t3 they'd have a falcon - they won't just unsub their character. But then you'd be here whining about falcons again. [/quote]
You realize the increased the "base" strength of Warfare Links so many of the links provide the same boosts even with the CS's 3% per level?
You realize that at 2% per level, t3's will still provide those boosts at 95.65% of "max effectiveness"?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2403
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:33:00 -
[191] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:Although I do believe off-grid boosters need a nerf. (Free fleetwide caldari navy invulns are OP).
Dropping the boosts by <10% seems to be a bit overkill underwhelming for a first balance?
We demand a much larger nerf to OGBers!!!
Fixed your post for you... |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:34:00 -
[192] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Quote:T2 point range: 24 km (unheated) With current Loki links: 36.7 km With current Claymore links: 35.6 km With new Loki links: 33 km With new Claymore links: 33.3 km I stole this from failheap. Is this true? Because if this is true then that is massively ******* ****.
Old Loki 24+53%= 36.72 New Claymore 24+38.8%=33.31
Loki will not be 33 it will be like 32?
|
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[193] - Quote
This beautifully hits ganglinks right where it counts. While I am an avid user of them, I still find these changes will not completely wreck my ability to use them when available.
The POS shield boosting nerf was exceptional, and exactly what was needed.
Taking down the armor and siege links while keeping most links (except skirmish) in their current place is intuitive, if a little saddening.
I still approve these changes. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[194] - Quote
Will faction warfare stores be getting access to the Mind Links? |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You realize the increased the "base" strength of Warfare Links so many of the links provide the same boosts even with the CS's 3% per level?
This is plain wrong. Re-read the thread. Tank bonuses took a drastic hit. Skirmish took a large hit. The only increased ones for some bizarre reason is a couple of Info links and mining links
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You realize that at 2% per level, t3's will still provide those boosts at 95.65% of "max effectiveness"?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
2 percent per level is 10 percent, 5 percent per level is 25 percent. that's 15 percent difference.
For your second point, it depends on the size of the gang, if the gang is over 10, maybe, but then you should be able to have your own counter prober. Really easy to probe people out now. Absurdly easy. and booster t3s are still defenseless. Easy kills. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1239
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:41:00 -
[196] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Quote:T2 point range: 24 km (unheated) With current Loki links: 36.7 km With current Claymore links: 35.6 km With new Loki links: 33 km With new Claymore links: 33.3 km I stole this from failheap. Is this true? Because if this is true then that is massively ******* ****. Old Loki 24+53%= 36.72 New Claymore 24+38.8%=33.31 Loki will not be 33 it will be like 32?
thats still so ****... sigh.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote: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% This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls. Also mining links out of POS shields! Two comments: All those who think you can't compete without gang links are spoiled little brats. The "blob" can just as easily bring gang links as you can, and generally they are more likely to have them. Also, people were out soloing and partaking in asymetric warfare long before gang links became so ubiquitously used. You just need to learn to employ tactics, learn how to engage, and do so without having stupidly potent enhancements to your ship. As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system! Obviously you don't understand how eve works, or you do but your actual small gang experience is close to 0. Not all fleets in EVE are kiting and sniping fleets. In eve u can fight both at range and brawling, you know? If fighting at range you need skirmish links, if brawling you might need defense bonuses. If brawling outnumbered you100% need or huge amount of logis or those defense bonuses. So if our most often 10-20 T2 or T3 man fleet go out in a roam, we will ofc avoid 30-60 T2-T3 fleets. But we will go at T1 or mixed T1-T2 fleets with those numbers. Because those defense bonuses mean much more for us than for T1 hulls. Numbers (blobs) these days are just OP. But specialized fleets (T2,T3) or higher tier ships like BS on BC and lower, with the addition of bonuses gives you a chance to fight against blobs even tough their fleets having the bonuses also. Our 20 man fleet being able to fight against 40-50 man fleets will drop to 30-40. And because of that we ll need to bring + 1 T2 logi to our fleet than we used to and it still might not be enough. We could compare killboards, show off our epeens, and the like, but I don't think that's necessary. I have a lot of small gang and solo experience, and am familiar with "how eve works". When taking on "larger numbers", force multiplication becomes extremely important: Logistics improve your ability to tank the enemy dps; EWAR reduces their effective DPS, increases your own, or removes ships from the fight; and boosters give significant boosts to your ship attributes to further reduce their dps, improve your own repping abilities, and give you some serious tactical advantages. The truth is, a booster is far more potent than that +1 log, or +1 falcon. The bonuses it gives to everyone in fleet are simply way over the top, and are quite often pragmatically uncounterable! Add to that, your opponent is more likely to "discount' the extra benefits they give you, so the risk adverse PvPBears are more likely to engage as they think they have the upper hand. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that fleet boosters are in a balanced position. This is especially prevalent in FW space, where OGB'ing is so ubiquitious people think proper soloing involves a dps ship + a loki alt + a tengu/legion alt. At the small gang (<7) and solo level it becomes very difficult to compete without bringing your own boosts, because a single boosting ship essentially adds the equivalent of 10 free rigs (4x hardener rigs, 3x speed rigs, 4x rep rigs, and partridge in a pear tree), to every ship in the fleet. That is why it is boosts need nerfed, as you can't possibly justify that level of boosting without pissing the face of game balance! A falcon, a Logi, or even a +1 dps on grid is counterable, attackable, and vulnerable. And while those are fare less subtle force multipliers (or additions), especially since real threats are likely to be primaried, they are very much within the scope of game balance. OGBers are NOT!!!!!
Well same things applies to the blob. People bring bonuses to fight against blobbing, because if u go solo u ll get always more guys chasing you. And again links can be available to everyone while blob can't.
Also OGBers got nerfed in POS boosting and T3's bonus amount. Now if u want to boost properly you ll need to bring a command ship. And there should not be any nerf. Because command ships can be countered or by neuting them or by killing them. Command ships should give bonuses as T3 do now. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Stalking Mantis
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
Thank You you actually got my old corp members to log on for the first time in months. Tired of chasing boosted condors around.
We did not train two years of SP to sit around all day and chase loki boosted condors in fw. |
paritybit
Repo.
251
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:50:00 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
I am disappointed I cannot like this more than once. We need a "mega-like".
|
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:51:00 -
[200] - Quote
Those are not loki boosted, they are Ragnarok boosted. And that will be gone :) Or your boosting titan that's outside the POS FF will be gone ;) |
|
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:53:00 -
[201] - Quote
I like the direction the changes are going in, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to make small changes, and see how they affect gameplay before rolling out the big changes.
There's always going to be some friction with changes in gameplay, but we'll adjust. I like the way you are focusing on player choices, and weighing fits, boosts, etc. depending on what you need at the moment. I like that, because eve shouldn't be like WOW, where there's a "perfect" setup for different scenarios. It's the different approaches to problems that make this game great, and I like that you guys are trying to make every ship, every boost, and every module have a reason to be picked depending on the pilot's inclination and skill.
Keep up the good work. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
195
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:54:00 -
[202] - Quote
The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these. |
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:58:00 -
[203] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.
Great points.
I hope they get addressed. |
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:00:00 -
[204] - 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.
what if any trade offs will be given for the lack of reasonable ability to compress ore away from the pos? this has to be considered, especially for ice mining with its super long compression times start the POS revamp NOW--make it happen |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:00:00 -
[205] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.
Thats just pure 100% bullshit. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2404
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:02:00 -
[206] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You realize the increased the "base" strength of Warfare Links so many of the links provide the same boosts even with the CS's 3% per level?
This is plain wrong. Re-read the thread. Tank bonuses took a drastic hit. Skirmish took a large hit. The only increased ones for some bizarre reason is a couple of Info links and mining links
Don't be dense: Using a command ship, with a 3% boost per level, the following links have basically the same value: Electronic Superiority, Recon Operation, Sensor Integrity, Evasive Maneuvers, Field Enhancement, Laser Optimization, and Harvester Capacitor. The base strength of the above warfare links were increased to make them effective on non-bonused BC hulls, too. Did you somehow miss that info?
Yes, the Amror and Shield Tanking, as well as the Skirmish Speed and Tackle Range were nerfed.... and rightly so!!! You realize that any of the 6 boosting siege warfare ships give every member in fleet almost the equivalent rep power of a full crystal implant set AND a standard blue pill? And you think that isn't enough? Really????
Dez Affinity wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You realize that at 2% per level, t3's will still provide those boosts at 95.65% of "max effectiveness"?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
2 percent per level is 10 percent, 5 percent per level is 25 percent. that's 15 percent difference. For your second point, it depends on the size of the gang, if the gang is over 10, maybe, but then you should be able to have your own counter prober. Really easy to probe people out now. Absurdly easy. and booster t3s are still defenseless. Easy kills.
Let me explain what I meant, so we are on the same page. A loki provides a 2% boost to mindlinks per level At level 5, this is a 10% modifier = 1.1. A CS provides a static 15% boost to mindlinks. This is a 15% modifier = 1.15
So, using the same skills, same implants, links in the Loki will be 1.1 / 1.15 = 95.65% as effective as a Command ship. That is NOT a 15% difference, that is a 4.35% difference.
Since, the max boosts (provided by a CS) of say, Evasive Manuevers is STILL going to be 35% effective, the T3 will conitue to provide this boost at 95.65% of "max effectiveness". This is no where near your 15% difference!!!
(Technically, since it's max effectiveness is being reduced from 35 to 34.5 (98.57%), we could calculate the before vs after effectiveness at 98.57 * 95.65 = 94.28 % effectiveness. )
As for my second point... I can put my booster in a gated plex, and any attempt to warp to it will land you far from my boosting ship. I could station/gate/POS hug with it. I could have it at a deep safe, so my opponents don't even know it's providing links. For 1v1 + falcon, the falcon is very potent, but so is OGBers. As the numbers increase, the falcon becomes much less potent, but the benefits from the booster keep adding more EHP to your gang, more total rep power, and/or more overall benefits.
|
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:02:00 -
[207] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.
Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way. |
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:07:00 -
[208] - Quote
Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2405
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 -
[209] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos.
You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff!
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these. Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way.
When you consider it takes 60-80 days to just train for an 4 very specific implants, it's in no way comparable to other ships or abilities. It should have a lvl 4 requirement on the warfare spec of choice. LvL 5 is so highly preventative for most pilots, and all it does is reduce the intended desires of flying command ships.
Every FC in game knows how miserable it is to find a few pilots to run command ship links, and the 2 reasons stated above are exactly why. |
|
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:15:00 -
[211] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Wow fozzie....you really managed to kick in the teeth of high today.
Those rare mission storyline drops worth anything...see ya. You just destroyed that. Incursions, well, anyone who flew static armour fleets is finished. That entire doctrine is done.
Shield doctrines, dunno yet, but first glance looking bad.
Basically, now need 3 logis to do the work of 3, so a direct nerf to income in high sec, making the cartel's moon goo income that more valuable
But I why should that be any different in anything else you do?
"Those rare mission storyline drops worth anything...see ya. You just destroyed that." <--what does this even mean "now need 3 logis to do the work of 3" <---sounds fair
Wut. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:15:00 -
[212] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Don't be dense: Using a command ship, with a 3% boost per level, the following links have basically the same value: Electronic Superiority, Recon Operation, Sensor Integrity, Evasive Maneuvers, Field Enhancement, Laser Optimization, and Harvester Capacitor. The base strength of the above warfare links were increased to make them effective on non-bonused BC hulls, too. Did you somehow miss that info?
Yes, the Amror and Shield Tanking, as well as the Skirmish Speed and Tackle Range were nerfed.... and rightly so!!! You realize that any of the 6 boosting siege warfare ships give every member in fleet almost the equivalent rep power of a full crystal implant set AND a standard blue pill? And you think that isn't enough? Really????
You care that people's optimal range on jammers and TDs go up? Or that they mine 3 percent (or whatever who cares) more per hour now.
Evasive Maneuvers is a tricky thing because reducing it too much makes sig tanking/ab hacs/100mn/range tanking, pretty much ever fleet concept that can beat a blob.
Sensor integrity is anti-ewar and elec superiority is ewar (which is broken right now anyway so whatever)
Do you want links removed or nerfed to uselessness? Sounds like I'm being a **** with that question but the reality is, either they are good or no one brings them except very large fleets.
Gang Links, EWAR and Bombers are the only force multipliers in this game, the only things that allow a smaller group to take on a bigger group. Range tanking or speed tanking used to be on there but that doesn't really exist anymore.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Let me explain what I meant, so we are on the same page. A loki provides a 2% boost to mindlinks per level At level 5, this is a 10% modifier = 1.1. A CS provides a static 15% boost to mindlinks. This is a 15% modifier = 1.15
So, using the same skills, same implants, links in the Loki will be 1.1 / 1.15 = 95.65% as effective as a Command ship. That is NOT a 15% difference, that is a 4.35% difference.
Since, the max boosts (provided by a CS) of say, Evasive Manuevers is STILL going to be 35% effective, the T3 will conitue to provide this boost at 95.65% of "max effectiveness". This is no where near your 15% difference!!!
(Technically, since it's max effectiveness is being reduced from 35 to 34.5 (98.57%), we could calculate the before vs after effectiveness at 98.57 * 95.65 = 94.28 % effectiveness. )
As for my second point... I can put my booster in a gated plex, and any attempt to warp to it will land you far from my boosting ship. I could station/gate/POS hug with it. I could have it at a deep safe, so my opponents don't even know it's providing links. For 1v1 + falcon, the falcon is very potent, but so is OGBers. As the numbers increase, the falcon becomes much less potent, but the benefits from the booster keep adding more EHP to your gang, more total rep power, and/or more overall benefits.
Ok so we agree that the difference is not huge but there still is a difference.
Links should give aggression so they cannot sit on station and dock instantly, gate to a plex, nothing you can do about that except have someone in there to tackle him when he tries it again. Forcing people into POS is a valid tactic and probing them out is a valid tactic to turn off their links.
I've already discussed forcing on grid bonuses plenty of times and it's a pointless exercise. People refuse to accept how people with link alts will adapt to it.
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:17:00 -
[213] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos.
Who cares, I'm using an Eos now alongside cloak warp trick to be invulnerable to anything but mass decloakers. (in low sec) Also I now have a tank and a bit of dps If I choose to use it and multiple bonused gang links. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:17:00 -
[214] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quote:The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Not balanced at all: skirmish - 4 bonuses (all races) siege - 2 bonuses armored and information - 3 bonuses. Swap skirmish bonus on Proteus with siege (there are shield fit gallente ships) to balance things out.
+1 to this |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:17:00 -
[215] - Quote
I never imagined i could be so happy about a change such as navy mindlinks.
here i was willing to fly dual on-grid command ships just for how pretty they are.
CCP Fozzie this news is my Christmas Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:20:00 -
[216] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff!
I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well.
(I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat) I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:22:00 -
[217] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way.
If the mindlink skill points actually worked for ANYTHING besides offgrid boosting you'd have a point here. Something like BS V isn't a "waste" because it helps you fly the ship. Those mindlink SPs don't help you in ANY WAY unless you're offgrid boosting with a fit that does nothing else, because you sure as hell can't fit 4 links on a command ship that you're actually going to fight with. The mindlink SPs are exactly the same as Advanced Spaceship Command and Jump Drive Operation, completely wasted do-nothing SPs that function as a time sink, and in the timesink category command ships are worse than dreadnaughts. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1245
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:24:00 -
[218] - Quote
Ok after looking at the changes properly.. you are pretty much buffing links as much as you nerf them..
Great job..
Sometimes i just get sad. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
darius mclever
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:28:00 -
[219] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
The issue of survival can only be addressed up to a certain size of combat. If you start getting past 100 people with decent damage anything will obliterate quickly. I wont even want to start about stupidities like 3, 4, 5 ... full fleets of battleships.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2405
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:32:00 -
[220] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote: Do you want links removed or nerfed to uselessness? Sounds like I'm being a **** with that question but the reality is, either they are good or no one brings them except very large fleets.
I want on grid boosts to be potent. I find the proposed values, or even the current values, pretty reasonable for a ship that is on gird, which can be neuted out, or primaried, and is at real risk of being destroyed.
I find it appalling that off grid boosters are more effective than pirate implants and/or standard drugs. They are giving these bonuses to everyone in fleet, while generally remaining safe. I think this is completely assbackwards in regards to the risk vs reward, especially when you compare the value of a blingy implant sets, or the viscous potential drawbacks of drugs.
Dez Affinity wrote: Gang Links, EWAR and Bombers are the only force multipliers in this game, the only things that allow a smaller group to take on a bigger group. Range tanking or speed tanking used to be on there but that doesn't really exist anymore.
Logistics is the BIGGEST force multiplier in this game. It belongs on that list!!!
Dez Affinity wrote: Links should give aggression so they cannot sit on station and dock instantly, gate to a plex, nothing you can do about that except have someone in there to tackle him when he tries it again. Forcing people into POS is a valid tactic and probing them out is a valid tactic to turn off their links.
I've already discussed forcing on grid bonuses plenty of times and it's a pointless exercise. People refuse to accept how people with link alts will adapt to it.
If activating gang links gave the pilot a weapons timer (which prevents docking, ejecting, and gate jumping), I'd be very pleased.
I would still insist off grid boosters to be less effective than pirate implant sets and drugs, and I don't mean a "single" booster, I mean the cumulative effect of all three racial boosters. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2408
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:35:00 -
[221] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff! I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well. (I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat)
To be honest, I want to support this... but then I EFT how this enables 6 link tengus and stuff, and cringe on the inside.
|
Miv333
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:37:00 -
[222] - Quote
-1
For so many nerds whining for nerf bats daily. This is not a fix or improvement. |
Howling Jinn
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:40:00 -
[223] - Quote
Pure garbage.
Which clown came up with these ideas? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:41:00 -
[224] - Quote
so what is going to happen to command processors? I would suggest that CS and T-ú's have a hard limit of links they could use so 2 on CS and 3 on T3. So they would be only used to allow T1 bc's to use multiple links. 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. |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
97
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:41:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP seems to like introducing new pointless modules which aren't needed. Just make the faction mindlink the same as T2 and remove the navy variation, this is basically what you did with the hurricane/hurricane fleet.
/Vio Anglic Eclipse.
Lee told me to remove my signature Minmatar and Gallente FW |
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:43:00 -
[226] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff! I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well. (I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat) To be honest, I want to support this... but then I EFT how this enables 6 link tengus and stuff, and cringe on the inside.
Ok so make it so they can only ever run 3 links, with no command processors, not 3+ however many CPs you put on it
Command processors should be removed from the game entirely, and any class of ship that can fit links should have a set maximum number of links they can run.
With these changes, the way t3 boosters are gonna be used doesn't change at all, except for the `not inside a pos` bit. I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:51:00 -
[227] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps. while its true that you could just sit there aligned out at 250km it now at least gives the opposing fleet an option of sending someone out there to kill it or force it off the field.
heck ill send 2-3 ships out there to reduce the enemy fleet EHP my 25%
before I didnt have that option. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:54:00 -
[228] - Quote
Sorry but since you are really not fixing anything at least add OGB to killmails.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:56:00 -
[229] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Mara Maken wrote:I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these. Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way. When you consider it takes 60-80 days to just train for an 4 very specific implants, it's in no way comparable to other ships or abilities. It should have a lvl 4 requirement on the warfare spec of choice. LvL 5 is so highly preventative for most pilots, and all it does is reduce the intended desires of flying command ships. Every FC in game knows how miserable it is to find a few pilots to run command ship links, and the 2 reasons stated above are exactly why. Yeah, its not like this game has diminishing returns or anything
look at it this way, if you train large autocannon specialization 5 it takes 27 days or so . . . that means you get 0.0007407% extra damage per day
80 days to train for a warfare link that gives a 25% bonus? 0.003125% bonus per day . . .
as someone with 14,000,000 in leadership, i can tell you that the training time is worth. every. minute. |
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:01:00 -
[230] - Quote
There goes boosting titans 99% of the time!
One more nerf to an already nearly useless ship class. |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
2029
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:05:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also making some changes to the specific bonuses from the Information Warfare Skill, Information Warfare Mindlink and the Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link: The Info Warfare skill and mindlink will now give a bonus to scan resolution instead of lock range Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link will provide its bonus to both sensor strength and lock range. This will be a problem for mining, as now strip range will exceed locking range, making the strip range link bonus pointless.
The Orca & Rorqual will need either another high-slot, or role bonus to compensate. |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:10:00 -
[232] - Quote
MarekCZE wrote: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. YEAH lets **** up EVE online totaly its always nice to see something why people quit with eve. Just curious this was born in your blond head or? I just wanna know if u r nerd or somebody else. Pitchfork developers... no skill no brain... probably no education... without knowledge... all ur project was awesome thats why people playing thing like dust 514 also why a lot old players left EVE... how much account registred and how much is subscribed so far? Why u have records online only when u give away a lot gifts and before new datadisc... Best is you developing ***** and you get payed for it... awesome job man... why you rather dont fix bugs/exploits... and dont give hand in fight against cloak. Or your boss order you to nerf ISK income again? Its funny how somebody who was first in wolrd economic crisis making same mistake in game. is this lorem ipsum?
i mean seriously . . . it's not that the English is bad; it's that it's so bad
what exactly is your complaint? |
GreenSeed
612
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:12:00 -
[233] - Quote
i was hoping they would just remove the requirements from gang links entirely... they should fit on any high slot on any ship. with bonuses only on command ships, t3, and the like.
if they want links on grid eventually, forcing gangs to field BCs at least is not a good way of doing it.
also the idea of having ore links with shield and cycle time in one is really bad. given that every miner that's NOT a complete moron alraedy fits cycletime/range/shield links on any orca, the ORE link would just reinforce that notion and grant a free utility high.
and what about new miners that wont be tempted to train shield links due to them being nerfed now? the ore link simply would not fit due to prereqs.
if any ore link is added it should be cycle time/activation cost. that's already necessary on rorqs, due to cycle time time and activation cost being so high already, that miners often cant complete a full warp if they need to GTFO belt.
the biggest change i think is mind link isk cost, im certainly glad the foreman cartel is over. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:16:00 -
[234] - Quote
navy links?!
you mean i wont have to use 4 clones for boosting anymore?!
YAY!!!!!
marry me fozzie!!! |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:28:00 -
[235] - Quote
Fozzie, can you list up the skill regs for the navy links. I am assuming that the Gallante for example will be Armor Specialist V and Skirmish Specialist V?
I would have preferred that mining links not be POS safe either. I see no reason for some exclusion to industry.
Charisma remap is a PITA.
Oh a Bonus question. (meh) I note that Skirmish Warfare Mindlinks changed price at the 21st well in advance of this blog. Is someone "inside" trading? |
ZoraTestra
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:32:00 -
[236] - Quote
Horrible idea, forcing Orcas and Rorqs to boost on grid no matter how you "rebalance" them. Their boosts often are an aid to miners in many different belts and it isn't practical to have one in each belt being mined.
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.
|
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:34:00 -
[237] - Quote
So as a Commandship pilot i have this to say.
these NERF's because that is what they are will make sure that the large scale battles such Asakai and 6VDT-H will not happen. already in the huge fleet fights FC's ( boosters ) are getting volley right off the field without ANY AMOUNT OF LOGI COULD HAVE SAVED THEM !!! so if you want to force booster onto the field mayby you schoul consider thier Tank
and when it comes to mining boost if its move out of the poses - you effectively ( again ) make it more profitable to mine in high sec ( sefe sec ) than anywhere else but then again i have guessed that you really dont want people to live in nulsec for long periods of time. but gues what
i have spend all of three weeks in high sec since i started and none of my 12 paying accounts will ever live in high sec. might be time to look at other hobbies and places to spnd my money.
oh and since your completely rewamping the use of a feature ( boosting ) could we mayby get the option to redistribute our 15.872.000 SP or are we yet again being screwed over by a charlie phraise " I ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY SO SHUT THE F... UP "
please DEAR CCP - stop fixing stuff that is really broken until you have cleanup ALL that which is. and believe me you have plenty of work ahead of you.
|
Makalu Zarya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:45:00 -
[238] - Quote
Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
seriously? all or nothing. Why do miners get special treatment again and the rest of us get ****** over? |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:47:00 -
[239] - Quote
Beidorion eldwardan wrote:already in the huge fleet fights FC's ( boosters ) are getting volley right off the field without ANY AMOUNT OF LOGI COULD HAVE SAVED THEM !!! so if you want to force booster onto the field mayby you schoul consider thier Tank
Yes, boostings ships should be on grid, not in safespot.
Have a look at Damnation's tank. There's a reason why it's the last ship that gets blown up if enemy can't alpha it. |
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:50:00 -
[240] - Quote
Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU <--- here is the herf Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
so this means that with your so called fitting buff with the 100 powergrid reduction per module really means that a damnation only get another 10 powergrid total. nice ninja nerf there butt heads. could you not stop the sugar coating nerfs please have the balls to stand by the crap your body ( the company ) makes and stop with the politically correct terms call a donkey by its proper name an A + double SS
ps this forum NEEED a dislike post botton SO bad |
|
Phiksus
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:52:00 -
[241] - Quote
While I like these changes, I can't say I understand the talks about removing off grid boosting completely since links will actually be vulnerable after POS boosting fix. This would only create larger imbalance between solo/micro/small gangs and larger gangs. For larger gangs having command ship on the field isn't a problem, but for solo/micro gang having links on grid with the gang massively limits ship options. Ultimately this could lead to smaller gangs being more or less completely unable to engage larger gangs due to the larger gang having faster, more durable ships than those of the smaller gang. Removing off grid boosting would not in any way remove "ganking with links", since as said, larger gangs have no problem bringing the links to grid. Removing off grid boosting would therefore only result in less fights, no matter how you like to fly.
And while in general I like the changes, I can't disagree with the comments about larger fleet fights becoming more and more impossible to fight due lower ehp (less alpha needed to insta ships). |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
785
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:52:00 -
[242] - Quote
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. I agree there should be no special treatment but JI disagree on a ORE booster ship. Orca and rorqual ARE the industry booster ships. Its a shame that CCP is holding their hand over them. booster is booster.
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:57:00 -
[243] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Orca and rorqual ARE the industry booster ships. Its a shame that CCP is holding their hand over them. booster is booster.
How about if you needed to activate triage on your carrier just to give max boost. Sounds good to me. |
Alyxportur
The Inf1dels Insidious Empire
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:01:00 -
[244] - Quote
When is ice compression going to be modified to match the increased demand to export ice out of nullsec with the Odyssey changes? |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
785
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:02:00 -
[245] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Orca and rorqual ARE the industry booster ships. Its a shame that CCP is holding their hand over them. booster is booster. How about if you needed to activate triage on your carrier just to give max boost. Sounds good to me.
I have never seen a carrier with a booster fitted... I dont even...
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:06:00 -
[246] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Orca and rorqual ARE the industry booster ships. Its a shame that CCP is holding their hand over them. booster is booster. How about if you needed to activate triage on your carrier just to give max boost. Sounds good to me. I have never seen a carrier with a booster fitted... I dont even...
Do you know what makes these modules similar? - Triage Module I - Siege Module I - Industrial Core I |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1249
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:07:00 -
[247] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw.
An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100%
This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
785
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:07:00 -
[248] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Orca and rorqual ARE the industry booster ships. Its a shame that CCP is holding their hand over them. booster is booster. How about if you needed to activate triage on your carrier just to give max boost. Sounds good to me. I have never seen a carrier with a booster fitted... I dont even... Do you know what makes these modules similar? - Triage Module I - Siege Module I - Industrial Core I
Ok now I got you.
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:10:00 -
[249] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Ok now I got you.
Yeah, have fun boosting mining op while in deployed mode.
- You can't move - You can't warp - You can't be remotely assisted in any way |
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
489
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:10:00 -
[250] - Quote
I wonGÇÖt spill Merlot over the changes, we all knew they were coming and at least now you can say you did something and hopefully the masses will take their pound of flesh and move on. But I do want to address one thing;
The old T2 Mindlink is now only going to give 25% to one linkgroup and will be available in the Concord store, The Faction Mindlink will give 25% bonuses to two Linkgroups and be available in the corresponding faction navy stores. Right so far?
Why not make the faction Mindlink available to the Concord store as well? After all when you rebalanced faction cruisers and frigs you made them available to the FW players at a fraction of the price non-FW players would pay, you added faction Capcharges (The 25s and 50s) for FW players and the charges are still only available in their stores, back even further you added some rather nifty modules available to FW players again only in FW stores. WhereGÇÖs the love to non FW pilots?
For someone not willing to tank their standings or add another toon to their account it seems rather FW pro, everyone else is screwed. I run missions and Incursions, and use the ISK to PVP and Explore but I look in the Concord store and see very little LP/ISK conversions that make it worthwhile, many times I go with the 0.8 to 1 exchange to move some LP to ISK, and here I see I will be doing it again if I want a faction Mindlink, unless it is again in the FW stores then I guess I will be getting them from the market. But really send some love to the Concord store please.
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. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1132
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:15:00 -
[251] - Quote
Now, we all know how much fozzie hates PvE, especially high end stuff like Incursions. He thinks that everyone who plays this game should have a moon goo income, or not play at all.
But he has really outdone himself. At first run-through with the numbers, I am seeing roughly a 21% reduction in repping power for armour tankers when factoring in both the nerf to resists and to raw amour repping.
That will kill the elite armour fleets, more than likely the same for elite shield fleets, and I have no clue what the ship comp will have to change to handle the Mom's. Will Incursions still be run, yes, or course (at least until OGB's are killed).
But the income/hour just got hammered, for the 5th time (yes, the 5th time. As Ripard Teg stated, soundwave initiated a quadruple nerf last time in his effort to destroy incursions) .
And of course, all you forum warriors backed by moon goo incomes are going to say "Yay! Kill Incursions!" Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2408
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:18:00 -
[252] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw. An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100% This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.
To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties).
With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties).
This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent! |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1249
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:19:00 -
[253] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw. An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100% This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be. To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties). With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties). This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent!
One vengence with links will still "solo" 2-3 without links BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:21:00 -
[254] - Quote
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 200.
This is more like what i would like to see and think is much more balanced at least until OGB is removed anyway. 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2408
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:25:00 -
[255] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Now, we all know how much fozzie hates PvE, especially high end stuff like Incursions. He thinks that everyone who plays this game should have a moon goo income, or not play at all.
But he has really outdone himself. At first run-through with the numbers, I am seeing roughly a 21% reduction in repping power for armour tankers when factoring in both the nerf to resists and to raw amour repping.
That will kill the elite armour fleets, more than likely the same for elite shield fleets, and I have no clue what the ship comp will have to change to handle the Mom's. Will Incursions still be run, yes, or course (at least until OGB's are killed).
But the income/hour just got hammered, for the 5th time (yes, the 5th time. As Ripard Teg stated, soundwave initiated a quadruple nerf last time in his effort to destroy incursions) .
And of course, all you forum warriors backed by moon goo incomes are going to say "Yay! Kill Incursions!"
A couple counter points: A.) Local reps are getting a 15% boost at the same time armor links are getting nerfed. Although that's not relevant to logistics based reps, it means ships like the vengeance, incursus, etc... that utilize local reps will still have major repping power.
B.) Shield links are getting hit just as much as armor links.
C.) CCP should balance ship stats and mechanics around Player vs Player interactions. They can then nerf or improve NPC stats to make your PvE content viable again.
|
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
489
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:28:00 -
[256] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
C.) CCP should balance ship stats and mechanics around Player vs Player interactions. They can then nerf or improve NPC stats to make your PvE content viable again.
True, but they never do.
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. |
Cpt Arareb
DisturbedGamers.
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:36:00 -
[257] - Quote
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
and so it begins..
|
Dobriy
Intentionally Dense Angeli Mortis
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:47:00 -
[258] - Quote
I still need to digest the command ship changes but my only gripe so far is that I feel like the command ship bonus should remain per-level. As someone who spent the time to take Command Ships to V, I feel like it's too easy to make a command ships pilot now that is equally as effective. |
Jedediah Arndtz
Warner Bros.
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:54:00 -
[259] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Now, we all know how much fozzie hates PvE, especially high end stuff like Incursions. He thinks that everyone who plays this game should have a moon goo income, or not play at all.
But he has really outdone himself. At first run-through with the numbers, I am seeing roughly a 21% reduction in repping power for armour tankers when factoring in both the nerf to resists and to raw amour repping.
That will kill the elite armour fleets, more than likely the same for elite shield fleets, and I have no clue what the ship comp will have to change to handle the Mom's. Will Incursions still be run, yes, or course (at least until OGB's are killed).
But the income/hour just got hammered, for the 5th time (yes, the 5th time. As Ripard Teg stated, soundwave initiated a quadruple nerf last time in his effort to destroy incursions) .
And of course, all you forum warriors backed by moon goo incomes are going to say "Yay! Kill Incursions!"
Pretty much. And since when has CCP ever really given two ***** about PVE'ers? I highly doubt they'll actually bother balancing the NPCs. |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
226
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:56:00 -
[260] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw. An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100% This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be. Edit: I find that my posting hasn't described well enough how mad i am at this half assed excuse of a nerf. This doesn't even come close to fixing this **** and the numbers you give out are all smoke and mirrors to anyone that doesn't really understand how links works. Just GRRR.
I'm really hoping these changes are a prelude to bringing it on grid. They work better then. Entirely agree that the changes in OP aren't nearly strong enough now. Fozzie's last comment was encouraging. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
|
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:01:00 -
[261] - 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 force fields someday, but we'll want to rebalanced the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.
They dont need to be on gird just in a safe spot or orbiting a pos shield. Could you wait until you fix the Rorqual/Orca and allow Command ships sit inside the POS?
Also will you fix the boosting mechanics so that the entire fleet will receive this bonuses before you make them live on TQ? As it is now the Wing Commanders don't always get the bonuses due to bugs. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:03:00 -
[262] - Quote
Beidorion eldwardan wrote:Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU <--- here is the herf Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
so this means that with your so called fitting buff with the 100 powergrid reduction per module really means that a damnation only get another 10 powergrid total. nice ninja nerf there butt heads. could you not stop the sugar coating nerfs please have the balls to stand by the crap your body ( the company ) makes and stop with the politically correct terms call a donkey by its proper name an A + double SS
ps this forum NEEED a dislike post botton SO bad Your posts are so comical I don't know where to begin.
First off, the link modules are having their PG REDUCED by 100, so given that you fit 3 links to the ship, you're actually gaining a net +10 grid (3 links x 100g = 300 - 290 (pg reduction) = 10 PG remaining. I fit a Damnation just yesterday that has 478k ehp with links + mindlink, and guess what! I still have 308 PG left over, and that's with fitting 3x links and 1600mm plate. If anything, CPU is what holds the fittings back on these ships, not PG.
Second, you're never going to get 15.8 mil sp refunded because your special snowflake OGB likes to stay POSed up while you do "solo" pvp. /Gasp! You *may* have to leave the immunity of being inside of a POS shield to provide significant boosts to your fleet or gang operations. Closer, but not an ideal form, to working as intended.
Thirdly, if you think that large fleet fights hinge absolutely on OGB, then I don't even know how to respond to that but to say that statement alone just validates that you have no concept of why large fleets happen--and I can tell you, they don't hinge on having boosts. Fights are going to happen as they're going to happen. Boosts make fights easier, improve logi, etc., but they don't turn the tide of a fight like a Supercap fleet or similar. So don't start being melodramatic to get your senseless point across, especially because the point isn't even founded in Eve-reality.
"Hey, sorry gais, we can't attack 6-DVT because our booster has to orbit the POS shield. Cancel the fleet; everyone go home." Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Bocephus Morgen
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
117
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:14:00 -
[263] - Quote
I'm cool with the changes, but would like to point out that this is a buff to stealth bombers. Higher sigs and lower tanks will make it even easier to kill fleets now.
The shield BS fleet was already endangered, it will go extinct with these changes. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1250
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:39:00 -
[264] - Quote
Talking about CCP
jones bones wrote: Their numbers are ******* wrong and ******** anyways. Crosspoast from FHC:
The following are all Lvl 5s and no implants:
My Incursus without Legion links: 5k EHP, 89 DPS Tank from AAR My Incursus with Legion links: 7k EHP, 205 DPS Tank from AAR
That's a 40% bonus in EHP and 130% bonus in active tank. That's ridiculous. I could see 10% bonus in EHP and 25% bonus in active tank.
My condor without Loki links: 24km point range, 3618m/s velocity My condor with Loki links:36.7km point range, 4705m/s velocity
That's a 53% bonus in point range and 30% bonus in velocity. Keeping it real yo.
My Hawk without Tengu links: 6.3k EHP, 189 DPS Tank My Hawk with Tengu links: 8.7k EHP, 411 DPS Tank
That's a 39% bonus in EHP and 120% bonus in active tank. I've got a DPS tank higher than any frig/dessie can even output.
Links are so overpowered the concept of fighting without them is alien to us. This isn't "We have a 10% edge on tanks thanks to HERO ITSMEHCK in the Damnation!" This is "We have a 30% bonus in EHP and a 100% bonus in reps thanks to ::RANDOM COWARD ALT:: sitting in a safe somewhere in system." ******** game mechanic is ********. I haven't lost an Incursus in weeks because nothing I engage can kill me. It's awesome.
I just think this needs to be posted here.
The problem with links really isn't as much on grid/off grid as people like to make it out to be.
The real problem is the effect, which is still to high with these mild changes. Even if links only increased your over all tank by 50% instead of 130% people would still use the **** out of them in fleets. They just wouldn't be worth as much in solo/small gang pvp.
What really needs to happen to make links not be **** isn't to bring them on grid (although that would be great as well) its a proper nerf to those ridiculous bonuses. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Aznwithbeard
OMGROFLSTOMP Ushra'Khan
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:39:00 -
[265] - Quote
Why does it not surprise me that CCP nerfed all the useful links (siege, skirmish, armor) and kept the ewar crap strong?
+1 for taking boosting outta pos shields - a million for making it that much harder to fight outnumbered :/
CS5 in queue - check. OMGROFLSTOMP
"We sort of mean business 75% of the time" |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
556
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:40:00 -
[266] - Quote
Will Command T3s still only be able to activate a single link without fitting Command Processors? If so, it will be impossible to create combat-capable T3s that utilize their new 'diversity' (that comes at the high cost of crappy quality).
If we want to fly T3s that have two, three or more links, making use of their generalization, they will have to fit several Command Processors, which eat up all the fitting resources and leave no mid slots for tank, ewar or tackle. Command T3s will thus go extinct, because they are inferior as off-grid boosters and also bad as on-grid combat ships.
Please remember, T3s that could potentially fill many roles with different fits, are of no use to anyone, because you can have only one of the potential fits on the battlefield at any one time. To fulfil their promise of diversity, they (still) need to be able to fill several roles at the same time. . |
Eternal Error
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
386
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:47:00 -
[267] - Quote
You need to nerf the raw amounts more, regardless of any future change to on-grid vs off-grid boosting or whatever. Start with a 25% reduction to the strength of every link, and 50% would be better.
lol @ mining links still being usable inside of a force field. Seriously? |
TinkerHell
Nocturnal Romance
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:54:00 -
[268] - Quote
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 loki to protect their command ship.
Everyone is happy.
Thanks. |
Draconic Slayer
Daktaklakpak.
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:00:00 -
[269] - 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.
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1253
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:04:00 -
[270] - Quote
I can't believe i just +1'd tinkerhell ;_; BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
pyropwnsu
Offline.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:04:00 -
[271] - 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.
What this guy said. This game would be much better off without links as a whole. Rather than buffing or nerfing links, you should consider moving those bonuses into skillbooks or buff/nerf elsewhere. How has this not been changed yet? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:10:00 -
[272] - Quote
I like where the this thread is going right now.
This line of thinking has promise. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Korg Leaf
Nocturnal Romance
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:11:00 -
[273] - Quote
Deleting links is the best way to go, they are going to keep getting nerfed into the ground until they are completely pointless to use, so be done with it, delete them and refund the SP.
It is the simplest solution here, as TinkerHell said you need link's to counter bigger gangs when doing small gang warfare (as they have links aswell) if neither side have links, then no one has any distinct advantage.
Thank you. |
Aznwithbeard
OMGROFLSTOMP Ushra'Khan
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:12:00 -
[274] - Quote
Just seems to me this is another blow to solo/small gang PVP as a whole, and another huge leap for blob warfare.
I guess i need another subscription to fil lthe role of scout as my slow warping unwarpable while cloaked commandship and whatever ship im trying to 5v1 with wait on the gate.
Outside pos fields? awesome idea.
Would suggest maybe just flipping the percentages (5% per level for cs... 3 for t3) and/or giving the CS an ability to warp cloaked.
Again, you just keep smashing down small gang stuff.
WHERE ARE YOU KIL2. OMGROFLSTOMP
"We sort of mean business 75% of the time" |
Dewa Pedang
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:13:00 -
[275] - 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.
Getting sp back yumi . |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:16:00 -
[276] - Quote
Aznwithbeard wrote:Just seems to me this is another blow to solo/small gang PVP as a whole, and another huge leap for blob warfare.
I guess i need another subscription to fil lthe role of scout as my slow warping unwarpable while cloaked commandship and whatever ship im trying to 5v1 with wait on the gate.
Outside pos fields? awesome idea.
Would suggest maybe just flipping the percentages (5% per level for cs... 3 for t3) and/or giving the CS an ability to warp cloaked.
Again, you just keep smashing down small gang stuff.
WHERE ARE YOU KIL2.
Nerfing links % is bad for small gangs? You are awful. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Kintaris Zulu
Obsidian Squadron Novus Dominatum
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:16:00 -
[277] - 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.
Totally agree, Links are good in theory but in the mass rebalancing of ships and whatnot that seems to be going on.. The biggest imbalance is still there..
|
Leilani Solaris
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
I like the sound of deleting links. Eve was fine before they were introduced, it'll be fine still if they're taken out. |
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:18:00 -
[279] - Quote
I think it's interesting how little of the replies here have any thought or effort put into them.
"Whine, whine, you ruined it" doesn't help them at all. Some of you have actually taken the time to look at current bonuses and fitting, and provide your opinion, which is helpful. But just saying that CCP ruined it or insulting them isn't going to help anything and isn't going to inspire any action.
One of the things you should recognize is that just because things change doesn't mean they're ruined. Just because ships don't work the way you used to use them doesn't mean they're ruined. Have some ingenuity, be flexible, and adapt to the new changes.
Above all, if you're going to provide feedback, take the time to calm down and organize your thoughts. If you think they overlooked something, politely and clearly identify it, not as an accusation, but as a question.
The other point you need to recognize is to look at the changes as a whole, not just the thread you're in. Boosts to local reps are going to affect command ships, whose use is going to be affected by the link and mindlink changes. There are still ships to be balanced, so the picture isn't complete yet. I'm sure that many of the concerns you bring up were discussed at CCP, and there may be future plans to address those concerns, or changes that will make them unnecessary.
The bottom line is, you're working with imperfect knowledge, so some humility and respect would go a long way.
(Asking for rationality and respect on the internet is probably a flawed plan, but I figured I'd give it a shot.) |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:22:00 -
[280] - Quote
Beidorion eldwardan wrote:Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU <--- here is the herf Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
so this means that with your so called fitting buff with the 100 powergrid reduction per module really means that a damnation only get another 10 powergrid total. nice ninja nerf there butt heads. could you not stop the sugar coating nerfs please have the balls to stand by the crap your body ( the company ) makes and stop with the politically correct terms call a donkey by its proper name an A + double SS
ps this forum NEEED a dislike post botton SO bad so . . . you're saying that the damnation getting an extra 10 PG is a nerf? im confused . . . |
|
Klown Walk
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:23:00 -
[281] - Quote
That "nerf" is not enough. |
i'myour goddess
Nocturnal Romance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:31:00 -
[282] - Quote
yes the idea of ridding the game of links is something that could bring a new future......
|
Cavalira
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:32:00 -
[283] - 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.
Honestly, you're right. |
Maelgar
Nocturnal Romance
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:33:00 -
[284] - Quote
delete them and give me back the SP I have in leadership for the links.... nom nom. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:33:00 -
[285] - Quote
The whole idea is very nice but I think the overall bonuses of the combat links should be nerfed much more. In my perfect eve there are no combat links at all, but as this would cause a rage of epic proportions I understand it won't happen (or maybe...some day...), therefore, I'd say the maximum overall bonus of each link should never exceed 15%.
T3 boosters - these should have no link strength bonus at all, the fact that they can remain off grid, get there with virtually no risk, be nearly impossible to probe down and have multiple links running should be quite enough.
The suggestion that came up a couple of times in this thread that a booster ship should inherit timers from the ships it's boosting is also a very good one (however this should apply only once the links are running). Want to have a booster to help you suicide-gank in highsec? Say goodbye to the booster. Want to keep a CS on undock while boosting a fight on the gate? Sorry, can't dock until weapon aggro passes. Seems pretty fair to me - maybe indirectly, but the ship is taking a part in the fight.
As for the suggestions to introduce a distance from the POS shield where the links can be started - pointless - what will stop such a booster from staying aligned to a tower and warping in there at the first sign of threat?
Also - Fozzie - thank you for a healhy dose of leet-peeveepee tears, all of a sudden they feel threatened? Aren't their superior skills (...of getting the booster alt into the system) enough? Oh, and please hurry with the elimination of off-grid boosting (grids need to be fixed first, eh?). |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1036
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:38:00 -
[286] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Cearain wrote:
Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs:
Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses
Making links much cheaper.
Power grid for links reduced
t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues.
Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps.
I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future.
Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight.
You realise t3s went from 5 percent per level to 2 percent per level but across 3 races now?
Yes I do. Its a horrible mechanic whether the net boost is 5% or 50%.
Dez Affinity wrote: You realise that if they didn't have a t3 they'd have a falcon - they won't just unsub their character. But then you'd be here whining about falcons again.
They won't use falcons because then no one will fight them anymore. (you get added to peoples contact list when you do lame stuff like that.) Plus falcons show up on the killmail so it destroys the whole point of their running alt accounts hidden away in safespots to get a pro killboard.
The best troll ccp could do is add the t3 booster ships that effected combat retroactively to killmails.
I don't think they will unsub their account. I will just be glad when the horrible ogb mechanic will end and eve will stop being the game where you need to multibox a booster alt to be competive. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Dracorimus
Nocturnal Romance
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:40:00 -
[287] - 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.
Absolutely right |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:41:00 -
[288] - Quote
Should the benefits of using these modules really trickle down to entire fleets as they do currently? Seems to me it would be mean more if there was only squad boosting only. That way you'd have to be selective about what links you picked (since you can't have everything anymore), and the bonus from one player isn't so completely overpowering as to greatly buff potentially hundreds of players in the fleet. |
Anna niedostepny
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:42:00 -
[289] - 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.
+1 please do this. |
F3X5ON
Nocturnal Romance
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:42:00 -
[290] - 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.
|
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:44:00 -
[291] - Quote
Now give the Eos back its 125 drones bandwidth and we can be friends. |
Mimiko Severovski
Angelic Eclipse.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:46:00 -
[292] - Quote
Remove links entirely please, it will be beneficial to everyone in EVE.
Thank you CCP for doing an awsome job at destroying small gang and solo pvp!
Also gimme my sp back!
|
JannaMies
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:49:00 -
[293] - 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!
EVERYONE WOULD BE HAPPY, AND ALSO REMOVE MINING LINKS, MAKE THEM ONGRID SO I CAN GANK MORE ORCAS |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
820
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:01:00 -
[294] - Quote
Strength of link bonuses should be inversely proportional to the number of people that they apply to. Not sure how you'd exactly implement this though. |
Klown Walk
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:08:00 -
[295] - Quote
+1 For removing links. |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2206
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:11:00 -
[296] - 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. +1
|
Eukaryotic
Swarm Coalition Interstellar Conquest Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:12:00 -
[297] - Quote
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. |
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Space New Eden Industrie Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:18:00 -
[298] - Quote
As someone noted before, for mining, the increased lockrange, and increased laser range complemented each other.
Without the lockrange boost from leadership skills, the improved laser range will not be all too useful, as it is suddenly capped by the ships lock range.
What are you planning to do there? Give mining barges a higher lockrange bonus into the base hull to compensate for the lost leadership lock range boost? |
Sigras
Conglomo
476
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:19:00 -
[299] - Quote
Aznwithbeard wrote:Why does it not surprise me that CCP nerfed all the useful links (siege, skirmish, armor) and kept the ewar crap strong?
+1 for taking boosting outta pos shields - a million for making it that much harder to fight outnumbered :/
CS5 in queue - check. you realize that e-war is a way to fight outnumbered right?
you realize that no matter what you do, gang boosts will benefit a large fleet over a small one right? |
Sigras
Conglomo
476
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:20:00 -
[300] - 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. 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. |
|
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! |
|
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:00:00 -
[331] - Quote
Tjo Sephagen wrote: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!
It does pay off, doesn't it? all that time spent to train and max 4 different T3s and 4 different command ships, while two of each could have been enough. hooray for wasted SP that i'll (a) never recover and (b) will now be worth ditch when selling a character in the future. |
Angsty Teenager
Broski North Black Legion.
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:34:00 -
[332] - Quote
So deluded.
I had a big post typed out for this but I've already said it before and I decided it was ******** to say again. I just don't think that anybody at CCP actually understands how pvp needs to work in this game, because nerfing links at this point in the game is a terrible decision, and I personally would rather that links were just removed completely since at least that way I would get my SP back.
I'm still going to petition for it back though since CCP seems hellbent on making links essentially useless. Hopefully they'll also give me back my T3 skills since judging from the HAC changes (which make HACs still completely non-viable), T3's are going to become useless as well. And also Command Ships V since having that trained is now completely useless and was a waste of SP.
I can't believe that they aren't at least making on-grid links as good as current off-grid links are, really ********. "HEY GUYS LETS JUST MAKE THESE BONUSES BE 5% BETTER IF THEY'RE IN A COMBAT SHIP."
Yea ok. Nobody is going to fly a command ships because that's just asking to be primaried, and good luck not dying in this day and age of 2000 man blobs where whatever gets looked at gets alphaed. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
503
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:35:00 -
[333] - Quote
Most of the changes are OK - so far.
What I think is odd is that CCP Fozzie is pandering to the people who pay for one account instead of the people who pay for multiple accounts.
Fozzie will cause more accounts unsubbung than OGB's ever have.
(I actually dont believe anyone unsubs because someone else has boosters - but Ill pretend it happens just for the welfare recipient whingers who can't afford extra accounts and want to 1v1 in an mmo)
If you want to get your soul to heaven, trust in me. Now don't judge or question. You are broken now, but faith can heal you. Just do everything I tell you to do. (Opiate - Tool) |
Woei1988
Tainted Dragons Drunk 'n' Disorderly
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:46:00 -
[334] - Quote
Well, this combined with the insane neuting range of the geddon and the tracking/range of gardes in domis, that seems to be in every single gang now.. Nano gangs have become obsolete.. Well done.
I wonder what ccp has against small groups of people trying to fight the large fleets.. Nyan...-á |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:56:00 -
[335] - Quote
The more I think about it, they should just remove links altogether. Then we can get our now wasted SP back and stick those SP into combat skills. That way we'll all be "equal" and no more whining about "i can't 1v1".
BTW, there is no "1v1". eve is not about "total balance" or "fair fights". There is no "arena" or matchmaking system that will put you against an "equal" opponent. its all about being smarter and crushing the other guy. Boosters was a part of it. If you want "Fair" and "equal" 1v1, go duel somebody and make sure you shipscan him first and ask for a screenshot of his implants, or you might whine yet some more. This whole "unfair" thing is tiresome. sandbox and fair doesn't go so well. Guess what make EvE so great and different from other MMOs (hint: it wasn't the "fair" part).
Also, paying multiple accounts is easy as hell if you make some isk. no need for real money. I like people saying they "refuse to get a second account to have an ogb" .. see, that your choice. now stop crying about those who do the effort / sacrifice. I'm sure you whine about people IRL driving a better car as well, ignoring they maybe work twice as hard as you do. |
Shade Millith
Bite Me inc Bitten.
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:05:00 -
[336] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Gypsio III wrote:They're still massively overpowered. Wont be the day they are forced to stay in grid.... People pay 120 mill to increase your point range by 25% (RF over T2) on a single ship. A link is over 50% more powerful and affects vastly more people, and yet costs a pittance. It's crazy..
A link costs -
46 Days to get into a Loki and have level 5 Defensive Systems 48 Days to get Skirmish Warfare Link T2 20 Days to get a Skirmish Mindlink. 42 Days to get Warfare Link Specialist Level V and Command Processors
Costs ~300 million for the Loki. Costs ~100 million for the Mindlink.
5+ months of training and 400+ million isk ship is not a pittance. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:21:00 -
[337] - Quote
small gangs in an unending war against the blob, has taken a great loss today. the great weapon, t3 boost, was hit by a bus. the driver? a great ally to the blob, CCP Frozzie. however I will take ur challenge, Frozzie, and spit in ur face. I will continue my fight against the blob. closer to the edge I will fly. you may have killed the kiting style for many, but not for me. brawling blobs may get stronger, but they will die. I will kill them. I will adapt.
I will not let you kill solo and small gang warfare. I will keep it alive. you can not stop me from killing ur blob, I won't let you. I will win. so **** you and ur nerf. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:40:00 -
[338] - Quote
Bocephus Morgen wrote:I'm cool with the changes, but would like to point out that this is a buff to stealth bombers. Higher sigs and lower tanks will make it even easier to kill fleets now.
The shield BS fleet was already endangered, it will go extinct with these changes. funny i never seen bs fleets since 2011 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:43:00 -
[339] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote: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
I literally spat out some tea laughing at this phallus wash coming from a group of risk averse scared little docked up termigants like the United. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:07:00 -
[340] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote:blah blah, /unsub cmd ships are now USELESS!!!.
What a f.u.c.k.i.n.g. child. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
|
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:24:00 -
[341] - Quote
Akturous wrote:NaK'Lin wrote: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 I literally spat out some tea laughing at this phallus wash coming from a group of risk averse scared little docked up termigants like the United.
I am sorry to disappoint you that I don't possess the ability to hug a titan every day only to bridge on a target at 5:1 odds. I R not leet enough. Also, as this may not be applicable to you specifically, I think you understand how your generalization may not apply to "me" as individual pilot. What we do as a corp may or may not be to your liking, but we are a corp that does piracy and does it well (eg: actually making ISK from our kills / ransoms) while choosing not to roflcopter into engagements that have a high likelihood to end in failure.
What we do as individual pilots or while being away from "the gate" though, is a completely different story, and I find your generalization rather interesting as it does show how little you know about us.
We are not here to talk about this corp or that corp, though. We are here on the boosting subject. Please take your flaming to some other thread since I have been polite to you and not held your corp choices or activities against you either. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:36:00 -
[342] - Quote
Every time I've run a 2-3 man gang or solo even in a cruiser into your little home you dock up. Since I'm Au tz, I don't know what a titan is.
Your boosting argument is wasted because every gang has boosts anyway, so having your own really just brings you up to their level, gone are the days where only a few had ogb's. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:36:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.
It is the worst news!!! I hope in Odyssey 1.2 warfare links will give bonuses not to all solar system, but to ship in current grid only! |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:44:00 -
[344] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Every time I've run a 2-3 man gang or solo even in a cruiser into your little home you dock up. Since I'm Au tz, I don't know what a titan is.
Your boosting argument is wasted because every gang has boosts anyway, so having your own really just brings you up to their level, gone are the days where only a few had ogb's.
I am SEA TZ (which might be the reason for us both posting concurrently) and while I'm still at work now (UTC +8) I haven't seen you come into our cozy home yet.
:)
And my boosting argument is valid, when fighting outnumbered and the opponents are unboosted. If the reality would be that everybody is boosted, then there wouldn't be all the whiners on these forums and nobody would even think of boosts needing to be "balanced". Hence me thinking they should delete them altogether and give me back my SP. at least I can put those OGB toons to some good use through redistributing the SP.
|
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers Ex Cinere Scriptor
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:56:00 -
[345] - Quote
1. It takes skill to not get caught dual boxing with links while being shot at. If you can't be bothered to dedicate time to train leadership skill and get better at pvp to counter the player who spent their time on fine tuning their skills, then you ought to be at disadvantage. It's a fair game, more effort, more reward.
2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them
3. Pilot who spent their time training command ship to level 5 for that extra 3% wafare bonus just had their effort wasted, because now every single command ship will perform the same as far as the warfare link goes whether they have command ship skill level 1 or 5. Another 37day training time differences.
The nerf to the warfare link strength is absolutely unfair to those who dedicated months of time in training for that extra 5% of chance to come out on top in a fight. If you are going to nerf the strength of the links, then it would only be fair to reinburse the skill points that was nerfed along with the skill. It is simply unfair to have to spend a month for additional 2% difference at links.
- For pilots that have all specialization skill to 5, they have just lost half year of game time in training for that worthless 2% differences.
- For pilots that have spent their time to command ship 5, they lost 37 day of game time in training because now everyone will do just as good as command ship level 5 pilots as far as warfare module goes.
Please consider the pilots that dedicated their time in warfare links in hope to have better chance against overcoming blobs in a small gang. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:08:00 -
[346] - Quote
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:1. It takes skill to not get caught dual boxing with links while being shot at. If you can't be bothered to dedicate time to train leadership skill and get better at pvp to counter the player who spent their time on fine tuning their skills, then you ought to be at disadvantage. It's a fair game, more effort, more reward.
2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them
3. Pilot who spent their time training command ship to level 5 for that extra 3% wafare bonus just had their effort wasted, because now every single command ship will perform the same as far as the warfare link goes whether they have command ship skill level 1 or 5. Another 37day training time differences.
The nerf to the warfare link strength is absolutely unfair to those who dedicated months of time in training for that extra 5% of chance to come out on top in a fight. If you are going to nerf the strength of the links, then it would only be fair to reinburse the skill points that was nerfed along with the skill. It is simply unfair to have to spend a month for additional 2% difference at links.
- For pilots that have all specialization skill to 5, they have just lost half year of game time in training for that worthless 2% differences.
- For pilots that have spent their time to command ship 5, they lost 37 day of game time in training because now everyone will do just as good as command ship level 5 pilots as far as warfare module goes.
Please consider the pilots that dedicated their time in warfare links in hope to have better chance against overcoming blobs in a small gang.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Cry more, link abusing while you're soloing is pathetic. Saying it takes skill because you dual box an unscannable cloaky T3 is pathetic.
Whining because your links got slightly nerfed saying it's half a year lost of training, You don't belong in EVE. Please quit. and no, I don't want your stuff.
And FYI I have a 100% PERFECT gangboosting toon for ALL combat related links I use in WH space for different purposes, some of it's links (armor/shield/skirmish) isn't hilariously overpowered anymore, OH NOES!
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
193
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:12:00 -
[347] - Quote
These changes are really great. I still think that high sensor strength nullified T3s will still be a bit broken, but as a first step this is really good. |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
193
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:18:00 -
[348] - Quote
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:1. It takes skill to not get caught dual boxing with links while being shot at. If you can't be bothered to dedicate time to train leadership skill and get better at pvp to counter the player who spent their time on fine tuning their skills, then you ought to be at disadvantage. It's a fair game, more effort, more reward.
2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them
3. Pilot who spent their time training command ship to level 5 for that extra 3% wafare bonus just had their effort wasted, because now every single command ship will perform the same as far as the warfare link goes whether they have command ship skill level 1 or 5. Another 37day training time differences.
The nerf to the warfare link strength is absolutely unfair to those who dedicated months of time in training for that extra 5% of chance to come out on top in a fight. If you are going to nerf the strength of the links, then it would only be fair to reinburse the skill points that was nerfed along with the skill. It is simply unfair to have to spend a month for additional 2% difference at links.
- For pilots that have all specialization skill to 5, they have just lost half year of game time in training for that worthless 2% differences.
- For pilots that have spent their time to command ship 5, they lost 37 day of game time in training because now everyone will do just as good as command ship level 5 pilots as far as warfare module goes.
Please consider the pilots that dedicated their time in warfare links in hope to have better chance against overcoming blobs in a small gang.
Time trained shouldn't be reason to leave unbalanced and outdated mechanics left in the game.
PvP skill should be mostly decided by taking advantages of a ships strengths and weaknesses on the grid rather than what bonuses you are getting off the grid. This coming from someone with two booster alts and every single one of my characters can use a mindlink of some kind, and almost everyone in my alliance has access to an OGB. http://eveboard.com/pilot/suitellis / http://eveboard.com/pilot/suitonia
Strategic Cruisers with high sensor strength will still be able to function and provide strong force multipliers. Probably too much for my tastes, but as a first step, this is great at reducing the amount of abuse that is currently provided by them. I'm looking forward to being able to actually ~~solo~~ without needing to login my booster alt just to be able to compete on an equal playing field. |
Las Minna
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:22:00 -
[349] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote:So deluded.
I had a big post typed out for this but I've already said it before and I decided it was ******** to say again. I just don't think that anybody at CCP actually understands how pvp needs to work in this game, because nerfing links at this point in the game is a terrible decision, and I personally would rather that links were just removed completely since at least that way I would get my SP back.
I'm still going to petition for it back though since CCP seems hellbent on making links essentially useless. Hopefully they'll also give me back my T3 skills since judging from the HAC changes (which make HACs still completely non-viable), T3's are going to become useless as well. And also Command Ships V since having that trained is now completely useless and was a waste of SP.
I can't believe that they aren't at least making on-grid links as good as current off-grid links are, really ********. "HEY GUYS LETS JUST MAKE THESE BONUSES BE 5% BETTER IF THEY'RE IN A COMBAT SHIP."
Yea ok. Nobody is going to fly a command ships because that's just asking to be primaried, and good luck not dying in this day and age of 2000 man blobs where whatever gets looked at gets alphaed.
True! Give us back IP we have wasted for boosting!!! |
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers Ex Cinere Scriptor
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:25:00 -
[350] - Quote
Doed wrote:Dairokuten Maoh wrote:1. It takes skill to not get caught dual boxing with links while being shot at. If you can't be bothered to dedicate time to train leadership skill and get better at pvp to counter the player who spent their time on fine tuning their skills, then you ought to be at disadvantage. It's a fair game, more effort, more reward.
2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them
3. Pilot who spent their time training command ship to level 5 for that extra 3% wafare bonus just had their effort wasted, because now every single command ship will perform the same as far as the warfare link goes whether they have command ship skill level 1 or 5. Another 37day training time differences.
The nerf to the warfare link strength is absolutely unfair to those who dedicated months of time in training for that extra 5% of chance to come out on top in a fight. If you are going to nerf the strength of the links, then it would only be fair to reinburse the skill points that was nerfed along with the skill. It is simply unfair to have to spend a month for additional 2% difference at links.
- For pilots that have all specialization skill to 5, they have just lost half year of game time in training for that worthless 2% differences.
- For pilots that have spent their time to command ship 5, they lost 37 day of game time in training because now everyone will do just as good as command ship level 5 pilots as far as warfare module goes.
Please consider the pilots that dedicated their time in warfare links in hope to have better chance against overcoming blobs in a small gang. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA Cry more, link abusing while you're soloing is pathetic. Saying it takes skill because you dual box an unscannable cloaky T3 is pathetic. Whining because your links got slightly nerfed saying it's half a year lost of training, You don't belong in EVE. Please quit. and no, I don't want your stuff. And FYI I have a 100% PERFECT gangboosting toon for ALL combat related links I use in WH space for different purposes, some of it's links (armor/shield/skirmish) isn't hilariously overpowered anymore, OH NOES!
Pretty sure a troll reply and not really worth replying, but just fyi
1. For solo pvpers, they can't use link if they are cloaked, so you need to constantly check for probes and switch location while dealing with hostiles on your main. A link fitted t3 is very scannable because they have nothing else on it besides command processor, links and cloaks.
2. A slightly 300% nerf per skill level on the specialization is pretty big.
3. The changes not only effects solo pvpers, t3 links, but also the changes made command ship 5 pilots doing just as good as command ship 1 pilots. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
|
Sohaki
Institute of Oaschgwei
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:25:00 -
[351] - Quote
Intersting choice to nerf boosting strengh allthough the only real nerf links received were in the loki boost department. CCP did the right thing to nerf 36 km warp disrupt range with a T2 disrupter without overheat. Now it's gonna be like around 31 I'd say. Boosts are still viable and still give you the edge.
Another very good nerf is that you can't just put your booster in a pos and be done with it. I see a lot of booster alts losing their ships soon . Need to watch mine more frequently now. Good change.
I don't believe that CCP will go that far as to put boosters on grid. The most important reason why not is simply cause CCP wants to make money (those evil evil ppl ). If boosting is only possible on grid a lot of booster alt accounts will be canceled (mine probably too).
The 2nd thing is that it's impossible to put boosters on grid everywhere. Ever thought about deadspace? Mission and FW? Not sure how you wanna sqeeze a T3 or CS in a novice, small or medium plex. They might just ignore that so most of the FW fights will be fought without any boosts but I doubt they will do so.
I believe that CCP will go the middle way. Boosts won't work in the whole system but only in a small part of it. Like 1-5 AU around the boosting ship. Maybe there'll even be a skill to improve that range. This way booster alts are still viable but need a lot more work and they are easier to scan down because you already know in what area they are. Besides, as soon as combat probes are out and the boosted party sees it the boosts will be shut off soon anyway.
|
Verity Sovereign
Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:28:00 -
[352] - Quote
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them
Huh? the lvl 5 spec skill only takes about 16-17 days to train, not 37....
I'm a bit sad, because this will indirectly nerf incurios even more, and I think they've already been nerfed enough... oh well. |
Kitsu Shadow
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:33:00 -
[353] - Quote
The changes that allow mining ships to provide bonuses from inside POS shields for Mining Links while excluding other boosting ships is unfair. ALL ships should be forced to boost from outside the shield. It is unfair to provide a special mechanic for miners and alienate PvP related boosters. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
244
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:43:00 -
[354] - Quote
The change to the interdiction maneuvers link strength is probably a bit too conservative if anything. On paper, the reduction in its strength sounds quite dramatic, since it's going from a 52.7% increase in tackle range with a current max-skilled Loki booster to 38.8% with a maxed boosting claymore or 37.1% with a post-nerf boosting Loki. However, in practice, the impact of these changes is relatively modest. For example:
Unboosted, unheated T2 point range: 24 km Same with current Loki links: 36.7 km With post-nerf Claymore links: 33.3 km With post-nerf Loki links: 32.9 km
While the loss of 3-4 km of unheated point range on a boosted ship is significant, the boosts are still more than strong enough to be essentially mandatory in pvp, so you're not doing anything about the biggest problem with the current boosting system. You can also see this if you consider a more extreme case:
An unboosted, max-skilled lachesis with an overloaded RF point can tackle out to 72 km Add current Loki links, that increases to 108 km With post-buff Claymore links, it becomes 100 km With post-buff Loki links, it becomes 99 km
Again, the loss of 8-9 km of heated point range isn't nothing, but you're still going to be seeing recons tackling at ~100 km so it's hardly a substantial nerf or one that is going to change the usage of links. The only thing this will change is the way people protect their boosting characters inside towers; those who use deep safes or just have them hump gates/stations will continue to have a crushing advantage over unboosted groups, and so links will remain mandatory for most types of pvp outside of situations where you're choosing to fight with one hand tied behind your back for whatever reason. |
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers Ex Cinere Scriptor
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:44:00 -
[355] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:Dairokuten Maoh wrote:2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them Huh? the lvl 5 spec skill only takes about 16-17 days to train, not 37.... I'm a bit sad, because this will indirectly nerf incurios even more, and I think they've already been nerfed enough... oh well.
Is it? It's been a while since I completed all leadership skills, but I remember it was a level 5 skill and it took a lot of time to train.
16-17 days is still a lot tho, with original skill it is 100% bonus after level 2, so at level 5 it's 300% bonus. After the nerf it is only 60% bonus at level 5. I would much rather have it at level 4 instead of 5 if the differences are this close. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
Fepes
All Inclusive SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:15:00 -
[356] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
Awesome Changes. Now we can force Combat Boosters to a Combat, this will make a few Fleets more interesting.
I´m Happy that you allow mining links in a force field. industry are not made for pvp^^ I think that 90% of the rorqual vanish if you kick them out of a POS. Who whould siege a Rorqual outside a FF in a WH or in 0.0. 5min are a very long time with that sig radius.
You just cant set a T3 booster with a 105m radius on the same level with an Rorqual that has an 5.000m Sig Radius.
|
chicka Kashuken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:21:00 -
[357] - 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.
And the prices of rorquals just dropped indefinitely. GG time to sell. |
Draconic Slayer
Daktaklakpak.
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:37:00 -
[358] - 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.
Confirming that links need to be removed.
#takingsoloaway |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
822
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:58:00 -
[359] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:A 35% tackling range link costs -
46 Days to get into a Loki and have level 5 Defensive Systems 48 Days to get Skirmish Warfare Link T2 20 Days to get a Skirmish Mindlink. 42 Days to get Warfare Link Specialist Level V and Command Processors
Costs ~300 million for the Loki. Costs ~100 million for the Mindlink.
5+ months of training and 400+ million for a 35% increase is not a pittance.
I'm not convinced that either the training time or the cost is really that relevant. We know from supercaps that attempts to balance things by making them expensive or difficult to get can only create a short-term scarcity. As it is, links are already basically ubiquitous and mandatory, so the benefit of any delay in adoption that might have come from the cost or training time is long gone.
In any case, you can eliminate the "cost" argument entirely by just shoving a link on a T1 BC. It's not quite as powerful as a T3 or CS, but the magnitude of the bonus still makes it mandatory. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:00:00 -
[360] - Quote
Kitsu Shadow wrote:The changes that allow mining ships to provide bonuses from inside POS shields for Mining Links while excluding other boosting ships is unfair. ALL ships should be forced to boost from outside the shield. It is unfair to provide a special mechanic for miners and alienate PvP related boosters.
This would be true when the Miningboosters were BCs like the Combatboosters. But in this case, the Boosters are extremely slow ships which wouln-¦t have a chance to excape, when someone warps into the System, especially the Roqual. CCP even stated that they would change it later when they change theese ships |
|
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
556
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:11:00 -
[361] - Quote
I find that I can make great use of my perfect booster skills when flying a BC, T3 or CS with a link fitted to it, and my alt on a second account. The link ship has about as strong a tank through its own boosts as a link-less fitting would have, and the alt has a much stronger tank from the bonus.
Gangs don't get much smaller than one guy and his alt, so how exactly do links hurt small gangs? They only hurt NOOBS, so quit whining and start training, like everyone who has those links has done before you :p . |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
244
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:55:00 -
[362] - Quote
Are there any plans to change the skill prerequisites for using mindlinks? You say that you want to smooth out the advancement path for using links effectively, but since mindlinks require the appropriate warfare spec skill at V, there's a really big jump in effectiveness on going from spec IV to spec V (20% from the skill increase and another 25% from the mindlink), which doesn't seem consistent with the goal of smoothing out the progression. It might be worth reducing the mindlink requirement to spec IV or less if you're going to stick with the proposed link strengths and skill effects. |
My Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:55:00 -
[363] - Quote
just a reminder of an idea how to force link ships on grid:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=245209&find=unread |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:14:00 -
[364] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:Bocephus Morgen wrote:I'm cool with the changes, but would like to point out that this is a buff to stealth bombers. Higher sigs and lower tanks will make it even easier to kill fleets now.
The shield BS fleet was already endangered, it will go extinct with these changes. funny i never seen bs fleets since 2011
are you high STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:16:00 -
[365] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:It does pay off, doesn't it? all that time spent to train and max 4 different T3s and 4 different command ships, while two of each could have been enough. hooray for wasted SP that i'll (a) never recover and (b) will now be worth ditch when selling a character in the future.
Cry some more Rancer person, I absolutely hate the changes to the Astarte and the Sleipnir (having trained CS to 5 only to fly those two - I ain't much of a CS person) but the links nerf is making this much better, even though it's still nowhere near as big as it should be. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:20:00 -
[366] - Quote
Very cruel idea...I like it! |
Shade Millith
Bite Me inc Bitten.
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:28:00 -
[367] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Shade Millith wrote:A 35% tackling range link costs -
46 Days to get into a Loki and have level 5 Defensive Systems 48 Days to get Skirmish Warfare Link T2 20 Days to get a Skirmish Mindlink. 42 Days to get Warfare Link Specialist Level V and Command Processors
Costs ~300 million for the Loki. Costs ~100 million for the Mindlink.
5+ months of training and 400+ million for a 35% increase is not a pittance. I'm not convinced that either the training time or the cost is really that relevant. We know from supercaps that attempts to balance things by making them expensive or difficult to get can only create a short-term scarcity. As it is, links are already basically ubiquitous and mandatory, so the benefit of any delay in adoption that might have come from the cost or training time is long gone. In any case, you can eliminate the "cost" argument entirely by just shoving a link on a T1 BC. It's not quite as powerful as a T3 or CS, but the magnitude of the bonus still makes it mandatory.
I wasn't saying whether or not it was balanced. Just that it isn't a pittance obtaining one.
My own thoughts on what to do with links is to keep the original strength, but if the link is off-grid it's only 70% or 50% effective or so. Give an incentive to have it on the field and using a heavily tanked Commandship. |
Sollis Vynneve
I.I.I
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:33:00 -
[368] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:maybe first? e: boom e2: Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe). Has this been considered?
what would be the point of that. that would simply negate the effects of skirmish link evasive maneauvers. |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
126
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:37:00 -
[369] - Quote
Even as someone who'd definitely benefit from them, I'm kind of disappointed in the navy mindlinks as proposed. Literally no reason to use vanilla mindlinks because the premium you pay for twice the versatility is laughably small.
I actually want to see them be upwards of 5x the LP and Isk cost of vanilla mindlinks. |
Sollis Vynneve
I.I.I
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:45:00 -
[370] - Quote
tbh i dont like the changes. ive invested heavily in training time max out all leadership/t3/command ship skills,just to have a load of whiny pilots complain abt boosts. pvp is abt beating your opponents by using whatever tools you have boosts/drugs etc. whats nxt drugs overpowered people need to stop whinning and enjoy the game for what it is. :D |
|
Dilium
Diltech
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:17:00 -
[371] - Quote
Wheres the glory in fighting outnumbered if you need links to do it?
Glad to see all the broken linkalt backbones, but nerf isnt big enough. Dont settle with this, keep working on how to force them on grid. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:34:00 -
[372] - Quote
jones bones wrote: Their numbers are ******* wrong and ******** anyways. Crosspoast from FHC:
The following are all Lvl 5s and no implants:
My Incursus without Legion links: 5k EHP, 89 DPS Tank from AAR My Incursus with Legion links: 7k EHP, 205 DPS Tank from AAR
That's a 40% bonus in EHP and 130% bonus in active tank. That's ridiculous. I could see 10% bonus in EHP and 25% bonus in active tank.
My condor without Loki links: 24km point range, 3618m/s velocity My condor with Loki links:36.7km point range, 4705m/s velocity
That's a 53% bonus in point range and 30% bonus in velocity. Keeping it real yo.
My Hawk without Tengu links: 6.3k EHP, 189 DPS Tank My Hawk with Tengu links: 8.7k EHP, 411 DPS Tank
That's a 39% bonus in EHP and 120% bonus in active tank. I've got a DPS tank higher than any frig/dessie can even output.
Links are so overpowered the concept of fighting without them is alien to us. This isn't "We have a 10% edge on tanks thanks to HERO ITSMEHCK in the Damnation!" This is "We have a 30% bonus in EHP and a 100% bonus in reps thanks to ::RANDOM COWARD ALT:: sitting in a safe somewhere in system." ******** game mechanic is ********. I haven't lost an Incursus in weeks because nothing I engage can kill me. It's awesome.
What sort huge advantages will links get now that ccp is also buffing local reps to compensate for this slight nerf to ogbs? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Kikusama
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:24:00 -
[373] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
This is dumb. How the hell can you counter a Falcon or a Logi if you're scrammed and webbed? How is less of a force boost being permajammed or the opponent having 5-6 large reppers on him?
I do fully agree with all the changes, but stop offering stupid explanations. One ECCM will do fsck-all agains a Falcon and you can't counter a T1 logi (nevermind a T2 one) being on field and aiding your opponent.
Eagerly awaiting ECM to be deleted from the game, promising a bottle of Bollinger for the dude that does it
Guns make the news. Science doesn't. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:27:00 -
[374] - Quote
I am wondering why energy neutralizers are not getting any boost from EWAR links. As far as I remember neutralizing is also reviewed as an ewar. Also, since I mentioned ewar and neuts: why pilgrim is only ship that doesn't have same bonuses as curse has. All other recons have exactly same ewar bonuses but differ with high/low slots and that's it. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:27:00 -
[375] - Quote
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:1. It takes skill to not get caught dual boxing with links while being shot at. If you can't be bothered to dedicate time to train leadership skill and get better at pvp to counter the player who spent their time on fine tuning their skills, then you ought to be at disadvantage. It's a fair game, more effort, more reward.
2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them
3. Pilot who spent their time training command ship to level 5 for that extra 3% wafare bonus just had their effort wasted, because now every single command ship will perform the same as far as the warfare link goes whether they have command ship skill level 1 or 5. Another 37day training time differences.
The nerf to the warfare link strength is absolutely unfair to those who dedicated months of time in training for that extra 5% of chance to come out on top in a fight. If you are going to nerf the strength of the links, then it would only be fair to reinburse the skill points that was nerfed along with the skill. It is simply unfair to have to spend a month for additional 2% difference at links.
- For pilots that have all specialization skill to 5, they have just lost half year of game time in training for that worthless 2% differences.
- For pilots that have spent their time to command ship 5, they lost 37 day of game time in training because now everyone will do just as good as command ship level 5 pilots as far as warfare module goes.
Please consider the pilots that dedicated their time in warfare links in hope to have better chance against overcoming blobs in a small gang.
I payed 12bill isk for a character specifically for boosting, she has 11 551 059 sp in leadership and I find your butt hurt hilarious. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:32:00 -
[376] - Quote
A couple of questions regarding availability, pricing, and sourcing of T2 mindlinks in your proposal:
1) Will T2 mindlinks still be available as a reward from the 'Shipyard Theft' mission if the proposed changes are acted on?
2) It seems to me that 20,000 Concord LP plus the small amount of ISK (I've forgotten that figure.) is far too cheap for warfare-related T2 mindlinks. I'm not sure how much these mindlinks should be priced at but this doesn't seem enough.
2a) Regarding T2 mining mindlinks has Dr Eyjo, the CCP economist, been consulted on making these also available at a nominal cost as opposed to the current market value for these particular mindlinks?? There are already far too many people mining and this part of the proposal will only make the current situation worse. If you were going to make the Rorqual boost only work outside POS forcefields I suppose I could see cheap T2 mining mindlinks being a idea but not if they will still work inside the forcefields. Even allowing for that idea I still feel lowering the price will be a dangerous idea for the economy of New Eden.
I fear this just looks like more 'dumbing-down' of the game. |
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:37:00 -
[377] - Quote
So, the nerfs is awesome ? Another idiot licking CCP @.... |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:41:00 -
[378] - Quote
Nice changes, roughly 10% nerf, or so? Leave it like that and it's gg |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:17:00 -
[379] - Quote
One thing I've always wondered... why are the armour-related bonuses labelled as 'Armoured Warfare', but shield-related bonuses are 'Siege Warfare'?
Also, are titan fleet bonuses being touched in this patch (or in the near future)? |
Astecus
Astral Mining Astral Peacekeepers
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:25:00 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links:
Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Will the Loki really have bonus to both Siege and Armored warfare links, or is this just a typo?
If yes, will there be navy mindlinks with bonuses to these two as well? |
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
126
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:27:00 -
[381] - Quote
Copypasting my post from FHC
Those navy implants really should be expensive, not like twice the cost of vanilla mindlinks, more like 5x the isk and LP cost. It's a no-brainer, nobody's NOT going to pay that negligible premium for twice the versatility afforded by navy implants. At 400-500M each, maybe then considering cheap 80m isk vanilla implants might not be such a bad idea.
e.g. CONCORD LP rewards are 10,875 LP + 10,875,000 isk for 3% implants, while 6% implants cost 250k LP + 250M isk. But they plan to make double the mindlink functionality only cost barely double and change? Not saying it needs to scale as severely as hardwirings, but it should be at a hefty premium if you choose to fit them. As it stands now it's ******* dumb. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:33:00 -
[382] - Quote
Aloe Cloveris wrote:Copypasting my post from FHC
Those navy implants really should be expensive, not like twice the cost of vanilla mindlinks, more like 5x the isk and LP cost. It's a no-brainer, nobody's NOT going to pay that negligible premium for twice the versatility afforded by navy implants. At 400-500M each, maybe then considering cheap 80m isk vanilla implants might not be such a bad idea.
e.g. CONCORD LP rewards are 10,875 LP + 10,875,000 isk for 3% implants, while 6% implants cost 250k LP + 250M isk. But they plan to make double the mindlink functionality only cost barely double and change? Not saying it needs to scale as severely as hardwirings, but it should be at a hefty premium if you choose to fit them. As it stands now it's ******* dumb.
They don't want booster alts to cost too much. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:42:00 -
[383] - Quote
Fozzie
perhaps you could add navy warfare links.. lower fittings slightly better boost strength than the T1. 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. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:47:00 -
[384] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw. An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100% This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be. To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties). With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties). This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent!
This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking.
Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost.
Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do.
CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:59:00 -
[385] - Quote
Wasn't a great fan on first read through but warming to it a bit more on consideration, some stuff I really like but other aspects a bit cautious about until I see how they work in reality.
Oh and please don't stop OGB working even if steps are taken to stop the "god mode" (lol really) hard to scan off grid boosters. I'm happy enough to bring links on grid for combat but quite often multi-boxing with different characters on different grids which that would royally mess up not to mention it just panders to the lowest skilled/effort players. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:13:00 -
[386] - Quote
VioletRay wrote: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 easier 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? You are taking the chances away from small fleet by doing this balancing. Who would want to fight larger numbers when you know they have even better links than yours? Just make the all links the same or delete the whole links stuff tbh. It's the better way to go. what you think am sayin chicken head. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:29:00 -
[387] - Quote
The fact still stands: links belong to grid.
The "fact" that "solo" players need to own small to medium gangs is irrelevant. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
659
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:33:00 -
[388] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:The fact still stands: links belong to grid.
The "fact" that "solo" players need to own small to medium gangs is irrelevant.
the problem is 'grid's' can and are often broken. if they were to limit to on grid only, they would have to fix grids and remove all gridfu.. id bet they cant actually be bothered or may not even be able to do it.
(gridfu if you don't know is documented by some very clever goons, google it) OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
647
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:43:00 -
[389] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quote:The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Not balanced at all: skirmish - 4 bonuses (all races) siege - 2 bonuses armored and information - 3 bonuses. Swap skirmish bonus on Proteus with siege (there are shield fit gallente ships) to balance things out.
I was wondering who else would catch this!
Balance, balance, balance. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Endeavour Starfleet
914
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:45:00 -
[390] - Quote
So again CCP Fozzie with this change to links for 1.1 and overall 1.1 being a large change. Will you and CCP also take the time to bring balance to the overpowered ability to go AFK while cloaked? That should be the priority to be fixed over link changes that harms incursion groups and encourages alpha.
When will we get a straight answer about cloaking? If we are getting them for links and HACs why not modules? |
|
Nitko Koraka
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:52:00 -
[391] - Quote
Cannot begin to say how happy I am to see the first steps of removing OGB. |
Deornoth Drake
Black Hole Squadron
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:17:00 -
[392] - 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.
Rorqual ... grant the link bonus without the need to deploy it.
Like command ships both Rorqual and Orca serve a 2nd role. Command ships fight, Rorqual and Orca store haul ... the hauling stops the mind link which is not good |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2418
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:24:00 -
[393] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw. An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100% This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be. To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties). With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties). This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent! This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking. Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost. Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do. CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players.
It does take into account cap usage... The self rep bonus greatly increases the speed of reps, and the cap usage bonus decreases the cap needed by the same amount. The result generally is that you rep faster, and use the same cap / second.
Also, I agree that OGB's still are way too potent.
Frozzie: Why aren't you balancing OGB's around Drugs and Pirate Implants? Seriously, both Drugs and Pirate Implants should give as good or better bonuses to self reps than the corresponding triple linked fleet booster!!!!
|
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:31:00 -
[394] - Quote
I think it's time that we either: a) remove mind-links all together or b) remove the racial qualities of the mind-link and reduce it down to a single mind-link that gives bonuses to all types.
I can't find any other 'profession' in the game that requires the destruction/implantation of an implant every time you want to swap fleet comps and with the halving of effectiveness of the mind-links, I see no reason not to go further with the mind-link changes. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1041
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:35:00 -
[395] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
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%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw. An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100% This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be. To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties). With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties). This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent! This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking. Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost. Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do. CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players. It does take into account cap usage... The self rep bonus greatly increases the speed of reps, and the cap usage bonus decreases the cap needed by the same amount. The result generally is that you rep faster, and use the same cap / second. Also, I agree that OGB's still are way too potent. Frozzie: Why aren't you balancing OGB's around Drugs and Pirate Implants? Seriously, both Drugs and Pirate Implants should give as good or better bonuses to self reps than the corresponding triple linked fleet booster!!!!
Thanks
Help me with the math here with respect to the local tank bonus ccp is also giving.
A non-ogb boosted incursus is effectively getting a 15% bonus to rep. A ogb bonused incruses is effectively getting .7x15% + 15% or 25.5% bonus?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nergart
Nocturnal Romance
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:14:00 -
[396] - 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.
+1
the usual nerf it 6 times over and should we nerf it once more just because we can , yeh why not Eve does not have a learning curve, its a learning cliff. Either learn to fly on the way down or its going to be a hard landing |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2421
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:32:00 -
[397] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
These numbers are not very descriptive btw.
An incursus Atm does NOT get a 35% boost to its active tanking from links right now.. It gets over 100%
This nerf does virtually nothing. Links are still about three times as powerful as they should be.
To put them into perspective, the current boosts increase the rep power of an incursus about 125% (or less depending on your fit, as gang links and modules and rigs can all suffer stacking penalties). With the change, the max armor boosts will increase your incursus' rep power by about 70%. (or less depending on stacking penalties). This is a significant reduction, but it is still more powerful than anything you can get by drugs or even pirate implants. IMO, that means, since they can be provided while off grid, they are still too potent! This does not even count the cap bonus which is important for active tanking. Plus ccp is boosting ogbs by giving the type of tank they bonus (local active tanks) a boost. Bottom line: OGBs still = god mode. But now you cant share them in a pos. So more people will get alt accounts so they can play in godmode. CCP made it cheaper and easier to do. CCP you have been claiming you want to get rid of ogbs for over a year now. But only ever give vague claims its technically difficult. Specific questions are never really answered in this regard. You claim someone is working on it but never say who. If you want to have credibility perhaps it's time for the team/individual to post a dev blog about this and actually answer some questions from the players. It does take into account cap usage... The self rep bonus greatly increases the speed of reps, and the cap usage bonus decreases the cap needed by the same amount. The result generally is that you rep faster, and use the same cap / second. Also, I agree that OGB's still are way too potent. Frozzie: Why aren't you balancing OGB's around Drugs and Pirate Implants? Seriously, both Drugs and Pirate Implants should give as good or better bonuses to self reps than the corresponding triple linked fleet booster!!!! Thanks Help me with the math here with respect to the local tank bonus ccp is also giving. A non-ogb boosted incursus is effectively getting a 15% bonus to rep. A ogb bonused incruses is effectively getting .7x15% + 15% or 25.5% bonus?
Base Stat: Current Small Armor Repper II = 80 HP / 6 Seconds = 13.333 HP/s Repair Systems 5: 5%/Level Faster Repair. At V this increases HP/s by a factor of 1/.75 = 1.3333 Incursus Hull bonus: 7.5% / Level More Repair. At V this increases HP/s by 1.375
So, LvL 5 Incursus Now = 24.444 HP / s
Legion Currently provides: -35.16 Cycle Time (and cap use); This is effectively a 1 / (1-.3516) = 1.5422 HP/s Modifier (but will stack with Nanobot Accerators) +35.16 Resists (damage reduction); This is effectively a 1 / ( 1 - 35.16 ) = 1.5422 EHP / s Modifier (but will stack with resist modifiers except Hull bonuses, DCU, & RAH)
So, Currently a LvL 5 Mindlinked Legion boosts any-armor-ships reps by 1.5422 * 1.5422 = 2.3783 as much as the base incursus.
I'm going to use an EFT verifiable example now:
To put this into effect: Base Armor Resists on an Incursus with a DCU is 23.5%, which is a modifier of 1 / (1 - .235) = 1.307 Taking only Exp Damage, the incursus will rep 24.444 * 1.307 EHP/s = 31.95 EHP/s With Legion Bonuses, it will rep 31.95 * 2.3783 = 75.98 EHP/s
Now for the changes: Armor Reppers are 15% stronger = 1.15 Modifier. We could go through all the details, but the result is still a 1.15 Modifier
Changing Legion to Damnation, and using max skills -25.90% Cycle time (and cap use) = 1 / .741 = 1.3495 HP/s Modifier +25.90% Resists = 1 / 0.741 = 1.3495 EHP / s Modifier
So, the new Level 5 Mindlinked Damnation Boosts any-armor-ships reps by 1.3495 * 1.3495 = 1.8212
The results: All 5 Incursus taking only Exp Damage will rep 31.95 * 1.15 = 36.74 EHP / s With New Damnation Bonuses, it will rep 36.74 * 1.8212 = 66.91 EHP / s
the TL;DR; Old Incursus against Exp Damage: 31.95 EHP/s New Incursus against Exp Damage: 36.74 EHP/s Old Boosted Incursus against Exp Damage: 75.98 EHP / s New Boosted Incrusus against Exp Damage: 66.91 EHP / s
Notes: 1 SAR2 (No Heat), only Resist mod is DCU2 (adding additional Resist mods will stack with Boosts), No Rigs (adding additional rep or resist mods will stack with Boosts).
Disparity: A strong Exile/Blue Pill will boost Amror/Shield reps by 30% (and has major chances of drawbacks) for a SINGLE SHIP. A Full Crystal Implant set will boost Shield reps by 54% for a SINGLE SHIP. An off-grid booster hugging the POS will boost armor/Shield reps by 77.8% for EVERY SHIP IN THE FLEET!!
That is completely backwards in terms of Risk & Effort vs Reward, and I don't think the booster or implants are very far from where it should be!!!!!! Frozzie's changes are in the right direction, and even appropriate when the booster is ON GRID. But until then, Boosting needs a bigger nerf!!!! |
Palamon
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:51:00 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:"
Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100. This goes alongside the balance changes to command ships, battlecruisers and strategic cruisers. We want to be able to balance a ship's fittings such that fitting choices allow people different tradeoffs for the choice of what to do with their unbonused "utility" highslots. Some may want to leave it empty or go with a small neut, some may want to fit a gang link fore 100 or 110 pwg, some may want to go with a medium neut at 175 pwg. All of those choices provide different benefits and will require different sacrifices.
Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links:
Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information
Is this what happens when the 'Nerf' button is situated next to the 'Buff' button on the DEV console? ;)
Already seen proposed fits for 6 link loki's and legion's and they will still be off grid.
I totally understand there might be some serious technical challenges to 'fixing' the off-grid boosting issue, but this seems like a 'one set back, two steps forward' approach with the issue being the enormous gap between the backward step and the step that makes things better. For the command ship changes to be pertinent, there needs to be a reason to field them over the off-grid T3 option, with the current proposal I do not see that happening.
However, recognising the impact on solo/small gang active tanking and tweaking the rep modules is a definite step in the right direction.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
479
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:01:00 -
[399] - Quote
VioletRay wrote: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 easier 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? You are taking the chances away from small fleet by doing this balancing. Who would want to fight larger numbers when you know they have even better links than yours? Just make the all links the same or delete the whole links stuff tbh. It's the better way to go. Awwww how cute, someone who still thinks people only play with one account . . .
Seriously large fleet or small gang, everyone only ever used cloaky - interdiction nullified - hard to probe out - 100MN AB - command processor fitting - AFK alts sitting in T3s in a safe spot to provide boost, and will continue to do so until CCP forces them on grid.
After that happens, you may have a legitimate complaint, but until then, everyone ( and I do mean everyone) will just continue to use alts. |
Jooksupoiss Ise
Welcome to Estonia
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:26:00 -
[400] - Quote
Dear CCP Fozzie! By me nerf it to null but please reimburse my booster alt IP.
|
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1044
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:32:00 -
[401] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Disparity: A strong Exile/Blue Pill will boost Amror/Shield reps by 30% (and has major chances of drawbacks) for a SINGLE SHIP. A Full Crystal Implant set will boost Shield reps by 54% for a SINGLE SHIP. An off-grid booster hugging the POS will boost armor/Shield reps by 77.8% for EVERY SHIP IN THE FLEET!!
That is completely backwards in terms of Risk & Effort vs Reward, and I don't think the booster or implants are very far from where it should be!!!!!! Frozzie's changes are in the right direction, and even appropriate when the booster is ON GRID. But until then, Boosting needs a bigger nerf!!!!
I used to argue against people who said ccp is keeping ogbs overpowered because they are after the short term gain of the alt accounts. I used to think ccp would care about the long term health of the game and not be so short sighted.
But after a year of hearing the vague "technical difficulties" that some as yet unknown person is supposedly working out, the only answer to your question is this:
You pay an extra $15/ month to ccp to have a ogb alt in a safe spot. That is why ogb bonuses are that much better.
CCP, if you insist on keeping ogbs as god mode, at least put the boosters on killmails so normal players can see who they are just wasting ships against. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
NinjaTurtle
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:46:00 -
[402] - Quote
not so sure bout that interdiction maneuvers nerf bro at least not that heavy of one Co-host and editor of Declarations of War Podcast http://declarationsofwar.com Twitter- @schertt |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2423
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:02:00 -
[403] - Quote
NinjaTurtle wrote:not so sure bout that interdiction maneuvers nerf bro at least not that heavy of one
Are you serious?
Currently: T2 Point Range: 24 (28.8) km's. T2 Scram: 9 (10.8) km's. T2 Web: 10 (13.0) km's
Current Boosts T2 Point: 36.7 (43.0) km's. T2 Scram: 13.7 (16.1) km's. T2 Web: 15.3 (19.3) km's
Proposed Changes: T2 Point: 33.3 (40.0) km's. T2 Scram: 12.5 (15.0) km's. T2 Web: 13.9 (18.0) km's
Best Faction Mod: Domination Point: 30.0 (36.0) km's Domination Scram: 11.3 (13.5) km's Fed Navy Web: 14.0 (18.2) km's
So, the boosts still make every t2 module more powerful than the best faction version... They need to be nerfed more!!!!
|
Sian Ka'an
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:12:00 -
[404] - Quote
<3 those changes. definitely a step or two in the right in the right direction. |
Soul-on-Ice
Task Force 20
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:20:00 -
[405] - Quote
When missiles were OP i trained for missiles and they were nerfed. WHen the Sader was OP I flew Crows, so I trained for sader. Then the dramiel came out and my sader was instantly obsolete. Took me a long time to hop on the dram bandwagon. Then i found out people used T3 boosters. Took me a while to hop on that bandwagon too. WHen I decided I needed a carrier pilot, I trained bs5 only to see the prereqs dropped. OUch.
Um can we go back to missiles now? jk.
My point though: People are averse to change it true. And I dont have a preference nerf boosters or not.
I think its weird that the command ship gives less bonuses than the t3 booster. BUt if you want to make it so that Command ships give bonus only on grid Im really cool with that. Or nerf boosters all together.
WHat I would like to avoid is radical change in the game play/system so as to avoid an omgwtf happend to the mechanic kind of thing.
People that train t3 boosters have to dedicate quite a bit of time and remaps to get a character who is nominally effective and able to do but one thing, boost.
Alot of these changes you are making with skill reqs and ****....obliterate the 1yr training plans players have. its something to consider. In the past when you ditched the learnign skills (a wise move) you reimbursed characters with a remap. That was cool. SInce you dont sell remaps its something to consider. change is cool, radical change, not so cool.
Formerly Kohursr Mitthrassafis of Heretic Army - ATX Alliance Tournament-á (sold 2012) Formerly RueTiron of Caldari Militia-á (sold 2011) |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis Dragonaors
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:55:00 -
[406] - Quote
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:Dairokuten Maoh wrote:2. It takes a lot of time and dedication to train for those warfare specializations. Those who made the effort and dedication should be rewarded with the advantages that it comes. It is unfair for pilots that have spent more than half year dedicated to nothing but training specialization skills to perform almost just as good as pilot who can spent less than a month to train the specialization to 4 with only 2% differences. It's a 37 day train time differences per skill, and there are 4 of them Huh? the lvl 5 spec skill only takes about 16-17 days to train, not 37.... I'm a bit sad, because this will indirectly nerf incurios even more, and I think they've already been nerfed enough... oh well. Is it? It's been a while since I completed all leadership skills, but I remember it was a level 5 skill and it took a lot of time to train. 16-17 days is still a lot tho, with original skill it is 100% bonus after level 2, so at level 5 it's 300% bonus. After the nerf it is only 60% bonus at level 5. I would much rather have it at level 4 instead of 5 if the differences are this close.
I just want to point out that level 5 gives you access to the mindlink and the t2 links. |
Klown Walk
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:18:00 -
[407] - Quote
So, does anyone actually think links is a fun game mechanic? |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:22:00 -
[408] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:NinjaTurtle wrote:not so sure bout that interdiction maneuvers nerf bro at least not that heavy of one Are you serious? Currently: T2 Point Range: 24 (28.8) km's. T2 Scram: 9 (10.8) km's. T2 Web: 10 (13.0) km's Current Boosts T2 Point: 36.7 (43.0) km's. T2 Scram: 13.7 (16.1) km's. T2 Web: 15.3 (19.3) km's Proposed Changes: T2 Point: 33.3 (40.0) km's. T2 Scram: 12.5 (15.0) km's. T2 Web: 13.9 (18.0) km's Best Faction Mod: Domination Point: 30.0 (36.0) km's Domination Scram: 11.3 (13.5) km's Fed Navy Web: 14.0 (18.2) km's So, the boosts still make every t2 module more powerful than the best faction version... They need to be nerfed more!!!!
Why should a Single Module better then Teamwork in a MMO?!
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1417
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:31:00 -
[409] - Quote
Our current mind links; Information Warfare Mindlink +50% to the strength of information warfare links. Replaces the bonus from information warfare with a fixed 15% bonus to targeting range.
I know that this is being reduced to +25% but will the 15% fixed rate to the warfare skill stay? Will the navy versions give to both warfare skills and links? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
SyntheticSins
An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:33:00 -
[410] - Quote
I am SyntheticSins and I disapprove of this message.
You know, in my opinion links is what gave the advantage to the small man. Sure - I know it's gut-wrenching to think my regular little Vexor can wipe out a 5 man fleet, then again you're the ____bag that brought a five man fleet to kill a little old vexor.
I expect my alt to be reimbursed skillpoints. Mindlinks and implants, when this change comes out he's going in highsec in a mining barge and that's it. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3757
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:48:00 -
[411] - Quote
The nerf to strength isn't hard enough, but it's encouraging nonetheless. Honestly you could delete leadership entirely and I'd be totally ok with this. Please remember I say this as the primary triple link booster for Heretic Army. :)
-Liang
Ed: BTW, the Interdiction Nullifier nerf. Soooooo overdue. :hi5: Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:58:00 -
[412] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The nerf to strength isn't hard enough, but it's encouraging nonetheless. Honestly you could delete leadership entirely and I'd be totally ok with this. Please remember I say this as the primary triple link booster for Heretic Army. :)
-Liang
Ed: BTW, the Interdiction Nullifier nerf. Soooooo overdue. :hi5:
Interdiction maneuvers im guessing you mean... i agree webs and points range especially on recons are absurd 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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3758
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:00:00 -
[413] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The nerf to strength isn't hard enough, but it's encouraging nonetheless. Honestly you could delete leadership entirely and I'd be totally ok with this. Please remember I say this as the primary triple link booster for Heretic Army. :)
-Liang
Ed: BTW, the Interdiction Nullifier nerf. Soooooo overdue. :hi5: Interdiction maneuvers im guessing you mean... i agree webs and points range especially on recons are absurd
Jeah, sorry about the confusion. My mind is on other things while I gang boost from a POS.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2424
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:02:00 -
[414] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:NinjaTurtle wrote:not so sure bout that interdiction maneuvers nerf bro at least not that heavy of one Are you serious? Currently: T2 Point Range: 24 (28.8) km's. T2 Scram: 9 (10.8) km's. T2 Web: 10 (13.0) km's Current Boosts T2 Point: 36.7 (43.0) km's. T2 Scram: 13.7 (16.1) km's. T2 Web: 15.3 (19.3) km's Proposed Changes: T2 Point: 33.3 (40.0) km's. T2 Scram: 12.5 (15.0) km's. T2 Web: 13.9 (18.0) km's Best Faction Mod: Domination Point: 30.0 (36.0) km's Domination Scram: 11.3 (13.5) km's Fed Navy Web: 14.0 (18.2) km's So, the boosts still make every t2 module more powerful than the best faction version... They need to be nerfed more!!!! Why should a Single Module better then Teamwork in a MMO?!
Teamwork is having a friend give recon on the target so you can get ahead of it. Teamwork is having a friend adding extra dps on the target. Teamwork is having a friend provide backup tackle. Teamwork is having a friend rep your ship so you don't die. Teamwork is having a neutralize your opponent so you don't die.
Currently, OGB's are NOT a form of teamwork. The typical off-grid-booster is a glorified second client, typically minimized or moved to a second screen once they're safely deployed!!
And frankly, OGB's are NOT effecting ONE module, or even ONE ship, they are effecting every ship in fleet!
Bring the booster on field, and I'll support the current boost levels, but until then, nerf them to the level that's proportionate to the risks and efforts needed to wield them... and that is way, way below these tame tweaks that are being proposed!!!!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2425
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:08:00 -
[415] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Harvey James wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The nerf to strength isn't hard enough, but it's encouraging nonetheless. Honestly you could delete leadership entirely and I'd be totally ok with this. Please remember I say this as the primary triple link booster for Heretic Army. :)
-Liang
Ed: BTW, the Interdiction Nullifier nerf. Soooooo overdue. :hi5: Interdiction maneuvers im guessing you mean... i agree webs and points range especially on recons are absurd Jeah, sorry about the confusion. My mind is on other things while I gang boost from a POS. -Liang
The change to Interdiction Manuevers qualifies as nothing more than a minor tweak, not a Nerf... Oh no.. my web only reaches to 18 km's instead of 19 km's. Oh no.. my point only reaches to 33 km's instead of 36 km's.
And Damnit... an Interdiction Nullifier nerf is also overdue!!!
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3758
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:14:00 -
[416] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Harvey James wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The nerf to strength isn't hard enough, but it's encouraging nonetheless. Honestly you could delete leadership entirely and I'd be totally ok with this. Please remember I say this as the primary triple link booster for Heretic Army. :)
-Liang
Ed: BTW, the Interdiction Nullifier nerf. Soooooo overdue. :hi5: Interdiction maneuvers im guessing you mean... i agree webs and points range especially on recons are absurd Jeah, sorry about the confusion. My mind is on other things while I gang boost from a POS. -Liang The change to Interdiction Manuevers qualifies as nothing more than a minor tweak, not a Nerf... Oh no.. my web only reaches to 18 km's instead of 19 km's. Oh no.. my point only reaches to 33 km's instead of 36 km's. And Damnit... an Interdiction Nullifier nerf is also overdue!!!
I'd be totally ok with a 90% nerf to gang mod strength.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
659
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:14:00 -
[417] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Harvey James wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The nerf to strength isn't hard enough, but it's encouraging nonetheless. Honestly you could delete leadership entirely and I'd be totally ok with this. Please remember I say this as the primary triple link booster for Heretic Army. :)
-Liang
Ed: BTW, the Interdiction Nullifier nerf. Soooooo overdue. :hi5: Interdiction maneuvers im guessing you mean... i agree webs and points range especially on recons are absurd Jeah, sorry about the confusion. My mind is on other things while I gang boost from a POS. -Liang
you mean orbiting a pos force field 1km from it right? OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Apocryphal Noise
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:22:00 -
[418] - Quote
You just gutted the loki as a web platform |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2427
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:38:00 -
[419] - Quote
Apocryphal Noise wrote:You just gutted the loki as a web platform
Why?
Current Max Boosted Loki Webs T2 Web: 38.2 (48.1) km's Fed Navy: 53.5 (67.4) km's.
With the new Max Booster levels from a Command ship (+38.8% max) T2 Web: 34.7 (45.1) km's Fed Navy: 48.6 (63.2) km's
With the new Max Booster levels from the loki itself (+37.1% max) T2 Web: 34.3 (44.5) km's Fed Navy: 48.0 (62.4) km's
Dear Lord, how will you ever manage... |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1417
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:42:00 -
[420] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Apocryphal Noise wrote:You just gutted the loki as a web platform Why? Current Max Boosted Loki Webs T2 Web: 38.2 (48.1) km's Fed Navy: 53.5 (67.4) km's. With the new Max Booster levels from a Command ship (+38.8% max) T2 Web: 34.7 (45.1) km's Fed Navy: 48.6 (63.2) km's With the new Max Booster levels from the loki itself (+37.1% max) T2 Web: 34.3 (44.5) km's Fed Navy: 48.0 (62.4) km's Dear Lord, how will you ever manage... Yeah, looking at those numbers side by side makes me think T3 boosters did not get hit hard enough, you can still make a strong OGB with covert cloak and interdiction nullifier. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
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...). |
|
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. |
|
Sgt Ocker
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 14:14:00 -
[481] - Quote
Ayana Mayuko wrote: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. There is a very good reason many mining gangs don't have pvp defence fleets with them, it has a great deal to do with game mechanics.. Rorquals can't carry anything other than indy ships, now you could take a carrier with you loaded up with pvp ships but there is still the problem of getting the pilots to them. Rorqual has limited space for jump clones. PVPers in a lot of cases care little for miners, which is often their loss, as they then have to pay more for ships on the market because their indy corp is no longer able to build them. but then the more rorquals and other indies that die the higher ship prices go for everybody so it really is a never ending circle. 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.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 14:33:00 -
[482] - 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! |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 18:55:00 -
[483] - Quote
Edit |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3760
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:25:00 -
[484] - 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Maraner
The Executioners Insidious Empire
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:37:00 -
[485] - Quote
I feel that the nerf to the armor and shield links are too harsh.
I'm not completely clear why the nerf is so much harder to these links than other, will read back as far as able. But I would suggest that this be brought back a degree.
A 10% reduction to what these links provided (I hope that is broadly correct) is a big step down. I'd like to see around half of that and a rebalance later as required. Can someone point me at a clear rationale from the Devs as to why? Thanks!
Oh and death to of grid boosting. I have an alt, (we all do) and we often use OGB's. Still OP and silly, it's in the game so dumb not to use it, but I will still cheer when it's gone. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2441
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 22:10:00 -
[486] - Quote
Maraner wrote:I feel that the nerf to the armor and shield links are too harsh.
I'm not completely clear why the nerf is so much harder to these links than other, will read back as far as able. But I would suggest that this be brought back a degree.
A 10% reduction to what these links provided (I hope that is broadly correct) is a big step down. I'd like to see around half of that and a rebalance later as required. Can someone point me at a clear rationale from the Devs as to why? Thanks!
Oh and death to of grid boosting. I have an alt, (we all do) and we often use OGB's. Still OP and silly, it's in the game so dumb not to use it, but I will still cheer when it's gone.
Too harsh... you mean not harsh enough!!!
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.
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.
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.
Alternatively, change the boosts to depend on fleet size! That way boosts are still very potent for large fleets, but not so game breakingly imbalanced for small gang PvP! Example on how to do that!
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 22:13:00 -
[487] - Quote
Liang Nuren 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang
Dear Liang,
i respect you, but no killing the fleetboost is like ditching the fleet as whole. Target calling isnt worth a own ship. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3763
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 23:52:00 -
[488] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote: Dear Liang,
i respect you, but no killing the fleetboost is like ditching the fleet as whole. Target calling isnt worth a own ship.
The problem with links is that they quickly become mandatory. This is pretty much an expected consequence of having a global 50% boost in a game where people train 2 months for a 2% benefit. A mindlinked fleet booster shouldn't provide more than a 5% bonus in absolute terms. IMO.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hokoe
Zero Dark Thirty
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 00:41:00 -
[489] - Quote
How do you get concord LP? There are no Concord agent. what the ! Sorry but whats up? |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1278
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 00:54:00 -
[490] - Quote
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers needs to be brought down even more. Dropping a T2 disruptor from 36km to 33km is not exactly a game changer. Nerf that **** into the ground. |
|
Hokoe
Zero Dark Thirty
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 01:05:00 -
[491] - Quote
All you have to do is buy lots of plex an you will have all the isk you want ! lol The more they give. The more they take away. |
Draconus Lofwyr
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 01:09:00 -
[492] - Quote
Hokoe wrote:How do you get concord LP? There are no Concord agent. what the ! Sorry but whats up? gang bonuses can be use on both side of the battle so y is it a problem. Is it because most ganker are not in a fleets. All I see is this game is going to buy plex buy plex. lol
Incursions give concord LP. |
Monsieur Leon
Lopht Heavy Industries
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 02:44:00 -
[493] - Quote
Lexar Mundi wrote: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. That is understandable. ty for the fast response.
Idiots, can only think it would be a great idea to require an industrial ship, a lethargic, very slow to warp ship, with only 5 drones for defensive / offensive capability to be boosting outside the POS.
Its not like the "children of the corn" posting in glee on this forum are flying around null in a 2.3 billion isk frigate.
The last year and this year there seems to be a theme of rebalancing. Well before rolling out that gem of a change lets "balance" things for the miners and indy corps as well.
Rorqual / Orca ORE ship special boost = +4 warp strength / +125% agility / -125% to sig radius
ORE ships +15% to damage and area of effect for smartbombs per level
+50% bonus to effectiveness of ECM modules.
If your going to force them to be vulnerable, you should at least make them harder to catch.
|
Monsieur Leon
Lopht Heavy Industries
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 02:51:00 -
[494] - Quote
Liang Nuren 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang
I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use.
Whats the name of your CCP alt? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 03:04:00 -
[495] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Liang Nuren 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use. Whats the name of your CCP alt? You should really know who you are talking to before you try to call someone out. Links are powerful, they should be on-grid only anything of any strength whilst off grid is OP. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 03:10:00 -
[496] - 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!
What, having a 256-man fleet isn't enough of an advantage? lmao |
Michael JD
The.Fallen Ex Cinere Scriptor
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 04:14:00 -
[497] - Quote
Thanks for breaking something that doesn't need to be changed. If you want links train a toon like everyone else who has them. Stop complaining. CCP please offer the toons that trained leadership skills a refund of the skill points that they have now wasted. |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Angeli Mortis
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 05:42:00 -
[498] - Quote
Thank you for throwing my legion booster out the window. Because I have not trained the necessary skills for command ships, and T3 boosters will now be laughable, I expect to have my SP returned to me in odyssey 1.1 so I can train something useful. And please, don't tell me that I'm gaining something like "versatility"... If I wanted a half-[donkey]ed information booster, I'd put an alt in a myrmidon and call it a day.
My personal issues aside, I'll point out that the interdiction maneuvers link is receiving a particularly nasty nerf. This seems to me to be a silly idea, seeing as you're simultaneously trying to promote the use of ranged weapons systems. Ranged weapons are just about useless in pvp if your arazu+rapier can no longer tackle to the range necessary to keep them planted. Then again, who was going to use the medium new rails anyway?
All that being said, I approve of the change to the info warfare skill and mindlink. |
Monsieur Leon
Lopht Heavy Industries
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 05:42:00 -
[499] - Quote
Michael JD wrote:Thanks for breaking something that doesn't need to be changed. If you want links train a toon like everyone else who has them. Stop complaining. CCP please offer the toons that trained leadership skills a refund of the skill points that they have now wasted.
I have to agree with Michael. This isn't a ship that is being rebalanced. Your impuning a group of people that have worked and sacrificed and put training time (about 3-6 months) to make their fleets worthwhile. You should give us the option on giving back points, should they go that route.
We as players train skills in order to be proficient in what we do and give ourselves, our corps a competitive advantage. When we started playing we were coached by more seasoned players and from time to time the game would change... a little. We put our time and effort into these areas in good faith. We never expected to be blindsided and have all the time and effort devalued so much. The least you could do is give us the option of re-focus our earned points in a different area to keep us playing. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1279
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:10:00 -
[500] - Quote
14 month old dev blog
How the hell did anyone get blindsided by this? |
|
Eva Darke
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:42:00 -
[501] - Quote
So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:
- Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
- Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
- Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
- Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)
Am I missing something? This shows all the signs of a terrible game mechanic that restricts gameplay rather than giving players options. In an engagement where one side has links and the other doesn't, tactics, decision making and player skill become irrelevant. The outcome is already determined. How is this beneficial to the overall gaming experience of EVE?
Aside from the additional revenue CCP receives from alt accounts, is there any reason NOT to just remove links from the game and reimburse SP? |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3231
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:47:00 -
[502] - Quote
J A Aloysiusz wrote:Thank you for throwing my legion booster out the window. Because I have not trained the necessary skills for command ships, and T3 boosters will now be laughable, I expect to have my SP returned to me in odyssey 1.1 so I can train something useful. And please, don't tell me that I'm gaining something like "versatility"... If I wanted a half-[donkey]ed information booster, I'd put an alt in a linky myrmidon and call it a day.
No, the current T3 link fits are laughable and should have never existed. If you haven't trained CS V by now, you have only yourself to blame, these changes were announced like a year ago.
Why should CCP refund your own stupidity?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3231
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:50:00 -
[503] - Quote
Eva Darke wrote:So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:
- Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
- Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
- Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
- Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)
Everybody and their mother has a link alt because it can sit in a POS in perfect safety, or in a safespot. T3 OGBs get the nerfbat hardest, which is good for everyone.
Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 08:01:00 -
[504] - Quote
J A Aloysiusz wrote:Thank you for throwing my legion booster out the window. Because I have not trained the necessary skills for command ships, and T3 boosters will now be laughable, I expect to have my SP returned to me in odyssey 1.1 so I can train something useful. And please, don't tell me that I'm gaining something like "versatility"... If I wanted a half-[donkey]ed information booster, I'd put an alt in a linky myrmidon and call it a day.
My personal issues aside, I'll point out that the interdiction maneuvers link is receiving a particularly nasty nerf. This seems to me to be a silly idea, seeing as you're simultaneously trying to promote the use of ranged weapons systems. Ranged weapons are just about useless in pvp if your arazu+rapier can no longer tackle to the range necessary to keep them planted. Then again, who was going to use the medium new rails anyway?
All that being said, I approve of the change to the info warfare skill and mindlink.
EDIT: at the bare minimum, are you at least increasing the base number of links on T3s? A "versatile" booster ship with fewer boost slots than a specialized one would be idiocy.
hahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are absolutely pathetic, please quit this game, and any game on the internet FOREVER.
You are the biggest and most pathetic whiner I've ever seen so far.
Whining because your no-skill T3 booster gets nerfed, which you knew it would be over HALF A YEAR ago when it was annnounced, you had OVER 180 DAYS to train for a CS and now you come whining
Get off the internet, for good. you won't be missed.
And yes, before you start your unintelligent stupidwhine again, I have a max skilled T3/CS (all links/t3's/CS) for multi purpose use in WH's. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2444
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 08:28:00 -
[505] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Michael JD wrote:Thanks for breaking something that doesn't need to be changed. If you want links train a toon like everyone else who has them. Stop complaining. CCP please offer the toons that trained leadership skills a refund of the skill points that they have now wasted. I have to agree with Michael. This isn't a ship that is being rebalanced. Your impuning a group of people that have worked and sacrificed and put training time (about 3-6 months) to make their fleets worthwhile. You should give us the option on giving back points, should they go that route. We as players train skills in order to be proficient in what we do and give ourselves, our corps a competitive advantage. When we started playing we were coached by more seasoned players and from time to time the game would change... a little. We put our time and effort into these areas in good faith. We never expected to be blindsided and have all the time and effort devalued so much. The least you could do is give us the option of re-focus our earned points in a different area to keep us playing.
CCP announced the change over a year ago, actually stating the desire to completely remove off grid boosting... Frankly, if you were blindsided it was out of willful ignorance or shear obliviousness.
Additionally, claiming that they are "breaking something that doesn't need to be changed" is such complete utter bullshit. Links are game breakingly imbalanced, and while we can all train up a link alt to "rebalance" the field, many pilots don't have that luxury. Links need to be nerfed into the ground, and anyone that thinks otherwise is a spoiled player that simply refuses to look at facts:
Fact: 3x Defensive links give a 125+% increase in your remote and self rep abiliites: You can't achieve that with a full cyrstal implant, a strong booster, AND a head full of hardwirings. Frankly, in a game of 5% increases, this is so far out of line that the ONLY way to compensate is bringing your own booster.
Fact: Interdiction Manuevers gives all t2 tackle mods more range/power than upgrading every web, point, and scram to the most elite faction modules. Without the cost, without the risk This is again, broken.
Fact: Rapid Deployment provides more speed to your ship that a full set of snake implants and a full set of speed hardwirings. It essentially provides three extra free speed rigs to every ship in fleet, and in a game where range control (i.e. speed) is incredibly important to a fight, this is obnoxiously overpowered.
Fact: Each link you add to your fleet, is generally akin to adding a free specific rig or three to every ship in fleet. You cannot add free "slots/modules" to ships and maintain balance against those without, and we all know this.
In short, you should feel bad for agreeing with Michael! |
Ilan Bashar
The Fields of Trenzalore
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 08:43:00 -
[506] - Quote
Hi,
for "large scale" engagements, the link nerf is problematic. Alpha stike basically means to shoot through the tank buffer before repps can land on the target. The size of the buffer is determined by HP and resists. The nerf will lower the resists, so the buffer gets smaller. In both cases, armor and shield tanking. Also logi based armor tanking is nerfed, because of repper cycle time becoming longer, so the target is down before repps land.
While the nerf is somewhat compensated by boosting the rep amount (I consider local repp a pure smallscale thing) it is not for large scale, where you rely on a buffer to allow the target to catch repps.
The only constructive proposal I can make it to add a HP bonus to the link in order to compensate the EHP loss through the resist nerf.
Tl;dr: In large scale you will now get alpha'ed by less people, even more so in your armor boat. |
Clementina
Coreli Corporation
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 11:02:00 -
[507] - Quote
Maybe this has been mentioned before. But would it be possible for gang links to cycle while in warp? They should by no means *work* but they should *cycle* (Be on and expend current, but not actually boost) so that when you land they can just start working and you don't have to turn them on. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3233
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 11:28:00 -
[508] - Quote
Even better suggestion- you can't warp with active link modules.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
829
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:53:00 -
[509] - Quote
Eva Darke wrote:So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:
- Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
- Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
- Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
- Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)
Am I missing something? This shows all the signs of a terrible game mechanic that restricts gameplay rather than giving players options. In an engagement where one side has links and the other doesn't, tactics, decision making and player skill become irrelevant. The outcome is already determined. How is this beneficial to the overall gaming experience of EVE? Aside from the additional revenue CCP receives from alt accounts, is there any reason NOT to just remove links from the game and reimburse SP?
I think links do add something to the game, it's just that they're far too powerful, with effects about two or maybe even three times too strong.
One result of this is the desire to jam on as many overpowered links as humanly possibly on to your ship - they're so powerful that you can't afford not too, because your opponents will be doing this themselves. Yet such a fitted ship is too vulnerable to be on grid - hence the OGB problem. But only one thing allows such a ship to exist - the Command Processor, which simultaneously enables excessive numbers of links and prevents them from being viable combat ships.
So, let's remove Command Processors entirely. What happens? T3s and BCs can only fit a single link, which they can do on a combat fit without too much trouble, giving them respectable on-grid survivability. CS can still fit three, as befits their intended role as the premier warfare link problem, along with a tank too. This still leaves the problem of links being fundamentally far too strong, but at least it removes the six-link OGB abominations (which are, ridiculously, getting a partial boost here because of T3s' bonuses to multiple link classes and the fancy new dual mindlinks). |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:03:00 -
[510] - Quote
Again the Problem isnt the Booster its the offgrid!
If i could decide i would first Bann offgrid Boosting forever, keep the High amount of Boosting Skills and would give the opposite Force the ability to see which Fleets/Wings/Squads are connected so they get higher value targets, kill 2/3 of Wing Coms and the Fleet gets massiv disadventages!
The Boost Bonus is fine just the mechanic behind the Fleet Hierarchy is to simple. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:15:00 -
[511] - 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. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1286
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:18:00 -
[512] - Quote
So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?
(The correct answer is yes)
Link nerf V2 plx. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
871
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:24:00 -
[513] - Quote
Roime wrote:Eva Darke wrote:So, after reading this entire thread it seems like the main points raised in comments are:
- Links are extremely powerful, even with the proposed changes
- Because they're so good, most vets and full-time PvPers have a dedicated link alt
- Nerfing them by any amount is a slap in the face to all those who spent time and money training their alts
- Links don't need fixing because everyone can buy a second account and train a link alt if they want to (WTF?)
Everybody and their mother has a link alt because it can sit in a POS in perfect safety, or in a safespot. T3 OGBs get the nerfbat hardest, which is good for everyone. Btw links should be targeted modules, like RR and RSebo etc. This is the only way to make flying links an interesting role.
Targetted modules = horrible idea.
T3 nerf is good for everyone? I disagree. The only thing the T3 nerf benefits is the bigger blob who doesn't need a safespot to defend its CS.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3236
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:26:00 -
[514] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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.
Haven't thought about the icons, but true :D
The watch list functionality is actually quite brilliant and might even help CCP with the coding issue.
I'd personally just want to see the boosts as something a bit more involving than fleet-wide automagic. Alt-ism is a major bane in the game, and all tasks and mechanics should be designed to benefit from real human player interaction instead of alt-tabbed dedicated alts.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2444
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:28:00 -
[515] - Quote
Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?
Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:
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 |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:28:00 -
[516] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?
(The correct answer is yes)
Link nerf V2 plx.
No! Dont Blame the Booster! Its the simple Fleet mechanic and OGB which cause the Problems! |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3236
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:30:00 -
[517] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?
Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:
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
Isn't that exactly bassackwards? Link efficiency should reduce with fleet member count. Frankly the last thing we need is another mechanic favouring numbers.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:31:00 -
[518] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?
Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:
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
Sry for Double Posting, why not reverse your Numbers? The bigger the Fleet the less effective are the Bonus, so small gangs get stronger and Big fleets needs more tactics!
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1048
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:43:00 -
[519] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?
Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:
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
Sry for Double Posting, why not reverse your Numbers? The bigger the Fleet the less effective are the Bonus, so small gangs get stronger and Big fleets needs more tactics!
Making it based on numbers in fleet is not the answer at all. They are a terrible mechanic whether you are solo or in a blob. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
830
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:43:00 -
[520] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?
(The correct answer is yes)
Link nerf V2 plx. No! Dont Blame the Booster! Its the simple Fleet mechanic and OGB which cause the Problems!
OGB has always been a smokescreen. The magnitude of the bonuses of links - sometimes three times the power of a T2 module! - makes them overpowered wherever they are. |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:50:00 -
[521] - Quote
If you lower the amount to much no one will skill 50 days+ for 10%. And to ditch the boosting mechanic as whole would kill the complete Command Ship section at once.
This cant be the answer, sry. |
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:59:00 -
[522] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?
Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:
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
This reversed or any similiar artificial number based mechanic would force blobs to split in small groups, just increasing the management tedium, so flipping the numbers is no option.
Just removing off grid boosts is the best goal mentioned. It opens up multiple new mechanics of warfare, like splitting fights to remove enemy boosts. It requires coding but just do it. Possibly AOElinks? Tie it to range from ship like smartbombs, might be easier to code. How about 100km so you really have to pay attention to link position. |
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:03:00 -
[523] - Quote
Short quote version: Make links AOE with 50-150km range (hull bonus, mod meta level...) |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:06:00 -
[524] - Quote
Yeah and make ewar affecting Warefare link like, ECM cancle, damp reduce ongrid Range, Target painter increase bonus (yeah risk/award) and neut is simple just shut Down if cap is empty! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:07:00 -
[525] - 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. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
830
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:09:00 -
[526] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:If you lower the amount to much no one will skill 50 days+ for 10%. And to ditch the boosting mechanic as whole would kill the complete Command Ship section at once.
This cant be the answer, sry.
I don't want to see them gone, they do offer something. But right now they are simply far too powerful, such that they are basically mandatory all the way from fleet to small-gang (and even having led to the redefinition of "solo"!), leaving a chasm between the haves and anyone stupid or new enough to be a have-not.
While I support moving them on-grid only, doing so while leaving them at their current strength will create an awkward situation, where link ships are so powerful that it becomes absolutely essential to kill them. A large fleet that loses its links becomes at such a disadvantage that it must respond by killing the opposition's links. This is a bad, binary mechanic, with no gradation in power between links on or off, and it's not much fun for link ships' pilots either ("Oh, primaried again, maybe I should fly a Scorpion next time, that might live longer?").
I know links are very attractive - like very many people, I have one link alt (who I used in the tournament over this char because of, well, links...) and another in training. But they're simply too powerful for the game's own good.
Anyway, people already do train 50 days for 10% bonuses, and indeed ones much smaller and limited to only a single ship class. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:16:00 -
[527] - Quote
Yeah i am completly ob the side that Boosting in the current state is to mighty and easy and thats exactly for what i stand, make fleet boosting a heavy task for everyone but dont take them the advantage when they accomplish all nessecery requirements! Or Even worse punish them... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
421
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:19:00 -
[528] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 8% T2: 11% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 17.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 8% T2: 11% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 17.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 7% T2: 10% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 16% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 8% T2: 11% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 17.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 13% T2: 16% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.6% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 8% T2: 11% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 17.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 9% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 19.2% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 8% T2: 11% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 17.5% Former max bonus: 35%
The four Warfare Specialist skill bonus changed from the current 100% bonus per level (after the first level) to 6% bonus per level. Mindlink bonus reduced from +50% to +16% 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 20% Command Ship ..16% mind-link... 24% from skills
CCP could add a NEW T1 mindlink - 10% T2 mindlink -16% NEW Navy mindlink - 13% bonus to the two racial links
CCP could even add navy warfare links which could be placed inbetween the T1 and T2 with lower fittings and cap usage
Would this be more towards peoples preference? 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:07:00 -
[529] - Quote
How about just delete wing command and fleet command from the game. Many people don't like that one ship can effect so many ships, so make it so that a blob has to bring 25 boosting ships if they want to boost 250 members. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1288
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:56:00 -
[530] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:If you lower the amount to much no one will skill 50 days+ for 10%. And to ditch the boosting mechanic as whole would kill the complete Command Ship section at once.
This cant be the answer, sry.
The lower the level the bigger the fleet needs to be to justify bringing them a long.
Even if links only gave a 10% bonus it would be worth bringing them on a 30 man fleet. The whole on grid off grid thing is only a small part of the problem.
The biggest problem is the ******* massive bonuses it gives. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2445
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:15:00 -
[531] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Anyone have thoughts on simply making Fleet boost levels dependent on Fleet Size?
Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
Using something like Base Boost * Mindlink Bonus * Hull Bonus * (1 + Number in fleet * Modifier) = Fleet Boost Bonus?
Example: Rapid Deployment, Mindlinked, CS:
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
Sry for Double Posting, why not reverse your Numbers? The bigger the Fleet the less effective are the Bonus, so small gangs get stronger and Big fleets needs more tactics!
First, A bigger fleet can always split into smaller fleets, and I don't think that would be good for the game.
Next, The reason I posted it this way is because powerful links destroy the balance of small gang warfare unless both sides or neither side has links. This is one of the major reasons we call for a serious nerfs to off grid boosters (not the minor tweek frozzie is suggesting, but serious 80-90% nerfs). As long as the booster is off grid, they are very difficult to counter, and essentially risk little for massive gains. The "increase boosts with fleet size" is aimed at providing powerful links at fleet vs fleet levels without destroying small gang PvP.
The truth is, bring the booster on grid, and the current levels are alright... until then though, some serious changes are needed, as in much, much more viscous nerfs! I'm a can-bring-perfect-boosts character, and I'd gladly give up my warfare link spec skills to see off grid boosters removed from the game!
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:23:00 -
[532] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:How about just delete wing command and fleet command from the game. Many people don't like that one ship can effect so many ships, so make it so that a blob has to bring 25 boosting ships if they want to boost 250 members.
to give every squad every boost it would require quite a few more then just 25 ships
id argue for a different way, all bonuses applying to all fleet members, only the best of each link affects every member in the fleet every other link would be for redundancy
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:27:00 -
[533] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:How about just delete wing command and fleet command from the game. Many people don't like that one ship can effect so many ships, so make it so that a blob has to bring 25 boosting ships if they want to boost 250 members. to give every squad every boost it would require quite a few more then just 25 ships id argue for a different way, all bonuses applying to all fleet members, only the best of each link affects every member in the fleet every other link would be for redundancy
Well the end game after OGB has been removed is too change links to a more bubble effect so any ship within a CS bubble say 50km would be boosted in that fleet and nothing else. 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:47:00 -
[534] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:How about just delete wing command and fleet command from the game. Many people don't like that one ship can effect so many ships, so make it so that a blob has to bring 25 boosting ships if they want to boost 250 members. to give every squad every boost it would require quite a few more then just 25 ships id argue for a different way, all bonuses applying to all fleet members, only the best of each link affects every member in the fleet every other link would be for redundancy That means you will have to pick and chose what squadrons will get what kind of boosts. With how powerful links are both on and off grid, and command ships boost 2 types of links it is a fair trade. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3767
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:05:00 -
[535] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:So can we all agree that the boosts should be nerfed about twice as much as this?
(The correct answer is yes)
Link nerf V2 plx. No! Dont Blame the Booster! Its the simple Fleet mechanic and OGB which cause the Problems! OGB has always been a smokescreen. The magnitude of the bonuses of links - sometimes three times the power of a T2 module! - makes them overpowered wherever they are.
This, so much this. The problem with links isn't on grid or off - links are just too damn powerful to start with.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3767
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:10:00 -
[536] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:If you lower the amount to much no one will skill 50 days+ for 10%. And to ditch the boosting mechanic as whole would kill the complete Command Ship section at once.
This cant be the answer, sry.
You obviously haven't trained carrier 5 yet.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3767
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:00:00 -
[537] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Liang Nuren 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use. Whats the name of your CCP alt?
Hmmm. Liang currently is my worst skilled leadership alt and gang boosting is the primary interaction I've had with Eve since before Fanfest. Crunch time is a ***** and central services at a game company gets to crunch with AAAALLLLLLLLLLL the game teams. :(
I'm going to eschew naming off my alts, but I will say I regularly log in a triple booster setup. Feel free to peruse my character sheet: http://eveboard.com/pilot/Liang_Nuren
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:03:00 -
[538] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:If you lower the amount to much no one will skill 50 days+ for 10%. And to ditch the boosting mechanic as whole would kill the complete Command Ship section at once.
This cant be the answer, sry. You obviously haven't trained carrier 5 yet. -Liang
Yep your right, but i dont want my skills get obsolete. The Boosting mechanic needs tweaking not deleting. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3768
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:17:00 -
[539] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Yep your right, but i dont want my skills get obsolete. The Boosting mechanic needs tweaking not deleting.
This is an entirely different question than the one you originally posed. You originally said that nobody would train 50 days for a 10% bonus... but the truth is that people train far more than 50 days for a 10% bonus. It's objectively provable and that objection is just invalid.
But this is a new concern you bring up. One that's a bit more self centered and far less concerned about the health of the game. Don't worry, your skills wouldn't be obsolete if CCP were to nerf links into the ground. You have to remember that the mechanic itself is extraordinarily overpowered. I wasn't kidding when I said that mindlinked links (on grid or off) should provide no more than a 5% bonus. Remember, we're talking about a 5% bonus for virtually every attribute for up to 250 people - in a world where people train months for a 5% bonus to one attribute.
You'll be fine. You just won't be OP. And neither will I. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:08:00 -
[540] - Quote
Again Liang i know what you was talking about but you argue to delete the Fleet Boost completly, my opinion may self centered (which is Common to opinions) and yes i dont care about the Health of the Game because its not broken because of 1-2% or 50% its broken by Design, completly.
But deleting the Booster bring's us to the Same Situation like it is now, every Big Fleet does have a Full Set Boosters and of course the opposite Fleet aswell, its equal, if you delete or lower the Bonus its still equal.
Thats the Problem, the Fleet Booster should be a powerfull Tool but Hard to handle during a fight.
Dont let the CS become a Miner give him work and the tools then he can be able to build something. |
|
Sgt Ocker
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:56:00 -
[541] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote: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. That is understandable. ty for the fast response. Idiots, can only think it would be a great idea to require an industrial ship, a lethargic, very slow to warp ship, with only 5 drones for defensive / offensive capability to be boosting outside the POS. Its not like the "children of the corn" posting in glee on this forum are flying around null in a 2.3 billion isk frigate. The last year and this year there seems to be a theme of rebalancing. Well before rolling out that gem of a change lets "balance" things for the miners and indy corps as well. Rorqual / Orca ORE ship special boost = +4 warp strength / +125% agility / -125% to sig radius ORE ships +15% to damage and area of effect for smartbombs per level +50% bonus to effectiveness of ECM modules. If your going to force them to be vulnerable, you should at least make them harder to catch. Like this idea... The problem is, if rorquals and orcas are too hard to kill, ship and module prices don't rise, stable market is no good for plex sales.. Basically, don't expect too much in the rebalance of ORE ships.
Low expectations leaves less room for disappointment..
|
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:47:00 -
[542] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Liang Nuren 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use. Whats the name of your CCP alt? Some of us are able to delay gratification and put the good of the game as a whole ahead of our personal interests . . . some of us . . .
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. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 01:09:00 -
[543] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Liang Nuren 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!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use. Whats the name of your CCP alt? Calm down compadre, just because someone trained some alts to do a task that has been mostly a hide it in a POS and forget about it job, seeing that character actually having a fun role is great. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters believe it or not. I seem to remember hearing similar rage coming from another nerf not too far back, what was it...Oh yeah, Titans i believe. GODDAMNIT I CAN'T DOOMSDAY SUBCAPS IN LOWSEC AND LOG OFF SAFELY WHENEVER I WANT OMGWTFBBQ!
Just because you trained a long time for it, doesn't mean it's not broken. Sometimes it sucks to lose your power, but it's not gonna suck itself.
Take a chill pill man. lYou're embarrassing yourself.
That aside i think gang links are moving in a good direction, especially with making mindlinks easier to obtain, but don't need to be removed fully. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:14:00 -
[544] - 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. |
Evanga
Way So Mad Axiomatic Dominion
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:00:00 -
[545] - 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."
CCP, Why is this not for mining links. Again the miners get all the nice things. |
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:08:00 -
[546] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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 My character sheet shows fleet command 5 being 3,072,000 SP wing command 5 being 2,048,000 SP, warefare link specialist 5 being 1,536,000 plus each warefare skill and specialization skill being 1,792,000 SP * 4 (no mining)
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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)? The effects for links are very apparent, just shoot the ships with links running . . .
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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. Also, I would say that CCP shouldnt streamline assigning boosters when the command chain is broken; it is disruptive and it should be. This is one of the "interesting decisions" I was talking about along with "do i really want to have to dual box my command ship instead of just being able to put it in a safe spot at the start of the fight?" |
Isaak Artorius
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:19:00 -
[547] - Quote
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.
I wouldn't mind at all the above for my mining corp, but then again I use my Orca actively rather than passively (POS/station loitering).
Blah, blah, blah, I'm super horny. I love EVE and monkeys. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:37:00 -
[548] - Quote
It would also help if the Warefare links need sometime to charge Up (only would work with OnGrid Boosting only) every cycle it gets 10% of its Full boosting amount After 10 Cycle it runs 100% of the usual amount. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:49:00 -
[549] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Also, I would say that CCP shouldnt streamline assigning boosters when the command chain is broken; it is disruptive and it should be. This is one of the "interesting decisions" I was talking about along with "do i really want to have to dual box my command ship instead of just being able to put it in a safe spot at the start of the fight?"
Its not an "interesting decision" at all, its a boring, ****** task with an awful UI. With modern fleet combat the way it is boost ships will just get alphad off the field as soon as they appear and you'd end up having to have one person playing a full time fleet organisation mini-game and contemplating suicide. That person is going to be sat in a POS or safespot (or worse, out of system), affecting the battle.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7259
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:33:00 -
[550] - Quote
Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.
I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Evanga
Way So Mad Axiomatic Dominion
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:39:00 -
[551] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.
I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception.
please have the following done and i wuv you longtime!
1. Increase blops bs fuel bay to same as carrier 2. Make it possible to refit on black ops bs, only for covert ops vessels 3. decrease the fuel need consumption
:* :*
and welcome back ! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11178
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:39:00 -
[552] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Sigras wrote: Also, I would say that CCP shouldnt streamline assigning boosters when the command chain is broken; it is disruptive and it should be. This is one of the "interesting decisions" I was talking about along with "do i really want to have to dual box my command ship instead of just being able to put it in a safe spot at the start of the fight?"
Its not an "interesting decision" at all, its a boring, ****** task with an awful UI. With modern fleet combat the way it is boost ships will just get alphad off the field as soon as they appear
Don't be silly, those excellent active repair bonuses will surely be adequate to keep them alive!
1 Kings 12:11
|
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:40:00 -
[553] - Quote
I don't think moving links on grid is the only answer. I think the best option is to allow them both on and off grid but make it much more enticing to have them on grid. Also, off grid should be more risky than just having them 1km outside of POS under protection of POS guns. How about 100km+ away from any structure (gates, stations, etc.) and as suggested before, a sig bloom to allow for easier probing. The proposed implementation does not introduce any really risk other than requiring the link to not be completely afk.
On that note, since we do want on grid to be a thing, command ships need to offer more appealing boosts and have to be that much more survivable.
In the end, completely eliminating off grid does not sound legitimate, what happens in FW where Larges deploy once in a blue moon or missions with size restrictions. Keep off grid but make it more dangerous and less appealing. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1301
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:24:00 -
[554] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.
I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception.
So you are doubling the nerf?
Good man! BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:36:00 -
[555] - Quote
Wrong thread sorry IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2448
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:11:00 -
[556] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.
I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception. So you are doubling the nerf? Good man!
hopefully we can get a more potent change than that!!!!!
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:13:00 -
[557] - Quote
it would be nice if command ships had a stronger bonus than T2 mindlinks - a new T1 mind-link - navy being weaker than T2
- new navy warfare link would be nice 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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:29:00 -
[558] - Quote
Ok update time!
Thanks as always to everyone providing constructive feedback. There are several changes we're making to the proposal thanks to issues you brought up. I posted these changes to the CSM yesterday and got positive reception so we're ready to send them to you.
I'm going to go over the changes to the 1.1 proposal, as well as talk a bit about later changes we want to make, that won't be in 1.1 but can potentially come fairly soon. Anything mentioned there is unconnected to the technical project for removing offgrid boosting, so does not need to be connected to that project's timeline.
Changes to the plan for 1.1!
We're moving the link bonuses on the command ships back to the command ships skill and away from a role bonus. They'll be a 3% per level third bonus for that skill. We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus. We're reducing the base strength of the Interdiction maneuvers link to 8% for T2 (6.4% for T1). This gives it a maximum strength of 34.5% as opposed to 38.8% in the earlier proposal and 53% on TQ currently. We're dropping the change that would have given all gang link bonuses to capital local reps until we have the testing bandwidth to deal with some interactions with wormhole effects that the CSM correctly pointed out would become a problem. We're changing the LP store offers for the Navy Mindlinks, so that they require 100k LP, 100m isk, one of each of the T2 mindlinks that they combine. (This adds about 150m to their price total)
Near future stuff
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. We're planning to fix the issue where Wing Commanders don't get the fleet level bonuses. There's a few gnarly bits of code to get through before we can tie a bow on this, but the way it works now is stupid and in general we want to reduce the number of stupid systems in our game. We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. Expanding the link bonuses to local capital tanks is something we still want to do, because we want the bonuses and effects to as much as possible behave in a logical and consistent manner. Special cases should only be used when absolutely necessary. This is dependant on us figuring out what we want to do with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet wormholes first. I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category. Obviously the usual disclaimers apply to future stuff, but the timeline for these kinds of things would ideally be either Winter or earlier.
I'm gonna update the OP, then go post updates into the other threads. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:37:00 -
[559] - Quote
come on fozzie really no T1 mindlink and T2 is worse than navy mind links? Also why are mindlinks still more effective then the bonus on the command ships? Also a missed opportunity for navy warfare links
Also links are still too strong especially the skirmish and the ecm based link and armour/siege .. also think about calling the siege links shield links .. makes more sense 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2448
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:46:00 -
[560] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place.
P.S. The "future" changes look EXCELLENT: Command Processor Rigs instead of midslot modules and "oh-please-let-us-have-it-now" weapons timers for activating warfare links!!! |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7271
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:51:00 -
[561] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!!
I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2448
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:55:00 -
[562] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.
They are a bigger deal simply by the fact they give boosts to every ship in fleet... do they really need to be 50% more powerful too? |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
511
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:56:00 -
[563] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill. I think you misspelled "another sub paid to CCP." |
Mingja
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:01:00 -
[564] - Quote
Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7275
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:17:00 -
[565] - Quote
Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb?
It can be used inside a pos field. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:21:00 -
[566] - Quote
For the most part I like the changes, and the update.. Bringing back a reason to actually train the Command Ships Skill is very nice, as without it the only people who would train it would be those that fly Slep's lol.
I want to see a reduction in the nerf to Skirmish, specifically Interdiction Maneuvers.. I've read some of the complains, and I accept them, but it seems the biggest reason for the nerf is how much they bonus things like Recon ships, giving them crazy range.. And I agree, those ranges are nuts, but I don't see why to fix that you need to punish all the other ships..
Give a slight nerf to the ships that have web and scram range bonuses.. combined with a smaller nerf over all to the link.. That, or provide a slight boost to the modules themselves to add an extra km or so in range to makeup for the nerf, AND to help those without boosts be a little better..
Also, I do agree with the complaint that the link is more important than the hull.. I'd rather see the buff to links on the CS be increased a lot, and the mindlink itself reduced.. At least make them even.. There should be no case, NONE, where a T1 BS even with the link should provide better boosts than a T2 CS without.. at best they should be on par..
|
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
254
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:22:00 -
[567] - Quote
Heat links sound a little underwhelming given that no one really uses the heat subs on T3s; I can't imagine ever dropping any of the current skirmish links for a prop mod heat reduction ganglink unless it did something ridiculous like allow you to overload your MWD for ten minutes straight or similar. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
337
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:25:00 -
[568] - Quote
Fozzie, does the navy version of Mindlinks will have also the static bonus (i.e. the shield HP bonus of siege warefare mindlink, etc...) of one or both warafare types? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:27:00 -
[569] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:For the most part I like the changes, and the update.. Bringing back a reason to actually train the Command Ships Skill is very nice, as without it the only people who would train it would be those that fly Slep's lol.
I want to see a reduction in the nerf to Skirmish, specifically Interdiction Maneuvers.. I've read some of the complains, and I accept them, but it seems the biggest reason for the nerf is how much they bonus things like Recon ships, giving them crazy range.. And I agree, those ranges are nuts, but I don't see why to fix that you need to punish all the other ships..
Give a slight nerf to the ships that have web and scram range bonuses.. combined with a smaller nerf over all to the link.. That, or provide a slight boost to the modules themselves to add an extra km or so in range to makeup for the nerf, AND to help those without boosts be a little better..
Also, I do agree with the complaint that the link is more important than the hull.. I'd rather see the buff to links on the CS be increased a lot, and the mindlink itself reduced.. At least make them even.. There should be no case, NONE, where a T1 BS even with the link should provide better boosts than a T2 CS without.. at best they should be on par..
Yes it does defeat the point of CS if other ships can provide stronger boosts than they can .. after-all 15% isn't that strong when you add it to links ... especially when you consider how long it takes to train CS to lv5 and all you have to do is buy a implant and put it on a T1 bc. 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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7278
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:29:00 -
[570] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Fozzie, does the navy version of Mindlinks will have also the static bonus (i.e. the shield HP bonus of siege warefare mindlink, etc...) of one or both warafare types?
Yes, for both. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:32:00 -
[571] - Quote
Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.
I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side.
Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. |
Anhenka
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:33:00 -
[572] - Quote
Unhappy with off grid boosting? I have a solution!
Nerf all the links people use, then nerf the ships that are used to boost off grid, then nerf the only workable on grid command ship.
Nerf the links, ok, nerf ogb's, go ahead. But the rational behind making one of the only 2 used on grid command ships less tanky is beyond me.
The solution of command ships is NOT to lower them all to the lowest common denominator, which is frankly useless.
A command ship should be commanding, a platform for tank, links, and survivability. Some quasi dps, mediocre tank, mediocre boosts role is a hell of a lot like a Swiss army knife. That is to say, flimsy and unusable, trying to do too many things at one.
You know when the last time I saw an Astarte was? 3 years ago, a corpy used one to beltrat in fountain.
I'll tell you when I see an absolution or an eos. At any time, in any place outside the AT.
Got to say, I love most of your rebalanced. HAC's, t1 everything, indies, all look excellent and well thought out. This one left me checking to make sure it was not April in August.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1302
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:39:00 -
[573] - Quote
Whee, 60 second weapons timer. I'll take the small victories where i can get them.
Still think you should nerf them more and give them a npc log off timer too but ohh well.
Making compro's rigs is a decent idea, while you are ******* with rigs can you fix the drone rigs? they are awful.
I'm also glad you changed the sensor res thing.. Its way to easy to make instalock ships as it is, don't need to make it any easier. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:39:00 -
[574] - Quote
Quote:I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category.
this is going to be an extremely strong bonus, especially in 1v1+1 situations of smallscale in general
should not be brought into the game without moving bonuses on grid first We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Capqu
Love Squad
193
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[575] - Quote
this 60 second timer...
any chance of doing something similar with cloaks?
like after links cycle off you still have cloak recalibration for 15 sec or something http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
393
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:42:00 -
[576] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus.
Oh GOOD, so Information warfare is uesless again! Thanks Fozzie, because consistency in idiotic useless bonuses is more important than actually fixing the bonuses. How abouts, you just fix the skill issue instead of making info links the same ridiculous laughing stock that they have been.
Or, how about both? I guess heaven forbid Information links be I dunno nearly as amazingly useful as any of the other warfare links.
Straight up HP, or agility, or great, locking range, surely that's handy...oh wait, it isn't, and hasn't been for the last 10 ******* years. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:42:00 -
[577] - Quote
Great changes! Im just a little concerned about the proppsed weapons timer given to the link ship when boosting. His basically means a deagro order will have to be carried out without boosts. Thus lowering the chances of a successful disengament even further.
This particular change is great for people using ogb but not for those who intend on using the boosts in ther intended purpose. IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Andrea Griffin
654
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:44:00 -
[578] - Quote
The one thing I did not see here that I dearly wanted to: Off grid boosting removed.
Is this not being done right now due to time / code complexity, or is this bad mechanic going to remain forever? CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:47:00 -
[579] - Quote
Andrea Griffin wrote:The one thing I did not see here that I dearly wanted to: Off grid boosting removed.
Is this not being done right now due to time / code complexity, or is this bad mechanic going to remain forever? Did you not read any of the OP? I'm guessing--and I'm taking a long shot here--that you didn't bother.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
165
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:47:00 -
[580] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Thanks as always to everyone providing constructive feedback. There are several changes we're making to the proposal thanks to issues you brought up. I posted these changes to the CSM yesterday and got positive reception so we're ready to send them to you.
I'm going to go over the changes to the 1.1 proposal, as well as talk a bit about later changes we want to make, that won't be in 1.1 but can potentially come fairly soon. Anything mentioned there is unconnected to the technical project for removing offgrid boosting, so does not need to be connected to that project's timeline.
Changes to the plan for 1.1!
We're moving the link bonuses on the command ships back to the command ships skill and away from a role bonus. They'll be a 3% per level third bonus for that skill. We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus. We're reducing the base strength of the Interdiction maneuvers link to 8% for T2 (6.4% for T1). This gives it a maximum strength of 34.5% as opposed to 38.8% in the earlier proposal and 53% on TQ currently. We're dropping the change that would have given all gang link bonuses to capital local reps until we have the testing bandwidth to deal with some interactions with wormhole effects that the CSM correctly pointed out would become a problem. We're changing the LP store offers for the Navy Mindlinks, so that they require 100k LP, 100m isk, one of each of the T2 mindlinks that they combine. (This adds about 150m to their price total)
Near future stuff
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. We're planning to fix the issue where Wing Commanders don't get the fleet level bonuses. There's a few gnarly bits of code to get through before we can tie a bow on this, but the way it works now is stupid and in general we want to reduce the number of stupid systems in our game. We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. Expanding the link bonuses to local capital tanks is something we still want to do, because we want the bonuses and effects to as much as possible behave in a logical and consistent manner. Special cases should only be used when absolutely necessary. This is dependant on us figuring out what we want to do with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet wormholes first. I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category. Obviously the usual disclaimers apply to future stuff, but the timeline for these kinds of things would ideally be either Winter or earlier.
I'm gonna update the OP, then go post updates into the other threads. Ok, decent changes. But how does any of this end the stupidity of off-grid Tech III safespotted and very hard to probe down before cloak or warp? You've made the Command ships easier to tackle on a gate or station, and can't boost from pos. So how is any of this moving the game away from the off-grid problem. Tech IIIs will still be in the drivers seat for boosting, won't they ??? Is this what you want? I'm beginning to think so. It's save the alt account dishonor boosters at CCP time. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7285
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:49:00 -
[581] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones.
The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1302
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:53:00 -
[582] - Quote
Could you somehow make it harder to make virtually unprobable t3's?
Like just.. Not letting any modules affect how hard it is to probe you down? Make those modules incompatable with links running?
Because it isn't really possible to get a 100% lock on someone even remotely paying attention to his link alt before he can see them. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
The Great Leader
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:56:00 -
[583] - Quote
Well since you seem bent on keeping command ships off grid in fleetfights...
Any chance to move the t3 boost subsystems to another category (offensive preferably to remove the silly cloaky nullified t3 scoutboosters) so we can at least have a less bonused but brick tanked boosting ship on grid without having to fear it getting alphad? The voice of truth. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:04:00 -
[584] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones. The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Its a shame it isent posible because of preformance, because it would be nice to have a fleet boster be flaged as a legitimate target in high sec wars if their not in the war.
Oh and anyway we could have some sort of icon, or ship effect to show they are reciving bosts? I hate when I see a lone frig and try to engadge only to find they are linked AFTER they point me at 30kms. THat way we can make more informed decisions if we want to fight the linked solo pown mobile. it also might discorage so many off grid bosting alts if their "lol solo" main isent getting any fights because people say F-your-links.
|
Mingja
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:06:00 -
[585] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? It can be used inside a pos field.
Thanks!
|
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:09:00 -
[586] - Quote
Weapons timer looks like a good idea, removes some of the safety from gates and stations. I think something still needs to be done to add some risk to safe spot boosting. I don't think to viable to remove it completely but we need a little more risk. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
999
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:21:00 -
[587] - Quote
A 60 seconds weapon timer seems like an awful solution to me.
If you're in a fight you don't turn off your hardeners 60 seconds before you jump a gate. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
165
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:22:00 -
[588] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:Weapons timer looks like a good idea, removes some of the safety from gates and stations. I think something still needs to be done to add some risk to safe spot boosting. I don't think to viable to remove it completely but we need a little more risk. What's wrong with removing it completely. If you want a ship to have a huge effect on a fight it should be right there in the middle of it. And all this talk about how hard it is to change the code to remove off-grid boosting is sounding tired at this point.
Easy fix would be to change the formulas for near unprobability to make it less so, or to have the links when active screw it up. I mean if a ship is going to be sending out what would have to be a huge electronic burst, in the boosts, across a whole friggin solar system, it should be painting itself with a big "i'm here" signal.
All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting.
Problem ******* solved.
And to counterbalance rework the stats on tech IIIs so they do not have gimped tanks for running the command subsystems. Again problem solved. No need to rework code on how boosts work. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
830
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:29:00 -
[589] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.
Why?
I acknowledge that bringing another character in a link ship has elements of opportunity cost, but your moves to make links easier to fit on on-grid combat ships (BC utility highslots and fittings, link PG requirements) means that this opportunity cost is now greatly reduced, if existent at all.
For example, in my alliance's spacewang match in the tournament, we were initially faced with the choice of bringing a dedicated multi-link Prophecy or Myrmidon, or not bringing links at all. The opportunity cost a having a character in a dedicated multi-link ship was painful for a 12-man composition entirely focused on DPS, but passing up the 28% speed bonus from a mindlinked pilot was intolerable for a close-range blaster fleet, particularly when an ODI II gives only 12.5% speed.
Then we noticed that we could shove links on two Brutixes, while retaining 900 DPS from a rack of neutrons. We were able to have our cake and eat it, the opportunity cost was now minimal! So, given that viable combat ships can now fit links without significant sacrifice, I don't see what's so special about requiring the extra pilot, particularly when the magnitude of the bonuses makes links as close to mandatory as any module. |
Cpt Boomstick
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:29:00 -
[590] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie][quote=Grarr Dexx] Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. snip Oh and anyway we could have some sort of icon, or ship effect to show they are reciving bosts? I hate when I see a lone frig and try to engadge only to find they are linked AFTER they point me at 30kms. THat way we can make more informed decisions if we want to fight the linked solo pown mobile. it also might discorage so many off grid bosting alts if their "lol solo" main isent getting any fights because people say F-your-links.
This wouldnt matter. Most people with alts boosting a main dont turn on the link(s) until its party time anyway. So you wouldnt have visual notification until you were already engaged anyway. Also it seems that ganglinks were always meant to be an ace up your sleeve anyway. It's a tactical luxury, the tactical advantage/ element of surprise is gone if everyone has a giant neon sign pointing on everyone that's receiving a particular booster. And besides, if they kept on balancing the game around making it easier for the weakest players, then there would be no strategy left other then piling in as many numbers as possible, which would be a terrible game. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1304
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:36:00 -
[591] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:A 60 seconds weapon timer seems like an awful solution to me.
If you're in a fight you don't turn off your hardeners 60 seconds before you jump a gate.
But you do with reppers.
Which you know.. Way more like links than hardeners. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:39:00 -
[592] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones. The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Do you think it could be a plausible solution to add a lesser aggression timer (say, thirty seconds) to links, or at least omit the idea until performance-related issues are out of the way? I'm of the opinion that you're underestimating the collateral damage done here. I thought you wished to entice bringing your links with you. |
Andrea Griffin
655
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:49:00 -
[593] - Quote
I guess you'll just have to bring multiple link boats, and if one dies, move a new guy into the appropriate position in fleet. I'm okay with that. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1011
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:54:00 -
[594] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote: Do you think it could be a plausible solution to add a lesser aggression timer (say, thirty seconds) to links, or at least omit the idea until performance-related issues are out of the way? I'm of the opinion that you're underestimating the collateral damage done here. I thought you wished to entice bringing your links with you.
I don't think he's understimating it at all. I think he knows exactly what kind of threat it represents to boosters and boosted fleets in all cases. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
393
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:08:00 -
[595] - Quote
Who would be stupid enough to bring on-grid links if they get 60second weapon timers every cycle they're active? Answer: small gangs of younger players looking to execute cunning tactics of brawling what they can then timing their deaggro escape, via RR.
Everyone else will bring off-grid link alts, or just blob with enough dps & logi to not need to deaggro.
The logi-style inherit-fleet/FC's/chain-of-command's timers is the only sane way to bring in such a mechanism until links are on-grid. Until then, off-grid they remain. |
Mourning Souls
RvB - BLUE Republic
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:14:00 -
[596] - Quote
I say remove the warfare link subsystem from tech 3's. Add the weapons timer.
Everyone wants a big nerf to offgrid boosting, boom, big nerf. Can't insta dock. Can easily be probed.
As for the complaints about the weapons timer: Go play WoW if you want your stuff to survive you being terrible and losing. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:17:00 -
[597] - Quote
How aboutyou only get a pvp timer when you activate boosts. That way you can still run the links while deaggroing but if you try to log your ogb it will remain in space for the duration of the timer.
But that doesnt solve the neutral boosts on gates/stations..... IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:32:00 -
[598] - Quote
Only in EVE do "buffs" from other players get nerfed while local reps get better......
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:33:00 -
[599] - Quote
wouldnt it be more... interesting if the Mining Mindlink was only available from Outer Ring Exavations? They are THE mining npc after all. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:00:00 -
[600] - Quote
Still no proper command bonus nerf? 35% is still way too much. Try 10%. |
|
Ciccina Porcella
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:04:00 -
[601] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. HALLELUJAHHHH
Can you make them go on killmails too now, when they aid? Let's kick the "soloers" in the balls!! |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:12:00 -
[602] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie][quote=Grarr Dexx] Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. snip Oh and anyway we could have some sort of icon, or ship effect to show they are reciving bosts? I hate when I see a lone frig and try to engadge only to find they are linked AFTER they point me at 30kms. THat way we can make more informed decisions if we want to fight the linked solo pown mobile. it also might discorage so many off grid bosting alts if their "lol solo" main isent getting any fights because people say F-your-links. This wouldnt matter. Most people with alts boosting a main dont turn on the link(s) until its party time anyway. So you wouldnt have visual notification until you were already engaged anyway. Also it seems that ganglinks were always meant to be an ace up your sleeve anyway. It's a tactical luxury, the tactical advantage/ element of surprise is gone if everyone has a giant neon sign pointing on everyone that's receiving a particular booster. And besides, if they kept on balancing the game around making it easier for the weakest players, then there would be no strategy left other then piling in as many numbers as possible, which would be a terrible game.
You know what your right, they are a tactical luxury... kinda liek super caps, good thing those didnt get out of hand either. |
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:17:00 -
[603] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones. The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Are they also gaining the suspect flag? I hope so, if not, in empire space the change is sadly going to be pointless as you can't do anything about a neutral link ship anyways.
The best would indeed be to consider them remote reppers, would you care to check if the brain in a box project could take care of these aggression mechanics? My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:29:00 -
[604] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:A 60 seconds weapon timer seems like an awful solution to me.
If you're in a fight you don't turn off your hardeners 60 seconds before you jump a gate. Agreed, if you're in trouble and need to disengage the last thing you need is being forced to also turn off the links keeping you alive, or sacrifice your command ships. |
StevieTopSiders
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:32:00 -
[605] - Quote
All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
As for the COMMAND PROCESSOR, set a hard limit of 3 links on each ship (Warfare Sub T3's included), and then suddenly you still have to pick and choose what links you want and you can fly them on grid with reasonably tanked fits (both armor and shield).
Make on-grid boosters viable combat ships, and they will be flown on grid. The new Eos is going to rock, and once my CS alt gets drones trained up, I will be flying one for sure. I'll get instant link activation (instead of warping to safespot in my off-grid Loki), I'll have a strong tank with T2 resists, and I'll be able to ~command~ from the field as well as apply damage and utilize my utility mid-slots. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3246
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:37:00 -
[606] - Quote
Very good points about the weapons timer, it should probably be a capsuleer log off timer instead.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4190
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:40:00 -
[607] - Quote
Gang links should function as remote assisting someone too. So if someone decides to use neutral alts, they become a valid target as well for the enemies of those using them. . |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:51:00 -
[608] - Quote
StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship?
Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1048
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:53:00 -
[609] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.
This reply would make sense if the extra character was actually in the battle. However, since the extra character won't be in the battle you might as well admit paying Ccp real money is going to give you much better in game benifits than isk.
if you really wanted to balance anything links would be nerfed to the ground until they had to be on grid. To the extent these are intended to be the same bonuses you get when they are forced on grid, you are basically admitting links are out of balance even with these changes. Why not balance them in light of the reality that ccp claims it lacks the technical knowhow to force them on grid? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:20:00 -
[610] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship? Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed.
Yes it can be neuted out, whether the neuter will be alive after having 5 heavy tracking enhanced drones launched at it is another. |
|
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:33:00 -
[611] - Quote
I still can't get why you leave damnation as the only CS with decent tank. Active tank is useless in 200 vs 200 fight FYI. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1103
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:43:00 -
[612] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Like for instance TiDi or lag, the dam thing turn off and by the time it gets active half of your fleet has been crushed...
This is a bad solution against ogb, the only viable solution against ogb is to scrap it or flush it down the toilets. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:58:00 -
[613] - Quote
Make sure to include in warfare links description that they are affected by normal stacking penalties (the resist ones, anyways) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1308
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:28:00 -
[614] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship? Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed. Yes it can be neuted out, whether the neuter will be alive after having 5 heavy tracking enhanced drones launched at it is another.
You seem to be suggesting that you will be flying your command ship in a situation where your opponent doesn't have logi.
Nothing wrong with that but thats generally not their main role.
Also the whole grarr "This is a nerf to on grid links because the 60 second times will make me lose my ship"
Yes, your ******* ship is part of the ******* fight. Its giving bonuses to every god damn ******* ship on the field. Suggesting that links giving you a timer is a nerf to small gangs is like saying logi's getting a timer is a nerf to small gangs.
Its ******* stupid. If you engage in combat you might lose ships, thats generally how pvp is supposed to ******* work.
CCP, you censor too much. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:46:00 -
[615] - Quote
Just use a proper vocabulary...
Anyway, give Logis 60sec weapon timer too!! |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:00:00 -
[616] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Unhappy with off grid boosting? I have a solution!
Nerf all the links people use, then nerf the ships that are used to boost off grid, then nerf the only workable on grid command ship.
Nerf the links, ok, nerf ogb's, go ahead. But the rational behind making one of the only 2 used on grid command ships less tanky is beyond me.
The solution of command ships is NOT to lower them all to the lowest common denominator, which is frankly useless.
A command ship should be commanding, a platform for tank, links, and survivability. Some quasi dps, mediocre tank, mediocre boosts role is a hell of a lot like a Swiss army knife. That is to say, flimsy and unusable, trying to do too many things at one.
You know when the last time I saw an Astarte was? 3 years ago, a corpy used one to beltrat in fountain.
I'll tell you when I see an absolution or an eos. At any time, in any place outside the AT.
Got to say, I love most of your rebalanced. HAC's, t1 everything, indies, all look excellent and well thought out. This one left me checking to make sure it was not April in August.
The man have a point, create a capital rig, with X bonus to strength to Warfare links. Then, in really big fleet, commanders can bring supercapitals as command ships. |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:11:00 -
[617] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting.
As much as I want actively running link ships to be probeable, sig bloom is a bit heavy handed. If a link T3 actually chooses to get into the thick of the fighting it doesn't deserve to have a battleship sized sig (or dreadnaught sized sig should he use his mwd). A more sensible approach might be a 20% reduction in sensor strength for each warfare link active, which would help to cancel out the benefits of Dissolution Sequencer subs and make them easier and easier to probe the more links they actively run. A link T3 isn't going to be a crucial dps platform and if it's fighting and gets jammed because of its reduced sensor strength (why even bother jamming it, really?), it's not as life-threatening as being as hard to track/torp into oblivion as a fixed structure.
Dedicated Command Ships could be exempted from the sensor strength reduction penalty as they're more likely to be on grid fighting and risking death and wouldn't specifically require a Virtue set to probe out were it to safe up** anyhow.
* please also delete ECM from the game, tia. ** while this remains a thing |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2455
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[618] - Quote
I like the idea that gang links inherit the agression of the fleet mates they are boosting. That would be the most balanced method, allowing fleets to disengage on gate with links running.
Until then, let them have weapons timers though! |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
574
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:35:00 -
[619] - Quote
Links should be modules that are activated on other players, like remote reps.
Once links are on grid, the larger fleet with more logi is even more powerful than it is now against a skirmishing force. Currently, you can at least try to rapidly switch targets to make the logi in the larger group maybe slip up and you can grab a ship.
Instead, with links on field the larger fleet can easier kill the smaller fleets links, and then be god mode.
The entire notion of a character that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING once the fight is on is terrible. It just sits there, receives reps, and the links keep cycling. AND affects the ENTIRE fleets/wing/squad.
To close - bigger fleets generally have more logistical challenges as they grow - except for links. And links are not an active role, they are an alt role - If they are on grid - fit buffer + resists, get pre-locked by logi, turn on links and ignore. If off grid similar, but scan for probes. It's NOT an exciting role for a PLAYER to fulfill.
Making them something that gets activated on players actually means a PLAYER DOES SOMETHING while boosting. It also means that the player's skill at using the ship comes into play, and lack of that skill can be exploited by the other side.
Finally, all the performance issues go away, and the same remote rep code flows can pretty much transfer aggression. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
170
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:35:00 -
[620] - Quote
Aloe Cloveris wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting. As much as I want actively running link ships to be probeable, sig bloom is a bit heavy handed. If a link T3 actually chooses to get into the thick of the fighting it doesn't deserve to have a battleship sized sig (or dreadnaught sized sig should he use his mwd). A more sensible approach might be a 20% reduction in sensor strength for each warfare link active, which would help to cancel out the benefits of Dissolution Sequencer subs and make them easier and easier to probe the more links they actively run. A link T3 isn't going to be a crucial dps platform and if it's fighting and gets jammed because of its reduced sensor strength (why even bother jamming it, really?), it's not as life-threatening as being as hard to track/torp into oblivion as a fixed structure. Dedicated Command Ships could be exempted from the sensor strength reduction penalty as they're more likely to be on grid fighting and risking death and wouldn't specifically require a Virtue set to probe out were it to safe up** anyhow. * please also delete ECM from the game, tia. ** while this remains a thing Yes, it was just a quick suggestion. Yours is more elegant. Don't know if it would be more difficult to code though. However, I did say they would need to do something immediately about the tank gimp inherent in command subsystem tech IIIs. I agree if these ships are going to be forced on grid by nerfing the ss-ing nigh unprobable mechanic then these ships need something to allow them to survive in the fight.
edit- and actually I like Chatgris's suggestion more now ~ With so many characters trained into command links now this type of a solution would help them retain their value. There would be a percentage of fleet need for command ships and tech IIIs to distribute the effects. Just as most fleets calculate how many logi pilots they need. Also, it is a stealth buff to ecm and damp boats, and makes the multitasking skill a must have for these pilots like it is for logi pilots. |
|
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1412
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:02:00 -
[621] - Quote
My Feedback
-Create a larger difference in cap use between tech 1 and 2 armor reps. Make tech 2 not better, make it a trade off. Better armor repair rate for unstable cap levels. While tech 1 armor reps would take less cap based on meta level.
-On grid boosting is still important. May I suggest they instead drop a boey? And that gives bonuses to everyone on the grid. This way the Command ship can warp off grid, but the bonuses will continue to apply through the boey. Obviously it could be destroyed, but the trick is to give it a large 200-300km range so it needs to be hunted down. Makes great use of the jump drives you added, and black ops battle ships. Basically increasing the battle field size and promoting small gang warfare in a small way. These could be slapped all over the place far away from each other.
-Finally overhaul the warping mechanic. The differences in warp speed don't even come into play *it's an ignored stat* and that could play a large role in battles were you warp smaller distances. Think about how much more useful smaller groups would be if they moved around faster compared to their larger heavy weapon brothers. Or if you go out into a null sec roam in thrashers it could be twice fast than it is today. The disadvantage of battleships would be the current warp speeds. If people can take smaller ships to fly a dramatic shorter flight time I think it would justify the year long frigate skill trees and boost t2 frigates/smaller gang warfare.
For instance you scare off a battleship and he warps back to a station, he escaped. However it should take 4 times longer for him to return than it does for the frigate you scared off. When the logi ship warps off you know you don't have to worry because it can be given a slower warp speed for balance. There could be a much larger difference between ships and make the game more tactical. I know it's because of some old code that holds this part of Eves design back, but I think it's important to the playerbase considering warping is one of the most common actions in the game. it's worth overhauling.
-Keep up the good work you guys have been fixing the very core of the game, please don't be afraid to really dig in deep. Please : ( http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Landrik Blake
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:47:00 -
[622] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA. Would it be possible to use the D-Scan code when activating gang link modules as a temporary solution? I understand that D-Scan has it's own quirks, and grids themselves can be stretched and shaped in unusual ways, but D-Scan is usually pretty good at quickly determining which ships are on grid and which aren't. At this point, I think a less-than-perfect work around for the short term is still better than waiting another 12? 18? 24? months for a proper off-grid link fix. |
Luke Frazza
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:09:00 -
[623] - Quote
Links are an unfair mechanic, even though they are equally available to anyone in the game who desires to train them
Coming prepared to a fight means having everything in order, ships, mods, rigs, drugs, ammo, implants, boosters.
I am so butthurt for losing my ship, because i didnt come prepared to the fight, and want to thank you for providing me a focus to blame (other than my own failure).
Also lets make sure we further penalize those who spent 6 months to a year training t3 boosters by making thier current implants less powerful and obsolete to faction implants. that will make me feel a little better about coming unprepared to the fight and losing my ship.
Fozzie seriously i think ur trying to hard to make everyone happy.
You made it so you cant boost inside a pos. great. Nerf complete. No wait cuz your next complaint ur gonna get from the QQ majority is, (whiny voice) "But i cant kill his booster because they have pos guns, can we nerf pos guns now?"
T3s can not be made to be improbable. You got people qqing here because the booster pilot is actually watching the dscan for probes? really?
You want to make sure Command Ships give more bonus than t3, no problem, everyone including the boosters agree with you on that.
2 pilots were always more powerful than 1 pilot with a booster.
But what about those who currently spent a year of training to fly all t3 boosters at max with mindlinks? Ur kind of screwing them over by saying they need to replace thier mindlinks.
I dont mind switching to command ships. I dont mind that boosters have to be out of the pos field. I think your other nerfs are way over overdone but as long as they are equally applied..
But if ur gonna introduce new mindlinks which make the old ones pretty much obsolete, then give us the option to unfit them and trade them in with lp for new ones. You say those mindlinks are about 150m? try 250m in some cases of the recent past. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1049
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:32:00 -
[624] - Quote
chatgris wrote:Links should be modules that are activated on other players, like remote reps.
Once links are on grid, the larger fleet with more logi is even more powerful than it is now against a skirmishing force. Currently, you can at least try to rapidly switch targets to make the logi in the larger group maybe slip up and you can grab a ship.
Instead, with links on field the larger fleet can easier kill the smaller fleets links, and then be god mode.
The entire notion of a character that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING once the fight is on is terrible. It just sits there, receives reps, and the links keep cycling. AND affects the ENTIRE fleets/wing/squad.
To close - bigger fleets generally have more logistical challenges as they grow - except for links. And links are not an active role, they are an alt role - If they are on grid - fit buffer + resists, get pre-locked by logi, turn on links and ignore. If off grid similar, but scan for probes. It's NOT an exciting role for a PLAYER to fulfill.
Making them something that gets activated on players actually means a PLAYER DOES SOMETHING while boosting. It also means that the player's skill at using the ship comes into play, and lack of that skill can be exploited by the other side.
Finally, all the performance issues go away, and the same remote rep code flows can pretty much transfer aggression.
Great idea.
Not only will the performance issues go away the extra $15 for a booster alt that does nothing but align out and scan for probes goes away. ... Oh wait!
Bottom line: Does ccp have enough confidence in eve long term to end this horrible mechanic where you have alts just sitting off grid giving your main god-mode. Or are they going for the short term money grab that some pathetic eve veterans will pay to drag a booster alt along with them wherever they go. Sadly some eve players are pathetic enough to do that. So normal people who just want to have fun in a game won't be able to compete. What sort of player/person does ccp want eve to attract?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Shamna Skor
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:09:00 -
[625] - Quote
When a player has a lock on an enemy ship receiving off-grid boosts, why not have the location of the boosting ship appear on the sensor overlay and provide a warp-in as long as the boosts are still active and the ship receiving the boosts is still targeted. This makes sense from a "logic" perspective (if there is energy coming from a point in space and hitting my locked target then it's plausible that my sensors might pick it up), and also allows some sort of counter to off-grid safed-up boosts for those that are on-grid already. |
Heinrich Skalder
Torsion Industries Asgard Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:44:00 -
[626] - Quote
Glad I worked my butt off to get my Mining Foreman Mindlink just to have everyone else be able to get them. Nice job giving out freebies. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
818
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:36:00 -
[627] - Quote
Wow, dont make a weapons timer for links, or ongrid boosting in lowsec fleet fights will cease to exist. Anything that makes support ships unable to jump at the same time as combat ships is bad design.
Stop making changes with off grid boosting in mind. You should be making changes as if offgrid boosting will be removed, because you promised it will be. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1434
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:39:00 -
[628] - Quote
Heinrich Skalder wrote:Glad I worked my butt off to get my Mining Foreman Mindlink just to have everyone else be able to get them. Nice job giving out freebies. I bought my first one when they were 400 million. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Evestriker
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:51:00 -
[629] - Quote
Yet another reason for a lot of peeps the be peeved CCP
Might wanna concider the time and Money people have invested in skilling leadership to have it cut in half or even reduced is going to be a whip on the Private parts to a lot of people.
Everyone Knows what boosts there are if they want to invade a area they need to be prepared and compensate that into their assault.
The people who complain are the ones who either don't have or just fail in epic tactics.
If it aint broke CCP don't fix it , no offence but seriously focus more on the important stuff like memory dump issues Or even alliance member access to POS modules like Corp hanger arrays and storage areas, having just the ship maintanace array as only access is rather ridiculous.
I do applaud the Ice belt change as it has stopped a lot of Bot's.
Again No offence!
Flysafe
|
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:30:00 -
[630] - Quote
The 1 minute activation timer is possibly the worst dev fix I've seen.
Give it the Logi type timer, or leave it alone. Don't break on grid boosters because the code is hard to fix. |
|
StevieTopSiders
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
109
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:44:00 -
[631] - Quote
The 1 minute aggression timer nerfs:
-On-grid Command Ships -Command Ships chilling on gates -Command Ships chilling on station
If two and three are really problems, just attack the link ships on statoin/gate, and they will have to dock or jump, dropping their bonuses? |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
761
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:01:00 -
[632] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones. The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Fozzie im gonna throw an idea out there for you... What if you made the weapons timer gor activating links similar to the logistic ships getting timer when they rep someone who is agressed... By this i mean that the link ship would only get agression if someone in fleet is agressed... And it would follow the timer of the guy with the longest agression... I am sure it would be hard to code... But it would be fair and balanced... Remote support=shared agression Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Totured Veracity
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:27:00 -
[633] - Quote
Quote:We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. Don't turn command proc's into rigs. That does not make sense at all, from any point of view. Better make them a module which can be fit either into med or low slot. |
Sigras
Conglomo
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:41:00 -
[634] - Quote
Evestriker wrote:Yet another reason for a lot of peeps the be peeved CCP
Might wanna concider the time and Money people have invested in skilling leadership to have it cut in half or even reduced is going to be a whip on the Private parts to a lot of people. The fact that people trained a long time for something is not a valid reason to keep it overpowered. As someone with 14 million in leadership, i can tell you that gang links in their current state are totally broken.
Evestriker wrote:Everyone Knows what boosts there are if they want to invade a area they need to be prepared and compensate that into their assault.
The people who complain are the ones who either don't have or just fail in epic tactics. The problem is that currently gang links cannot be countered, they can only be nullified by bringing your own gang booster in order to bring you back up on an even playing field.
This is bad game design. if X is the only counter to X than everyone ends up just having to have X; it was the problem with speed back in 2007 it was the problem with super capitals before they were nerfed, and it is currently the problem with gang boosts.
When boosters are forced on grid, they will provide a bunch of options, decisions, tactics and strategies to each side making them a great addition to New Eden.
Evestriker wrote:If it aint broke CCP don't fix it , no offence but seriously focus more on the important stuff like memory dump issues Or even alliance member access to POS modules like Corp hanger arrays and storage areas, having just the ship maintanace array as only access is rather ridiculous. I agree, if it aint brok dont fix it, unfortunately, gang boosts in their current incarnation are totally broken.
Also, anyone can edit numbers in a database and tweak with bonuses; rewriting somebody else's back end server net code is something entirely different. Fozzie and Rise working on balance takes nothing away from the other endeavors, and if they werent working on balance, Id be willing to bet they also wouldnt be working on server code. |
Sukur
Shimai of New Eden
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:56:00 -
[635] - Quote
Why dont you just turn links to a targeted "weapon"?, similar to logistics.
That would end "afk safespot linking" wich is a terrible game mechanic. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
833
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:12:00 -
[636] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. Making Command Processors into a rig won't help much, people will still have rigged link ships running excessive link. A T3 could fit three link rigs for four links, a CS could fit two rigs for five links. It doesn't really change anything much from today.
Unless, of course, you were to fiddle with the rig calibration to limit the number that could be fitted to one. That would work well, and would probably be a more flexible solution than the easy option of removing Command Processors altogether. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:37:00 -
[637] - Quote
Give them Support Timer a seperate form for logis and CS which alowed to Jump trough gates but dont let dem Dock into Stations.
Dont bother roaming if he is trying to escape throught a gate hes to slow to avoid being catched on the other side. Maybe even he gets trapped in a gatecamp if the enemys are smart enough.
And the Fleet lost their Boost anyway... |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3248
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:41:00 -
[638] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. Making Command Processors into a rig won't help much, people will still have rigged link ships running excessive link. A T3 could fit three link rigs for four links, a CS could fit two rigs for five links. It doesn't really change anything much from today. Unless, of course, you were to fiddle with the rig calibration to limit the number that could be fitted to one. That would work well, and would probably be a more flexible solution than the easy option of removing Command Processors altogether.
It could cause some fitting issues with CPU, might not be so easy to make a T3 hard to probe.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:43:00 -
[639] - Quote
Oh and i would love to see that your fleet get a "Debuff" when the Booster got killed while boosting (some tweaks may needed).
So losing a Boosting Ship should really a punishment. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1054
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:22:00 -
[640] - Quote
Sukur wrote:Why dont you just turn links to a targeted "weapon"?, similar to logistics.
That would end "afk safespot linking" wich is a terrible game mechanic.
This would be great. I think this is what chatgris recomended. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1054
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:23:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.
I'm reposting part of what I said in warfaire and tactics here so that perhaps a dev will read this and understand why so many players hate ogbs.
There are a few reasons why ccp's refusal to deal with ogbs= god mode makes it much easier to do other things with my time. These problems just aren't present from implants or drugs.
1) AltBoosters = Pay to win: Implants and boosters cost isk. (In game currency) They do not require the pay out of real money. Paying for a second account to sit in safe spot in a booster ship does cost real money. Accordingly no matter how much experience I have gained in the market or other isk making in eve that won't matter. I need to pay the extra 15 dollars to get god mode.
I have lots of isk due to learning how to play the game. This has lead to me having 4 clones with pirate implants one set with improved learning implants and another with hg talons. All have various other implants for slots 7-10. I have made as much money from experimenting/learning drugs in eve as i have lost from using them. The ingame economy is a huge boon to eve and learning how to "play" it is a big part of the game.
Play to win with a booster alt pretty much destroys that. That bothers me but I have to say that the extra 15 dollars a month is not in itself prohibitive for me. The other problem is:
2) Alt boosters make the game no fun to play. I think there are 2 general reasons for this.
A) It ruins the immersion. I am not like the mittani where I forget who I am in real life and start thinking I am cearain. But when I am flying around space I do have at least some modicum of immersion that I am a character in a game flying a spaceship. However when i am multiboxing 2 different characters that is completely shot. Completely shot. I am then not a character in a game flying a spaceship, I am a nerd upstairs trying to outspreadsheet other nerds.
B) There is an important difference between a game being challenging and a game just being tedious. Booster alts do not make eve challenging they make it tedious. Finding safespots in all the systems and dragging an alt around everywhere on your roam is not challenging. Any cretin can do that. But it is tedious. Is eve supposed to always be won by the person who can withstand the most tedium?
Drugs and implants are bought with ingame currency and thus are balanced by that currency. If you think implants are risk free enough to spend 2.5 billion on a set, ok. use them. I do in low sec and think getting a set should be a goal of new low sec pvpers. Same if you think spending 5 mill isk on a booster that last up to an hour. Having isk to use is part of the game. People *learn* how to make/save isk in eve its a great part of the single shard game and economy.
Using implants and drugs doesn't make the game tedious and it doesn't ruin the immersion of the game either. Booster alts do both. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:38:00 -
[642] - Quote
If you put Commands on grid the command processors mods that allow a forth link are going to be armor tanked CS only mods.
1 mid for propulsion 1 mid for cap injector 3/4 slots for tank on shield cs
1 mid for a cp thats 2/3 slots for tank , not viable.
Armor tanked CS dont have to give up there tanking lows for anything atm.
Move CP to low slot.
|
Nig C
Project Stealth Squad The Initiative.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:29:00 -
[643] - Quote
Hoi there,
sorry I didn't read up 32 pages and maybe someone else has suggested this already, but...
As I am me and only me, yes... I am one of those Players aren't have an alt and as I am cross trained to all four races, especial on SubCapS I do have a suggestion, because I love to fly CmdShips as Booster, especially on Grid...
atm, all Mindlink's have Implant Slot 10, except Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink(Slot 9). So, if I want to fly as Fleet Booster in several Doctrines, I have to trash one Link against the other. This is a bit annoying.
If the Mindlink's of the different group's have different slot's, yes, my clone will get expensive, but will not cost as much as to trash the Mindlink to fly an other Doctrine.
regards, NigC
ps. Yes, we single Account-Pilot's are still alive! |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1041
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:08:00 -
[644] - Quote
Nig C wrote:
If the Mindlink's of the different group's have different slot's, yes, my clone will get expensive, but will not cost as much as to trash the Mindlink to fly an other Doctrine.
Jump clones, bro. They're even going to give you access to five more of them soon. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Mingja
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:20:00 -
[645] - Quote
the easiest fix for links would've been to make them light a spot in space like cynos do.
That way, most problems would solve at once - the booster would have to be active and everybody else could just kill it.
But it's good that CCP doesn't take the easy route, and we all have to wait for a year or so till they do a real fix..... |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:02:00 -
[646] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill. I'm reposting part of what I said in warfaire and tactics here so that perhaps a dev will read this and understand why so many players hate ogbs. There are a few reasons why ccp's refusal to deal with ogbs= god mode makes it much easier to do other things with my time. These problems just aren't present from implants or drugs. 1) AltBoosters = Pay to win: Implants and boosters cost isk. (In game currency) They do not require the pay out of real money. Paying for a second account to sit in safe spot in a booster ship does cost real money. Accordingly no matter how much experience I have gained in the market or other isk making in eve that won't matter. I need to pay the extra 15 dollars to get god mode. I have lots of isk due to learning how to play the game. This has lead to me having 4 clones with pirate implants one set with improved learning implants and another with hg talons. All have various other implants for slots 7-10. I have made as much money from experimenting/learning drugs in eve as i have lost from using them. The ingame economy is a huge boon to eve and learning how to "play" it is a big part of the game. Play to win with a booster alt pretty much destroys that. That bothers me but I have to say that the extra 15 dollars a month is not in itself prohibitive for me. The other problem is: 2) Alt boosters make the game no fun to play. I think there are 2 general reasons for this. A) It ruins the immersion. I am not like the mittani where I forget who I am in real life and start thinking I am cearain. But when I am flying around space I do have at least some modicum of immersion that I am a character in a game flying a spaceship. However when i am multiboxing 2 different characters that is completely shot. Completely shot. I am then not a character in a game flying a spaceship, I am a nerd upstairs trying to outspreadsheet other nerds. B) There is an important difference between a game being challenging and a game just being tedious. Booster alts do not make eve challenging they make it tedious. Finding safespots in all the systems and dragging an alt around everywhere on your roam is not challenging. Any cretin can do that. But it is tedious. Is eve supposed to always be won by the person who can withstand the most tedium? Drugs and implants are bought with ingame currency and thus are balanced by that currency. If you think implants are risk free to spend 2.5 billion on a set, ok. use them. I do in low sec and think getting a set should be a goal of new low sec pvpers. Same if you think spending 5 mill isk on a booster that last up to an hour. Having isk to use is part of the game. People *learn* how to make/save isk in eve its a great part of the single shard game and economy. Using implants and drugs doesn't make the game tedious and it doesn't ruin the immersion of the game either. Booster alts do both.
Buy Plex, swallow some Pills -> Pay2Win
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:53:00 -
[647] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:If you put Commands on grid the command processors mods that allow a forth link are going to be armor tanked CS only mods.
Why people even need ship with 8 links?
Quote:Move CP to low slot.
So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:00:00 -
[648] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:09:00 -
[649] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say.
Do you mean something like this?
[Damnation, Boost]
Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I
10MN Microwarpdrive II Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Faint Warp Disruptor I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Information Warfare Link - Recon Operation II Information Warfare Link - Electronic Superiority II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:40:00 -
[650] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say. Do you mean something like this? [Damnation, Boost] Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I 10MN Microwarpdrive II Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Faint Warp Disruptor I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Information Warfare Link - Recon Operation II Information Warfare Link - Electronic Superiority II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I since you can't do math very well let me show you something:
6cp + 3 role bonus = 9 - 7 gang links = 2 unused cp
So let's ditch those 2 extra cp and throw on 2 T2 1600mm plates, and what do we get? 100k+ easily.
You have to use every available slot and module to even get a tank like that. And to boot the damnation also has free utility slots. Where shields don't have that luxury (but I'm used to it so that's not what I'm whining about).
Even with only two lows for tank the damnation has better tank than a claymore can dream of and is comparable to a vulture.
TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin' |
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:41:00 -
[651] - Quote
Rowells wrote:TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin'
But it could cause issues: Sleipnir low dps Nighthawk low dps Absolution low dps + paper thin tank Last but not least: nerf to Gallente tank and dps |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:58:00 -
[652] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin' But it could cause issues: Sleipnir low dps Nighthawk low dps Absolution low dps + paper thin tank Last but not least: nerf to Gallente tank and dps Yes they would. But that's a choice you make as booster. Do I need another dps or more boosts? Which is my priority?
And while I've been exclusively talking about the damnation, yes the absolute would be paper thin and yes the gallente would get the short end of the stick (even though I mentioned the gallente CS poor condition). And this is also assuming everyone fits the 6 cp you fitted earlier.
As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:02:00 -
[653] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Dav Varan wrote:If you put Commands on grid the command processors mods that allow a forth link are going to be armor tanked CS only mods. Why people even need ship with 8 links? Quote:Move CP to low slot. So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority!
Duffas , did you even read the post.
Theres too much presure on mids for Shield Tanks already.
If its on grid it needs injector and prop mod.
so with 1 CP on low that 2 slots lost from shield tanks only 1 from armor. for a 4 link on grid booster.
Thats better than the current situation 3 slots lost from shield tanks and none from armor.
CP needs to be low slot. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
Rowells wrote:As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all.
Damnation with only two low slots used for tank would still be paper thin compared to Claymore/Vulture.
Claymore: 101k Vulture: 114k Damnation: 97k |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:39:00 -
[655] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all. Damnation with only two low slots used for tank would still be paper thin compared to Claymore/Vulture. Claymore: 101k Vulture: 114k Damnation: 97k Seeing as there's only a 4k difference between the claymore and damnation with a 3 slot (4 if you used a damage control) and a 20K difference with the same slot difference as the claymore I would say "paper-thin compared to" isn't exactly a fitting term for such a close comparison.
The second you try to fit the claymore or vulture similar to how you fit the damnation (using current mid-slot cp), it's a much different story. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7337
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:31:00 -
[656] - Quote
Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:37:00 -
[657] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
Thank goodness for that, Fozzie.
Just to record my opinion in full:
1) Totally agree with On Grid Boosting; our gangs have already made the change
2) 1 min weapons timer should never be implemented. It means that jumping a gate while de-aggressing means sacrificing the booster ship or half the gang; you don't make us do this with Logi so you shouldn't with Boosts? Needs to be deferred timer a la Logi or nothing.
3) Before eliminating off-grid boosting altogether (which I am in favour of) Tech 3's need to be able to fit 3 link modules by default, so they can actually have a tank!
4) If 3 is implemented, you can actually consider dropping Command Processors altogether. Although the Rig idea is nice. |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:40:00 -
[658] - Quote
If the 3 links for Tech 3's is Viable, would be great if that made the 1.1 patch too. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
441
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:41:00 -
[659] - Quote
JD No7 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Thank goodness for that, Fozzie. Just to record my opinion in full: 1) Totally agree with On Grid Boosting; our gangs have already made the change 2) 1 min weapons timer should never be implemented. It means that jumping a gate while de-aggressing means sacrificing the booster ship or half the gang; you don't make us do this with Logi so you shouldn't with Boosts? Needs to be deferred timer a la Logi or nothing. 3) Before eliminating off-grid boosting altogether (which I am in favour of) Tech 3's need to be able to fit 3 link modules by default, so they can actually have a tank! 4) If 3 is implemented, you can actually consider dropping Command Processors altogether. Although the Rig idea is nice.
It would be simple if T3's and CS had a unmodifiable hard set limit of 3 warfare links.. then move Command processors to a rig slot for T1 bc's/Navy bc's to use .. but would it have a drawback? 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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:49:00 -
[660] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
What do you mean if? It is needed. |
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
393
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:51:00 -
[661] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Not wanting to flog this thankfully-dead horse, but what criteria do you perceive would make it needed? As I can't see how it doesn't hugely discriminate against brawling/armour setups, because kiting/shield gangs can keep their links on while running to range on-grid, even if some fleetmates are tackled & deaggressing under logi on a gate/station.
Also it's totally stupid to consider using a link T3 for this brawler scenario while the SP loss mechanic remains. |
Miriam Sasko
Matari Exodus
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:54:00 -
[662] - Quote
As has been said by others, the one minute timer is the worst eve dev idea I've seen so far. It precludes linked gangs from going to the edge of what their setup can do, because once they need them the most, their links will fail them. Force multipliers that only work while you are in a comfortable situation anyway are ******** (the main gripe I also have with ECM, btw)
If link ships sitting unassaultable on gates and stations are such a big deal (never really encountered them myself since 2010 or so), make active links give you a suspect timer. I'm certain some sort of lore reason can be found, and it would solve many of the highsec shenanigans as well as make it harder to do this in lowsec. Latest Video: The Graf Spee Legacy |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 12:06:00 -
[663] - Quote
What if weapon timer was only applicable to T3s and T3s give system wide bonuses. Command ships have no weapons timer but are restricted to only boosting ships on grid.
If youre on grid you'll mostly be fighting anyway and the T3 having the weapons timer would give them a bit of a problem hitting gates if they arent careful enough. Ofcourse, it wouldnt actually have that big an effect on T3s, just the occational lolgank on a gate/station as it trys to jump/dock.
This would also keep the flavour of T3s being general (less sucsessfully boosting but boosting the whole system) and command ships being focused (to the current grid with their higher bonuses) |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:00:00 -
[664] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Please enable it. Giving boosters timer so they cant just sit on undock and be immune is awesome. TBH it would be the best change of all listed here. W-Space Realtor |
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:05:00 -
[665] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. What's the feasibility of implementing the aggro inheritance a la remote rep instead?
You mentioned elsewhere performance issues, but thinking about it, there could be a solution that has no additional software cycles - that I can think of:
1. every time a ship in a fleet gets an aggro flag, its fleet inherits the same flag (no checks) 2. every time 1. happens, the fleet active boosters inherit the same flags (no checks)
That's it. This means of course some development - as the fleet object will need to have the flags added to it, and obviously the calls - but performance wise it doesn't add any aggro checks.
Note that as a result, the weapons flag is inherited whenever a boosted fleet member gets it, basically getting the best of both!
Apologies for the armschair designing... My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:06:00 -
[666] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. PS don't forget to add them buggers on killmails - to troll the "soloers" My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1907
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:06:00 -
[667] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
thats very disappointing. You could enable it at least till they are all on grid. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:28:00 -
[668] - Quote
After 10 Years i dont think we need a "quickfix" anymore, take your time and make it right CCP. |
GothicNightmare
Frontier Explorer's League Sadistica Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 20:50:00 -
[669] - Quote
As a very avid command ship pilot, I find this change to weapons timer to be a bit... harsh. I fly vultures and damnations on grid with the fleet as I despise boosting off grid. I find myself asking "why would my fleet risk their ships if I won't risk mine". There comes a time though you make the call to dagress and fall back, and needing to shut the links off really makes the already losing side (I saw this stated before) heavily disadvantaged. If anything, I want an overheat option to burst tank (something with a really high burn rate for emergency overheats only, not prolonged burns like guns and hardeners) to give my deagressing fleet a fighting chance to not be completely slaughtered when waving the white flag and giving the field to the other fleet. If I overheat for a few cycles and i dont see my modules burn out and shut off, well then I don't belong in a CS, but causing the already beaten and wounded fleet to be more vulnerable and a mere mop-up... nah.
As I said before I've never been a fan of off grid boosting, just seems a bit cowardly to me especially from (as before mentioned by others) the virtually unscannable cloaky T3. If you turn on your tactical overlay and hover the mouse over a module, it shows how far that module will reach on the overlay, lets do that for command links. An invisible barrier persay that if you reach the edge of that bubble forces the fc to chance going outside link range to chase targets or pull back and stay in link range, now your booster has to be mobile with the fleet to keep the link field with the fleet. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 00:28:00 -
[670] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:After 10 Years i dont think we need a "quickfix" anymore, take your time and make it right CCP. I don't see how this is a "quickfix". This is part of a series of changes. if you read the OP:
CCP Fozzie wrote:"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi CCP Fozzie wrote:We believe that the package of changes we've put together will be a significant step forward for the game, but it's definitely not the end of iteration on these features. These show that they are indeed taking their time and making the proper steps (hopefully) to pave the way for more features along the way.
My favorite example is the change in obtaining T2 mindlinks. They are making it generally cheaper and easier to get them, which makes it more viable to put a mindlinked clone in the fray without worrying about higher exspenses.
There's no definitive way to just throw a huge feature/balance/change into the game and do it prperly all in one try. In fact that makes it worse in almost every case.
Be patient compadre, good things come to those who wait |
|
Kristen Andelare
Abacus Industries Group Aerodyne Collective
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 01:19:00 -
[671] - Quote
Just a word to all you posters who are in favor of getting rid of Off-Grid boosting altogether, and/or inherited flagging for the booster. You are being very short-sighted.
Don't forget the other major users of boosters: Mining fleets with Orcas and Rorquals.
If you eliminate off-grid boosting entirely, the Rorqual is about as useful as a basket of left-handed screwdrivers. No one flies these ships into belts. The Orca will still get used to boost, in highsec only. Sad, sad situation that would be.
If inherited flagging becomes a reality, say goodbye to the Orca too. No one wants to allow their Orca to be at risk that someone in the fleet flips a can and they inherit a flag that allows everyone in system to shoot their ship. Boosting is a passive activity that does not require targeting. If should NEVER inherit flags of possibly unseen recipients of the boosts.
Now, if you make the exception (like CCP announced they would for POS shields) that only mining boosts can be off-grid, that seems like a good solution to the issue of OGB. Let's just leave inherited flags off the table, it is not a solid solution, when you consider ALL the ramifications, not just the ones to PvP. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 01:26:00 -
[672] - Quote
Kristen Andelare wrote:Just a word to all you posters who are in favor of getting rid of Off-Grid boosting altogether, and/or inherited flagging for the booster. You are being very short-sighted.
Don't forget the other major users of boosters: Mining fleets with Orcas and Rorquals.
If you eliminate off-grid boosting entirely, the Rorqual is about as useful as a basket of left-handed screwdrivers. No one flies these ships into belts. The Orca will still get used to boost, in highsec only. Sad, sad situation that would be.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield CCP Fozzie wrote: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 own both an Orca and a Rorq and I have no problem with bringing them on grid if they are fixed properly. |
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1454
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 05:09:00 -
[673] - Quote
Mingja wrote:the easiest fix for links would've been to make them light a spot in space like cynos do.
That way, most problems would solve at once - the booster would have to be active and everybody else could just kill it.
But it's good that CCP doesn't take the easy route, and we all have to wait for a year or so till they do a real fix.....
BS that would be more fun http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 09:21:00 -
[674] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
What are we going to do with Titans? The ability to use 5 simulatneous links is now compeltely pointless as you can't use them in a POS. This whole thing is yet ANOTHER nerf to the MOST-nerfed Ship-class in the past years.
Granted, Titans needed to be nerfed, but now there is only 1 role for Titans and that's bridging. As we all know, Doomsday is a module very rarely used in this day and age.
Thoughts?
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 17:25:00 -
[675] - Quote
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:Thoughts?
Death2allsupers STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2136
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:58:00 -
[676] - Quote
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:CCP Fozzie,
What are we going to do with Titans? The ability to use 5 simulatneous links is now compeltely pointless as you can't use them in a POS. This whole thing is yet ANOTHER nerf to the MOST-nerfed Ship-class in the past years.
Granted, Titans needed to be nerfed, but now there is only 1 role for Titans and that's bridging. As we all know, Doomsday is a module very rarely used in this day and age.
Thoughts? Remove the jump bridge ability
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. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:20:00 -
[677] - 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.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1327
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:33:00 -
[678] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
>=[
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Trinkets friend
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
1086
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 06:26:00 -
[679] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.
B========================>
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
B==>
All this QQ...really. If you are stupid enough to leave a boosting T3 on a gate or station and it gets a 60s timer, and you cannot dock in time, then poor you. This will only matter for people who currently leave their link alt idling on station and don't look at it, ever, because it gets protection and can instadock.
Us carrier pilots who use lowsec would like to talk to you about supercap hotdrops. You don't aggro on undock because you could get dropped on by a Nyx and lose your ship. it will be exactly the same with the boosting alts and a 60s aggro timer.
For the Command Ship pilots, if you are doing it right you will be shooting up until the time you drop links. There's no difference except you will need to factor this in when jumping gate to aggro the bait laid out for you.
This needs enacting now. YOLO is the Carpe Diem of Gen Y http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Incan Descence
Spartan Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 16:57:00 -
[680] - Quote
You might wanna change the OP to be in synch with the command ships thread. No more static 15 5 boost. |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 03:08:00 -
[681] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill. I'm reposting part of what I said in warfaire and tactics here so that perhaps a dev will read this and understand why so many players hate ogbs. There are a few reasons why ccp's refusal to deal with ogbs= god mode makes it much easier to do other things with my time. These problems just aren't present from implants or drugs. 1) AltBoosters = Pay to win: Implants and boosters cost isk. (In game currency) They do not require the pay out of real money. Paying for a second account to sit in safe spot in a booster ship does cost real money. Accordingly no matter how much experience I have gained in the market or other isk making in eve that won't matter. I need to pay the extra 15 dollars to get god mode. I have lots of isk due to learning how to play the game. This has lead to me having 4 clones with pirate implants one set with improved learning implants and another with hg talons. All have various other implants for slots 7-10. I have made as much money from experimenting/learning drugs in eve as i have lost from using them. The ingame economy is a huge boon to eve and learning how to "play" it is a big part of the game. Play to win with a booster alt pretty much destroys that. That bothers me but I have to say that the extra 15 dollars a month is not in itself prohibitive for me. The other problem is: 2) Alt boosters make the game no fun to play. I think there are 2 general reasons for this. A) It ruins the immersion. I am not like the mittani where I forget who I am in real life and start thinking I am cearain. But when I am flying around space I do have at least some modicum of immersion that I am a character in a game flying a spaceship. However when i am multiboxing 2 different characters that is completely shot. Completely shot. I am then not a character in a game flying a spaceship, I am a nerd upstairs trying to outspreadsheet other nerds. B) There is an important difference between a game being challenging and a game just being tedious. Booster alts do not make eve challenging they make it tedious. Finding safespots in all the systems and dragging an alt around everywhere on your roam is not challenging. Any cretin can do that. But it is tedious. Is eve supposed to always be won by the person who can withstand the most tedium? Drugs and implants are bought with ingame currency and thus are balanced by that currency. If you think implants are risk free to spend 2.5 billion on a set, ok. use them. I do in low sec and think getting a set should be a goal of new low sec pvpers. Same if you think spending 5 mill isk on a booster that last up to an hour. Having isk to use is part of the game. People *learn* how to make/save isk in eve its a great part of the single shard game and economy. Using implants and drugs doesn't make the game tedious and it doesn't ruin the immersion of the game either. Booster alts do both. Buy Plex, swallow some Pills -> Pay2Win
Perhaps you could read the post before responding to it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 05:47:00 -
[682] - Quote
I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not. |
Ehcks Argentus
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 05:51:00 -
[683] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not.
Buying and selling plex is just skipping normal isk grinding. It doesn't make you any more powerful than you would be if you made isk the normal way.
But running missions for thousands of hours doesn't let you give gang links to an entire fleet with an alt. Only real money does that, either yours or someone else's. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
336
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 08:37:00 -
[684] - Quote
Ehcks Argentus wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not. Buying and selling plex is just skipping normal isk grinding. It doesn't make you any more powerful than you would be if you made isk the normal way. But running missions for thousands of hours doesn't let you give gang links to an entire fleet with an alt. Only real money does that, either yours or someone else's.
Actually, Isk does allow you to do that, since you can buy plex to pay for your account & training to train the character or buy a character off the market that does that also. So everything you have said is possible with isk. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 13:59:00 -
[685] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not.
You say its the same but give no explanation other than "trust me."
I highly doubt people pay ccp 15 dollars a month so they can sell a plex and buy drugs. But I bet many, likely most, booster alt accounts are paid by real money subscriptions. Moreover the people buying drugs are at least buying something made by players in game with in game isk. Extra accounts for god-mode is purely pay to win. There is no in game isk needed at all. Indeed it is inefficient to use ingame isk since there are discounts for longer than 1 month real money subscriptions.
If people gave ccp as much real money for drugs and implants as they did for alt accounts ccp would not make alt accounts so much more powerful.
Still I have a question:
A) Are these bonuses based on the assumption ships need to be ongrid, Or B) when the link ships have to be on grid (assuming this is really ccps plan) will the bonuses increase?
If its A then ccp should admit that the bonuses are not currently balanced, and will remain unbalanced until they are forced on grid.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
423
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:04:00 -
[686] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not. You say its the same but give no explanation other than "trust me." I highly doubt people pay ccp 15 dollars a month so they can sell a plex and buy drugs. But I bet many, likely most, booster alt accounts are paid by real money subscriptions. Moreover the people buying drugs are at least buying something made by players in game with in game isk. Extra accounts for god-mode is purely pay to win. There is no in game isk needed at all. Indeed it is inefficient to use ingame isk since there are discounts for longer than 1 month real money subscriptions. If people gave ccp as much real money for drugs and implants as they did for alt accounts ccp would not make alt accounts so much more powerful. Still I have a question: A) Are these bonuses based on the assumption ships need to be ongrid, Or B) when the link ships have to be on grid (assuming this is really ccps plan) will the bonuses increase? If its A then ccp should admit that the bonuses are not currently balanced, and will remain unbalanced until they are forced on grid.
Did I miss and step into the forum of a free to play?
Its not pay to win, you can start and sustain x-accounts indefinitely on plex, hell I bought four plexes out of three hours of scanning around over the weekend. The hilarious part is that wasn't it you saying that you have something like 8-9 billion in jump clones floating around? That will pay for a over a year of subscriptions for an alt account.
Yeech man, HTFU. |
Gummi Worm
Blood And Sand Tectora
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:56:00 -
[687] - Quote
You will kill smal gang, Now big alliance don't care about them, they work with numbers not with quality.
I don't know why everything ccp wanna nerf everything that they build, if you wanna nerf you can add fuel consumption for gang assist modules instead to give them less power. |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:33:00 -
[688] - Quote
lol RIP armor & shield links why are u doing this??
I thought u want to make some changes to the whole commandships thing and now u bossting the ships itself but reducing the links wtf |
PrettyPollock
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:51:00 -
[689] - Quote
WOW. Fozzie, you're single-handedly turning eve into a peanut-butter smooth, balanced-to-boredom piece of garbage. I hope your passes on the faction vessels and battleships are a long way out.
|
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:25:00 -
[690] - Quote
Pure and simple nerf to the good stuff. Not sure what you think you have achieved here...
I am waiting for some proper expansion stuff... waiting for a long while already. Since Dust and WoD, you focus on adjusting configuration stuff, getting people pissed off instead of adding some good stuff. |
|
Job Valador
Super Moose Defence Force
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:44:00 -
[691] - Quote
you guys are a bunch of whiners. adapt or die "The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement." |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:14:00 -
[692] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:Pure and simple nerf to the good stuff. Not sure what you think you have achieved here...
I am waiting for some proper expansion stuff... waiting for a long while already. Since Dust and WoD, you focus on adjusting configuration stuff, getting people pissed off instead of adding some good stuff. this is not an expansion. this is an update. hence, the "1.1" in odyssey 1.1.
wait for the winter expansion. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
220
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:19:00 -
[693] - Quote
60 s timer is bs if it creates it's own timer, so what you can't deag under links now? Make it inherit the timer from people in fleet, but creating one on it's own is complete rubbish.
In that case activating an rr module should also give you a 60s timer, not just inherit the one from the repee. I used to always put my links on grid so idiots could shoot them and get gate guns as I laugh at them with my 100mn ab and tank, but now I'll always leave them off grid, congrats on worsening the problem of off grid links. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
mighty1
Hem-A-Roids To Asterroids Mining
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:38:00 -
[694] - Quote
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. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:55:00 -
[695] - Quote
We've known this was coming for well over a year now. Man up and stop crying. I have a char with max gang link skills and this change is great.
If they ask you what you want you'd say invulnerable ships and free isk for you. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1132
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:14:00 -
[696] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not.
Don't waste your time talking to this kind of individual, how can you even try to discuss with someone refusing to admit elemental thinking:
Buy plex = acquisition= change real money for a virtual good Buy toon= acquisition = change plex for an in game item or items (toon/ship/links/implants)
But nope, the guy didn't pay to win, in fact when he pays for the plex and then the toon he actually gets the money like his ideas and arguments, out of his ass once he takes the Avatar he puts in all day long. These dudes should stop on drugs or whatever they take. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:59:00 -
[697] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Cearain wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not. You say its the same but give no explanation other than "trust me." I highly doubt people pay ccp 15 dollars a month so they can sell a plex and buy drugs. But I bet many, likely most, booster alt accounts are paid by real money subscriptions. Moreover the people buying drugs are at least buying something made by players in game with in game isk. Extra accounts for god-mode is purely pay to win. There is no in game isk needed at all. Indeed it is inefficient to use ingame isk since there are discounts for longer than 1 month real money subscriptions. If people gave ccp as much real money for drugs and implants as they did for alt accounts ccp would not make alt accounts so much more powerful. Still I have a question: A) Are these bonuses based on the assumption ships need to be ongrid, Or B) when the link ships have to be on grid (assuming this is really ccps plan) will the bonuses increase? If its A then ccp should admit that the bonuses are not currently balanced, and will remain unbalanced until they are forced on grid. Did I miss and step into the forum of a free to play? Its not pay to win, you can start and sustain x-accounts indefinitely on plex, hell I bought four plexes out of three hours of scanning around over the weekend. The hilarious part is that wasn't it you saying that you have something like 8-9 billion in jump clones floating around? That will pay for a over a year of subscriptions for an alt account. Yeech man, HTFU.
The point is you can get the link alt without ever interacting with the eve economy. Just pay real money to ccp and you get your alt.
That is why there is no difference between this and gold ammo.
I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:04:00 -
[698] - 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. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:08:00 -
[699] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic.
That's not pay to win, that is you lazy. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
89
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:29:00 -
[700] - 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. did you ever consider others might want boosts on grid? or did you really mean,"ask me what i want before you change things I like". And im getting real tired of people whining about how they train for something so it should never be changed or they pay for this game so it should cater to them. If you find you cannot enjoy a game because you can't afk POS a boosting alt then it really sucks to be you. |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:30:00 -
[701] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Cearain wrote:
I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic.
That's not pay to win, that is you lazy.
Another person who thinks spending more time doing tedious tasks (like dragging a multiboxed link alt around to safespots) in a computer game means you are not lazy.
This is the playerbase ccp is attracting to the game with making these ogbs = god mode, so no one should be surprised. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Harper Ei
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:20:00 -
[702] - Quote
Fozzie,
you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.
You forgot!
As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.
Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.
Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.
/H |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 17:55:00 -
[703] - 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. Setting aside the ridiculous assumption that most of us agree with you (which if this thread is anything to go by we dont), you're making an even more ridiculous assumption that what the players want is best for the game |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:15:00 -
[704] - Quote
Harper Ei wrote:Fozzie,
you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.
You forgot!
As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.
Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.
Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.
/H Except they will because T3s give less of a bonus but give nigh on uncatchable bonus which is why they are less good at it. Balance. Its utterly stupid to have T3s better than CS.... its stupid to have them even the same as CS. |
coolzero
Mortis Angelus WHY so Seri0Us
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:00:00 -
[705] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? It can be used inside a pos field.
so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have
Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats
does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:05:00 -
[706] - Quote
FOZZIE
you need to reduce the CPU of warfare links ... ships struggle to fit them there is no need for it to be topping out at 55CPU no other utility high requires that much CPU you will end up with ships unable to fit them. or very gimped if they do. 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. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:12:00 -
[707] - Quote
Harper Ei wrote:Fozzie,
you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.
You forgot!
As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.
Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.
Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.
/H
Good. Then they'll buff T3 instead of the rumored nerf. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7364
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:04:00 -
[708] - Quote
coolzero wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? It can be used inside a pos field. so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield?
Yes, to activate the Siege links you would need to leave the shield. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Totured Veracity
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:57:00 -
[709] - Quote
Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:00:00 -
[710] - Quote
Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot?
Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:04:00 -
[711] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes.
is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's? 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. |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:06:00 -
[712] - Quote
Can someone please show the math to get to to the 25.9% armor/siege boost? Sorry but I'm having trouble doing the maths with the stacking percentages.
Also, the navy mindlinks, what are the pairings? Will there be skirm/siege, armor/siege, etc.? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:06:00 -
[713] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's?
There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:08:00 -
[714] - Quote
fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:11:00 -
[715] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's? There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig. I like this option too, it allows t1 and (potentially) t3 ships to fit 4 links while leaving command ships with the greater 5 links. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:12:00 -
[716] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:14:00 -
[717] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links
again how does this make sense?
T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
Surely this makes more sense..... 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:15:00 -
[718] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... not at all Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:22:00 -
[719] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out.
And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1521
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:32:00 -
[720] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The point is you can get the link alt without ever interacting with the eve economy. Just pay real money to ccp and you get your alt. By purchasing the link alt's ship, you are interacting with the eve economy.
Also, paying real money for plex also forces you to interact with the real eve economy whenever you convert the plex to isk (supply/demand determines the plex-isk exchange rate).
Finally, there is still the fact that there is no difference between a link alt and any other commodity in Eve such as a Titan alt, a Titan, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S. These all can also be purchased in the same way a link alt can.
Summary: This portion of your argument is Red Herring. |
|
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:36:00 -
[721] - Quote
Fozzie:
Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:39:00 -
[722] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:Fozzie:
Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged? Your math is fudged; All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
T2 6 * 1.5 (Warfare Link Specialist) * 1.25 (mindlink) * 1.15 (Command ship) * 2 (Warfare Specialist Skill) = 25.9 Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:48:00 -
[723] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Mara Maken wrote:Fozzie:
Please check your math, it looks like the "max bonus per link with all modifiers" is assuming 50% mindlink bonus. Am I missing something? Is my math fudged? Your math is fudged; All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35% T2 6 * 1.5 (Warfare Link Specialist) * 1.25 (mindlink) * 1.15 (Command ship) * 2 (Warfare Specialist Skill) = 25.9
Thanks, completely missed the warfare link skill :( |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:57:00 -
[724] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them? Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:10:00 -
[725] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?
We have no current plans to give CONCORD LP for anything else. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Crazy On You
Professional Dockers
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:19:00 -
[726] - Quote
You could split command proc into two modules. One that allows you to fit one extra armor/information link that goes in a mid slot, and one that allows you to fit one extra siege/skirmish in a low slot. Seems the easiest solution to me. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2114
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 17:33:00 -
[727] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?
You are not stuck running Incursions for them.
You GET to run Incursions for them. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1141
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:23:00 -
[728] - Quote
If my math is right, the Navy mindlinks are going to cost in the range of 500 M, at the very least. You burn 100M, 100K LP, plus 2 regular mindlinks.
Is there some mechanism being introduced to make the traditional mindlinks available more readily? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:05:00 -
[729] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's? There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig.
How about getting rid of command processors and not introducing rigs? The fitting trade-off for tank or dps should be dictated through having to use more PG and CPU to fit these. Requiring additional slots to fit these is only going to make them more fragile when they are pushed on grid (expect the Damnation).
How about adding new high slot warfare modules instead? These are already balanced by PG/CPU. The progression to fit six modules currently is:
# - PG CPU 1 - 210 55 2 - 420 110 3 - 630 165 4 - 890 270 5 - 1350 375 6 - 1710 480
Trying to fit that 4th and 5th module takes a ton of fitting resources. My suggestion is to mimic this without crippling either the tank or DPS of the ship and not both.
Big Scriptable Warfare module. For each of the module types add a new module that can be scripted. The PG would be somewhere in the range of 420 and the cpu 110. Three scripts would be created to provide a combination of the three bonuses (i.e. Script A: Bonus 1 and Bonus 2, Script B: Bonus 1 and Bonus 3, Script C: Bonus 2 and Bonus 3).
A Mega Warfare module would be added for each type. This would provide all three bonuses. The PG would be >630 and the CPU >165.
These would modules would still count as a single warfare module and go against the limit per ship. Command processors should be removed so that only Command Ships can fit three.
This feels a lot more flexible and gives the right tradeoffs between fitting links and choosing either tank or DPS. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:44:00 -
[730] - Quote
I just realized why I don't like the rig approach. There are no small or large rig ships that can fit warfare links. You will have only medium and capital rigs for these. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:11:00 -
[731] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:I just realized why I don't like the rig approach. There are no small or large rig ships that can fit warfare links. You will have only medium and capital rigs for these. There are only medium mining rigs, it would be along the same lines. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1350
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:14:00 -
[732] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive.
Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea?
I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Lynx Sawpaw
Explorer Corps Disavowed.
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:40:00 -
[733] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig.
Cool idea. Hope you include some t2 version of the rigs as well if you do this. Maybe if the t2 rigs have less calibration cost than the t1 rigs, thus letting you weigh the options of cost effectiveness vs being able to fit more boosts. |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:52:00 -
[734] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... Oh yeah sure; that makes more sense; just like how the domination webifiers are not strictly better than the T2 or how the caldari navy shield boosters are not strictly better than the T2, or how the Federation Navy magstabs are not strictly better than the T2,
yeah sure that makes much more sense . . . |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:54:00 -
[735] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea? I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . . |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1351
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:58:00 -
[736] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:
again how does this make sense?
T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea? I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . .
Then he can add them once links come on grid
I don't like "Well this will be fixed at an undefined time in the future" as an excuse to horribly breaking the game until then.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 01:46:00 -
[737] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Sigras wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:
again how does this make sense?
T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out. And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Could you just scrap faction mindlink idea? I really REALLY don't like the idea of fighting ships with mindlinked skirmish AND siege links... with six equipped links.. =/ That isn't a nerf its a buff =< I dare you to try that when links are forced on grid . . . Then he can add them once links come on grid I don't like "Well this will be fixed at an undefined time in the future" as an excuse to horribly breaking the game until then.
That's what I don't understand.
Are these supposed to be the bonuses when ships are on grid? Or is this what they consider balanced while they are off grid? If this is balanced even though they can sit in a safespot off grid, then I would think they will need to increase the bonus to offset them being forced on grid. Again *if* they truly think this is balanced.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:33:00 -
[738] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7386
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:00:00 -
[739] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen
Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:07:00 -
[740] - 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).
|
|
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:13:00 -
[741] - Quote
Quote:T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
So my Rorqual with 3 Mining, one Shield Link, Industry-Core online cannot enable the Shield-Link insied the FF anymore.
Doing its job outside the FF is no option: Orcas deliver the Ore and the Rorqual puts the compressed ore into the hangar array. So I have no option to cloak, no option to move ore jump (industry core on!), an nothing to put in my compressed minerals.
Using a Navy mindlink instead of the T2 mindlinks for Mining and Siege would also be an bad option (just getting 20% instead of 25%)... if at all Navy mindlinks for mining are available, give shield and armor and can be activated inside the FF.
... I also have no option to use another ship as booster than a rorqual to get the same boost.
So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf !
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
336
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:19:00 -
[742] - Quote
Robert71 wrote:Quote:T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
So my Rorqual with 3 Mining, one Shield Link, Industry-Core online cannot enable the Shield-Link insied the FF anymore. Doing its job outside the FF is no option: Orcas deliver the Ore and the Rorqual puts the compressed ore into the hangar array. So I have no option to cloak, no option to move ore jump (industry core on!), an nothing to put in my compressed minerals. Using a Navy mindlink instead of the T2 mindlinks for Mining and Siege would also be an bad option (just getting 20% instead of 25%)... if at all Navy mindlinks for mining are available, give shield and armor and can be activated inside the FF. ... I also have no option to use another ship as booster than a rorqual to get the same boost. So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426157#post3426157 Try reading that, the post you are quoting is not a CCP Dev post. |
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:26:00 -
[743] - Quote
You are right... but even the dev post says nothing about the ability to use the ore links inside the ff too ... and is marked 'may add an Ore link at some point...'
It would be really nice to not forget industry player with this patch |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
666
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:29:00 -
[744] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once.
adding command processer options as rigs and as low slot mod's is a good idea.
making command processers only in rig form is a bad idea and reduces options in the sand box.
imo cs's and boosting t3's should get 2 base links plus 1 link per lvl of command ships/ defence sub system skill. make boosting not gimp your ship fittings and boosters will migrate to being on grid.
yes I say this as someone who runs 7 link command ships, with a max skilled pilot who has boosted before and after t3's. OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:29:00 -
[745] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once.
i'm guessing when you do the T3 re-balance they will ... any time frame on the T3 re-balance? 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. |
Murashu
Air Initiative Mercenaries
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:02:00 -
[746] - Quote
Robert71 wrote:So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf !
Your mining links will still function inside the POS shields. The only change here is you can no longer act as a combat booster while remaining invulnerable to combat. |
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:56:00 -
[747] - Quote
Murashu wrote:Robert71 wrote:So this is just another not well reasoned miner nerf !
Your mining links will still function inside the POS shields. The only change here is you can no longer act as a combat booster while remaining invulnerable to combat.
I know, and that's not the problem. But having some shield boost too for the exhumers and for the hauler (orca's or industrials) is an important thing to tank the rats. this ha absolutely nothing to do with pvp - but after the nerf I cannot give Mining-Boost as long as the shield boost by my Rorqual.
So it would really be an important thing to give a solution for this problem.... and wherever applicable together with this patch an not eventually.
|
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 17:21:00 -
[748] - Quote
Fozie, given the changes, would you considering dropping the CPU requirement of link mods down to 30 - 32 CPU from their current 55? or add them to the electronics skill group somehow that lessens the cpu these things take?
(30-32 CPU need is comparable to a gun and given that'd you need command processors to fit 6 on a CS to get full benefits from that navy implant it makes since that you'd lower the CPU requirement so that you have at least SOME tank considering CPU mods are going to gimp an armor tank and command processors are going to gimp the shield tank) |
Liam Inkuras
Justified Chaos
390
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 18:48:00 -
[749] - Quote
Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
jackaloped
Fwaction Warfare Corporwation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:09:00 -
[750] - Quote
Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer?
That might defeat the purpose.
But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down?
I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7390
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 09:28:00 -
[751] - Quote
jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work.
Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7390
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 09:31:00 -
[752] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Fozie, given the changes, would you consider dropping the CPU requirement of link mods down to 30 - 32 CPU from their current 55? or add them to the electronics skill group somehow that lessens the cpu these things take?
(30-32 CPU need is comparable to a gun and given that'd you need command processors to fit 6 on a CS to get full benefits from that navy implant it makes since that you'd lower the CPU requirement so that you have at least SOME tank considering CPU mods are going to gimp an armor tank and command processors are going to gimp the shield tank)
We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:02:00 -
[753] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozie, given the changes, would you consider dropping the CPU requirement of link mods down to 30 - 32 CPU from their current 55? or add them to the electronics skill group somehow that lessens the cpu these things take?
(30-32 CPU need is comparable to a gun and given that'd you need command processors to fit 6 on a CS to get full benefits from that navy implant it makes since that you'd lower the CPU requirement so that you have at least SOME tank considering CPU mods are going to gimp an armor tank and command processors are going to gimp the shield tank) We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now.
I tried on sisi to fit 6 links on my command ship, but it didnt let me activate the 6th link even though I had 3 command processors fitted. Is this on purpose or a bug? |
Durzel
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
196
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:18:00 -
[754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. You still need Virtues to find the hardest possible targets. I couldn't get a OGB Tengu above 95% in a maxed skills covops with 10% Prospector implant, Sisters launcher & probes, Gravity Capacitor rigs and 2 of the T2 Scan Rangefinding modules.
Don't know how many you need now vs pre-Odyssey but the fact you need them at all is imo disproportionate effort compared to that of actually providing the links. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
349
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:09:00 -
[755] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead.
Why is making your ship harder to probe even a thing? It's really bad. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1361
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:26:00 -
[756] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. Why is making your ship harder to probe even a thing? It's really bad.
This, seriously..
But can i assume that you won't consider going back on the navy mindlink? Because it really is a horrible horrible idea =< BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:31:00 -
[757] - Quote
Durzel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. You still need Virtues to find the hardest possible targets. I couldn't get a OGB Tengu above 95% in a maxed skills covops with 10% Prospector implant, Sisters launcher & probes, Gravity Capacitor rigs and 2 of the T2 Scan Rangefinding modules. Don't know how many you need now vs pre-Odyssey but the fact you need them at all is imo disproportionate effort compared to that of actually providing the links.
This is actually quite depressing. After the patch perhaps the changes to what they will have to fit to have multiple links will also result in them being easier to find? I don't know alot about it but I don't feel like doing solo PVP if I have to deal with OGB. Yes, I am an alt. -áNo, I do not care how you feel about that. -á |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
349
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:34:00 -
[758] - Quote
Kick Rocks wrote:Durzel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. You still need Virtues to find the hardest possible targets. I couldn't get a OGB Tengu above 95% in a maxed skills covops with 10% Prospector implant, Sisters launcher & probes, Gravity Capacitor rigs and 2 of the T2 Scan Rangefinding modules. Don't know how many you need now vs pre-Odyssey but the fact you need them at all is imo disproportionate effort compared to that of actually providing the links. This is actually quite depressing. After the patch perhaps the changes to what they will have to fit to have multiple links will also result in them being easier to find? I don't know alot about it but I don't feel like doing solo PVP if I have to deal with OGB.
Link alts will have even more links fitted after the changes. Interdiction maneuvers will be very slightly less powerful, but basically you're still totally screwed. All you can do is scan for T3s, then move on if you find any. The tricky ones don't decloak until you're stuck in though, so there's nothing you can do. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:58:00 -
[759] - Quote
Kick Rocks wrote:Durzel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. You still need Virtues to find the hardest possible targets. I couldn't get a OGB Tengu above 95% in a maxed skills covops with 10% Prospector implant, Sisters launcher & probes, Gravity Capacitor rigs and 2 of the T2 Scan Rangefinding modules. Don't know how many you need now vs pre-Odyssey but the fact you need them at all is imo disproportionate effort compared to that of actually providing the links. This is actually quite depressing. After the patch perhaps the changes to what they will have to fit to have multiple links will also result in them being easier to find? I don't know alot about it but I don't feel like doing solo PVP if I have to deal with OGB.
Its not "SOLO" PVP if you have a booster alt, same as its not SOLO pvp if you have a falcon toon to help you, or a logi toon... FFS solo is one man and his ship and for that these changes are good.
|
jackaloped
Fwaction Warfare Corporwation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:36:00 -
[760] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead.
Thanks for this info.
I would still like to see a video of this actually being done. I think the t3 alt will at least occasionally hit dscan to look for probes. If you have to fiddle with your probes within .5 au of the target for 10 minutes before you get a warp in I don't see how this will be effective.
|
|
Balthazar Lestrane
Viziam Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:32:00 -
[761] - Quote
I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right?
Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:56:00 -
[762] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now.
If you are still around and willing to respond I have one more question. A lot of people in the 1.1 threads have been complaining about fit points on some of these ships (nighthawk and ishtar, etc and yes some of it has been addressed). I think a lot of players are confused on exactly just how you guys intend us to use the ships (in terms of what is fit on them) and to that end I've seen several requests for you guys to post some fits for us.
I haven't seen that happen ever really and I'm curious why this is?
I think it would go a long way into bridging the apparent communication gap that is evident between the players and devs on the true intended reasoning behind some of these changes. Personally speaking I wish you guys would so a couple fits for each of the ships you balance so that at the bare minimum the players can understand what you are advocating, and maybe perhaps point out holes with hard data? It would be far better than the theory crafting/guessing that is going on now. |
StevieTopSiders
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:57:00 -
[763] - Quote
Command processors in any form make it more difficult to fit tank/damage to your commanding ship. Put a hard limit of 3 warfare links on Warfare Processor T3's/CS, and people will fly them on-grid. The tank is already weak by not allowing pilots to take advantage of the stronger defensive subsystems, and forcing pilots to give up valuable rig slots that could hold trimarks/CDFE's will simply nudge them off-grid, as they are no longer tanky enough to survive on the field. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 15:00:00 -
[764] - Quote
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right?
Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all.
It was mentioned that CCP doesn't feel the risk factor is balanced for the roq and orca yet. Those two ships are very slow and in the roq's case also completely immobile while in industrial mode. Combat boosting also has lots of different options from t1 ships all the way up to t3 which gives players a lot of versatility which can not be said about mining boosts. |
cearaen
Black Dragon Fighting Society The Devil's Tattoo
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:00:00 -
[765] - Quote
Durzel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work. Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. You still need Virtues to find the hardest possible targets. I couldn't get a OGB Tengu above 95% in a maxed skills covops with 10% Prospector implant, Sisters launcher & probes, Gravity Capacitor rigs and 2 of the T2 Scan Rangefinding modules. Don't know how many you need now vs pre-Odyssey but the fact you need them at all is imo disproportionate effort compared to that of actually providing the links.
Maybe he means its theoretically possible. Like winning the lottery is theoretically possible. But for all practical purposes t3 link ships are going to be completely safe in safe spots as if they were stil in a pos.
IMO this thread can be summarized by a nixon quote: "Give 'em an hors d'oeuvre and maybe they won't come back for the main course"
Nothing really changed here. OGB is still completely broken.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7393
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:56:00 -
[766] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now.
If you are still around and willing to respond I have one more question. A lot of people in the 1.1 threads have been complaining about fit points on some of these ships (nighthawk and ishtar, etc and yes some of it has been addressed). I think a lot of players are confused on exactly just how you guys intend us to use the ships (in terms of what is fit on them) and to that end I've seen several requests for you guys to post some fits for us. I haven't seen that happen ever really and I'm curious why this is? I think it would go a long way into bridging the apparent communication gap that is evident between the players and devs on the true intended reasoning behind some of these changes. Personally speaking I wish you guys would so a couple fits for each of the ships you balance so that at the bare minimum the players can understand what you are advocating, and maybe perhaps point out holes with hard data? It would be far better than the theory crafting/guessing that is going on now.
So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly.
That being said, I can talk a bit about how I would start fitting the Nighthawk for some different uses right after 1.1 hits.
A HAM version for basic boosting and damage dealing in a small-medium sized gang that includes BCs and at least one Logi (you can swap tackle into the mids depending on what the rest of your gang looks like):
[Nighthawk, HAMs] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
For a bigger focus on boosting and range at the expense of damage, more useful as gang sizes increase a bit: [Nighthawk, HMLs] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency II Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):
Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EE-602 at least. [Nighthawk, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:13:00 -
[767] - Quote
Fozzie
try some for the Vulture 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. |
Thaman Arnuad
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:17:00 -
[768] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven][quote=CCP Fozzie] This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):
Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EE-602 at least. [Nighthawk, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
Could you double check that fit please, I'm seeing a lack of PG, perhaps you mean the EG-602.
The DPS off this is laughable when compared to the Astarte which is the designed opponent to the NH, and your tank with your ASB going cannot even deal with the raw damage that the Astarte will be dealing in 1v1. To add insult an ASB Astarte can tank full DPS from a NH with no sweat, please give the Caldari a little love. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
352
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:28:00 -
[769] - Quote
Nighthawk needs 6 mids just like the ferox does. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:33:00 -
[770] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly.
First off, thanks for answering another question, and second for posting fits!
But another followup if I may?
The goal of balancing things "is the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers"? This would mean that balance takes into account things like the intended use of things given to players.
For example, Carrier's used to be able to be "medium" haulers because you could put unpacked indy's in them with their holds full of items. CCP thought this was an undesirable side affect of their intended uses and took that away even though "Eve is a sandbox". (Yes I was personally peeved about it considering jf's were introduced that essentially did the same job but much better and carriers never got their hauling ability back even though freighters can now scoop from space... but I digress)
Therefore it would seem that when balancing ships, it would be pretty important to declare how you intend them to be used, because without that declaration balancing would seem rather difficult (ie how do you balance something when you don't have an intended use for it?).
I guess my point is that I don't understand your stance on not liking to declare how you intend people to use ships when that is how you balance them. It just seems rather counter intuitive. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
352
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:39:00 -
[771] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly.
First off, thanks for answering another question, and second for posting fits! But another followup if I may? The goal of balancing things "is the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers"? This would mean that balance takes into account things like the intended use of things given to players. For example, Carrier's used to be able to be "medium" haulers because you could put unpacked indy's in them with their holds full of items. CCP thought this was an undesirable side affect of their intended uses and took that away even though "Eve is a sandbox". (Yes I was personally peeved about it considering jf's were introduced that essentially did the same job but much better and carriers never got their hauling ability back even though freighters can now scoop from space... but I digress) Therefore it would seem that when balancing ships, it would be pretty important to declare how you intend them to be used, because without that declaration balancing would seem rather difficult (ie how do you balance something when you don't have an intended use for it?). I guess my point is that I don't understand your stance on not liking to declare how you intend people to use ships when that is how you balance them. It just seems rather counter intuitive.
It's pretty obvious when they give out the slots and fittings, that they have particular setups in mind that they want you to be able to or not to be able to fit. Saying you can fit it however you want just means you're free to use bad fits. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:41:00 -
[772] - Quote
Thaman Arnuad wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven][quote=CCP Fozzie] This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):
Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EE-602 at least. [Nighthawk, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
Could you double check that fit please, I'm seeing a lack of PG, perhaps you mean the EG-602. The DPS off this is laughable when compared to the Astarte which is the designed opponent to the NH, and your tank with your ASB going cannot even deal with the raw damage that the Astarte will be dealing in 1v1. To add insult an ASB Astarte can tank full DPS from a NH with no sweat, please give the Caldari a little love.
Yup I meant the EG-. Corrected the post.
And the XLASB Nighthawk tanks 1800 Therm/Kin dps before heat, so you are mistaken about it not being able to tank an Astarte while it has charges. The Astarte has the advantage in a 1v1 between these two ships for sure, but that Nighthawk's projection advantage is very significant in many situations. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:47:00 -
[773] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly.
First off, thanks for answering another question, and second for posting fits! But another followup if I may? The goal of balancing things "is the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers"? This would mean that balance takes into account things like the intended use of things given to players. For example, Carrier's used to be able to be "medium" haulers because you could put unpacked indy's in them with their holds full of items. CCP thought this was an undesirable side affect of their intended uses and took that away even though "Eve is a sandbox". (Yes I was personally peeved about it considering jf's were introduced that essentially did the same job but much better and carriers never got their hauling ability back even though freighters can now scoop from space... but I digress) Therefore it would seem that when balancing ships, it would be pretty important to declare how you intend them to be used, because without that declaration balancing would seem rather difficult (ie how do you balance something when you don't have an intended use for it?). I guess my point is that I don't understand your stance on not liking to declare how you intend people to use ships when that is how you balance them. It just seems rather counter intuitive.
To a large extent what we build are tools with many applications, both obvious and nonobvious. Sometimes we need to remove certain overpowered applications of a tool (like with the carrier hauling) but in general the hive mind of players will always come up with far more interesting things than we ever had in mind.
In general we try to make sure that ships are good at some things but we work under the assumption that many of the uses that become popular over the years are going to be things we did not expect and we celebrate that.
I really doubt we're going to make a habit of posting fits for ships we balance, both because as a collective you guys are going to do it better than us and because the uses we have in mind will often be different than the uses you end up having. Another issue is that everything we post will get misconstrued and picked apart with false assumptions like the post above that claimed inaccurately that an Astarte could overwhelm the XLASB Nighthawk's tank. Answering every question that comes up would be a full time job on top of the rest of our work. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:07:00 -
[774] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Answering every question that comes up would be a full time job on top of the rest of our work.
Haha, true enough (I'm a Sys Admin by trade, so I know what you mean).
One can dream though. How awesome would it be to have a full time dev just to answer player questions... :) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:15:00 -
[775] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Fozzie
try some for the Vulture
I'm going to make an exception to my usual policy of ignoring any post that has my name in bold at the start.
The Vulture has tons of fitting. To gives two examples of fits that show off exactly how much you can get on it:
Dual XLASB with a CPU rig as the only fitting mod:
[Vulture, Dual XLASB] Internal Force Field Array I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Warrior II x5
Triple link with the largest guns, two LSEs and no need to use meta mods (if you have PG implants you can even upgrade the cap booster to a medium, or you have the CPU to swap the cap booster for a TC if you're comfortable without it):
[Vulture, 3Link 250] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Thaman Arnuad
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:28:00 -
[776] - Quote
Can't believe I forgot to switch my tank damage type. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:31:00 -
[777] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting
Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?! |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:34:00 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: And the XLASB Nighthawk tanks 1800 Therm/Kin dps before heat, so you are mistaken about it not being able to tank an Astarte while it has charges. Also, an XLASB Astarte would need to go without a prop mod to be able to tank the Nighthawk's damage with both EM and Explosive ammo (even without the damage bonus the Nighthawk would be best off using non-Kin ammo in this specific case). An actually well fit armor Astarte has the advantage in a 1v1 between these two ships for sure, but that Nighthawk's projection advantage is very significant in many situations. So, in other words it's ok if the Nighthawk can tank the Astarte, but the Astarte can't tank the Nighthawk, all while the Nighthawk has more range? As for your armor Astarte, what about the neuts you fit to the Nighthawk and the maar susceptibility to cap warfare? So maybe I'll indulge a whine here about you favoring the Nighthawk ~
Anyway, please don't post fits for ships. If Thaman Arnuad or others like him can't figure out how to be creative with fittings and just want to trot out the old Caldari whine of "I can't pvp with these ships", don't set them straight. Now we'll have to deal with Nighthawks fit as you just suggested. It would have been far better instead to have encountered some comedy fit, or just not seen them at all because he would think Nighthawks suck. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7396
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:38:00 -
[779] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?!
You were saying?
You can easily swap the Magstabs for more tank on this one depending on the size of your gang. [Astarte, MAAR + MAR] Armor Explosive Hardener II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Valkyrie II x5
[Astarte, Dual 1600] Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor Explosive Hardener II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Valkyrie II x5
Ok now I'm done posting fits for realzies, no more baiting me out. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7396
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:41:00 -
[780] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: And the XLASB Nighthawk tanks 1800 Therm/Kin dps before heat, so you are mistaken about it not being able to tank an Astarte while it has charges. Also, an XLASB Astarte would need to go without a prop mod to be able to tank the Nighthawk's damage with both EM and Explosive ammo (even without the damage bonus the Nighthawk would be best off using non-Kin ammo in this specific case). An actually well fit armor Astarte has the advantage in a 1v1 between these two ships for sure, but that Nighthawk's projection advantage is very significant in many situations. So, in other words it's ok if the Nighthawk can tank the Astarte, but the Astarte can't tank the Nighthawk, all while the Nighthawk has more range? As for your armor Astarte, what about the neuts you fit to the Nighthawk and the maar susceptibility to cap warfare? So maybe I'll indulge a whine here about you favoring the Nighthawk ~ Anyway, please don't post fits for ships. If Thaman Arnuad or others like him can't figure out how to be creative with fittings and just want to trot out the old Caldari whine of "I can't pvp with these ships", don't set them straight. Now we'll have to deal with Nighthawks fit as you just suggested. It would have been far better instead to have encountered some comedy fit, or just not seen them at all because he would think Nighthawks suck. edit - and yes it's far too easy to fit shield ships as compared to active (or passive for that matter) armor tanking ships.
An actual solo fit armor Astarte would generally beat that XLASB Nighthawk in a real 1v1 given equal pilot skill, but the point is that it wouldn't be as big of a whitewash as some might think and the projection on the Nighthawk is really useful for stuff that isn't command ship 1v1s. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:01:00 -
[781] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):
Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EG-602 at least. [Nighthawk, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
At the point you've got that fit...why don't you just use a Claymore?
Lots more tank, not much less gank, and a medium +small neut instead of two smalls. With no implants required. Plus, faster and a smaller sig.
The Nighthawk is awful next to the Claymore. At the very least, the Nighthawk needs another midslot instead of that low. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:02:00 -
[782] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?! You were saying? Ok now I'm done posting fits for realzies, no more baiting me out.
Apologies, I honestly was not trying to bait you. I misspoke, I didn't realize the vulture with dual xlasb didn't have any links on it.
Personally I still think these ships are being shoe horned into things given that you always link the less cpu intensive heavy electrons and neutrons instead of the t2 250 rails.
I personally always fit rails because I like damage projection instead of close range. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:14:00 -
[783] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: An actual solo fit armor Astarte would generally beat that XLASB Nighthawk in a real 1v1 given equal pilot skill, but the point is that it wouldn't be as big of a whitewash as some might think and the projection on the Nighthawk is really useful for stuff that isn't command ship 1v1s. Yes the mythical 1v1 is not a good way to balance ships in Eve.
But on that note it wouldn't matter either way since all we will see is fleets of Cerbs to rival the prevalence of Drake use of old. Which btw, I'm much greatful for you guys killing off the Drake hegemony. But now you will be replacing them with fleets of Cerbs. Please stop before it's too late. Or if you don't, don't let it last 3 years like Drakes Online did. |
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:15:00 -
[784] - Quote
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right?
Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all.
Just because so ignorant people like You !
And for explanation to people like you: The risk (and the amount of ISK) for a miner to play with an Rorqual which is locked for five minutes in space outside the FF, with not relevant defence and offence - compared to the risk for a PVP'ler is like: Low-Sec PVP with T1 frigates vs. 0.0 SCAP fights...
But it seems some people don't like to understand the role of a mining fleet and the role of a pvp fleet.... and some of them are really resistant in learning
Sure your main job is ganking freighters and now you are crying because you get no additional easy kills. Damm it - all this ignorant player. |
cearaen
Black Dragon Fighting Society The Devil's Tattoo
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 21:17:00 -
[785] - Quote
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:I can't remember if I brought this up before, but why are mining links being excluded from the no-pos sitting? Why are miners allowed to mitigate risk but not pvpers? I would like to see this change but more than that I would like an explanation as to why there is a distinction. Links are links and risk mitigation is prevalent when boosting from a POS regardless of the links fitted. No risk = no reward, right?
Some consistency would be nice but apparently not obvious to all.
It actually does make them equal. Neither one will have any risk.
The pvp ships will effectively be in a pos when they land in a safe spot since they are virtually unprobable. Due to sig radius the mining ships would have to take a risk if they had to leave a pos. |
Smyrk
Gradient Electus Matari
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 03:48:00 -
[786] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This will make the training path for gang boosting more of a slope and less of a cliff. Along these lines, as Shahai alluded to somewhere in the midst of this thread, there is still a somewhat un-EVE-like cliff from the specialist IV-V progression even with these improvements: the skill multiplier goes from 1.8 to 2 (okay), plus it opens up t2 link modules (25% better), plus it opens up all the mind links (25%), for a total of 73% better from IV-V if I did my math right (50% chance). The obvious suggestion to fix it would be to make mind links and/or t2 link modules only require specialist IV, but I'm also in the camp that even with these changes, off-grid links are still too powerful and that would make it much easier to train up a competent off-grid alt, which would be bad. Maybe something to keep in mind if off-grid links are more thoroughly nerfed in the future. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 10:34:00 -
[787] - Quote
There are a lot of pages here so I haven't read so I haven't read all CCP Fozzie's replies. I believe the price for the navy mindlinks has been increased from the initial price setting. Is there are any chance that some thought can be put into increasing the price for the Mining Mindlink? The current price setting for these mindlinks is vastly different to the current price and to my mind is far too cheap. With on-grid use the combat orientated mindlinks are liable to be lost a lot during combat so it makes sense for them to be relatively cheap. But as a general rule the mining mindlink will rarely be destroyed so I feel the price should be set much higher. Maybe 500 million ISK plus some LP ??
The incredibly low price currently planned for Mining Mindlinks is also liable to increase mining yield across New Eden and drop mineral prices even further which is not good for business.
Can you also make a statement on the OP if mindlinks will still be available as a reward in storyline missions post the changes or if they will only be available at the LP stores please? |
Cabooze Skadoosh
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:51:00 -
[788] - Quote
You guys are too conservative with the nerfs here. I think the boosting ship should explode when it activates it's warfare links.
I wonder how many subscriptions CCP loses from dedicated link chars if they frak this up :D |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 23:35:00 -
[789] - Quote
Fozzie, first off thanks for posting some fits. We have been doing a similar thing in the Command Ships discussion.
It's probably worth re-iterating that the gallente and minmatar ships are field command, and thus more oriented for close combat, whereas the caldari and amarr are fleet command - whether or not we agree with that decision ;-)
It seems logical then that the field command would be able to beat the fleet command ships in a hypothetical 1v1 since they are designed for the job, while the fleet command ships have been demonstrated to be able to be fitted with 400k alpha-resistance - beyond the capabilities of the minny and gallente ships.
If a nighthawk could solo an astarte, I'd feel somewhat short-changed if I opted for the field command option.
It's a case of pay your money and take your choice.
|
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:23:00 -
[790] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. What's the feasibility of implementing the aggro inheritance a la remote rep instead?
You mentioned elsewhere performance issues, but that sounds strange:
1. every time a ship in a fleet gets an aggro flag, its fleet inherits the same flag (no checks) 2. every time 1. happens, the fleet active boosters inherit the same flags (no checks)
Meaning no additional cycles... Nor any aggro checks, it's all cascaded.
Note that as a result, the weapons flag is inherited whenever a boosted fleet member gets it, resolving the situation "waiting timers to jump out all together" described in the thread.
PS don't forget to add them on killmails - to troll the "soloers" My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 08:47:00 -
[791] - Quote
Yankunytjatjara wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. What's the feasibility of implementing the aggro inheritance a la remote rep instead? You mentioned elsewhere performance issues, but that sounds strange: 1. every time a ship in a fleet gets an aggro flag, its fleet inherits the same flag (no checks) 2. every time 1. happens, the fleet active boosters inherit the same flags (no checks) Meaning no additional cycles... Nor any aggro checks, it's all cascaded. Note that as a result, the weapons flag is inherited whenever a boosted fleet member gets it, resolving the situation "waiting timers to jump out all together" described in the thread. PS don't forget to add them on killmails - to troll the "soloers"
THIS!!!
Please do it! |
Alsyth
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 11:03:00 -
[792] - Quote
Can't you notice how your good armor fits still have 2 links when the shield ones downgrade to 2 small neut?
And your dual 1600 astarte is easier to fit (with links) than a single XLASB Nighthawk? Same for dual MAR, triple MAR, or 1600+MAR Astarte/Eos: they are easier to fit than a bloody single XL-ASB Nighthawk (or Sleipnir).
Really... Thank you for these proofs that armor CS have good fittings and shield CS [with the exception of Vulture) lack PG and CPU, what some of us keep saying from the start. |
Amantus
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 11:11:00 -
[793] - Quote
here's a super important question:
when theorycrafting fits does ccp fozzie use EFT, pyfa ordoes he buy all modules on a test server and then use the in-game fitting screen
CCP PLS RESPOND |
Henry Hackett
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 11:13:00 -
[794] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: Updates posted on August 7th :Edit: .... 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 100,000 LP and 100m isk, as well as requiring you to provide one of each of the T2 mindlinks that it combines. (~350m isk final product sale price). ....
I really like to see Mindlinks in LP Stores but Concord??? Put em all in the normal racial LP Stores. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:05:00 -
[795] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Can't you notice how your good armor fits still have 2 links when the shield ones downgrade to 2 small neut?
And your dual 1600 astarte is easier to fit (with links) than a single XLASB Nighthawk? Same for dual MAR, triple MAR, or 1600+MAR Astarte/Eos: they are easier to fit than a bloody single XL-ASB Nighthawk (or Sleipnir).
Really... Thank you for these proofs that armor CS have good fittings and shield CS [with the exception of Vulture) lack PG and CPU, what some of us keep saying from the start.
The XLASB is a battleship-sized module. You can't even get a LAR on an astarte.
Try fitting it with appropriately sized modules.
Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.
If you want to skirmish in a shield self-tanked command ship, the recommended option is the minmatar hulls.
I know, I know, we all agree that all races should have 1 skirmish and 1 fleet hull, but that's not the way it's going to be so we just have to adapt.
C'est la vie!
|
Alsyth
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 18:13:00 -
[796] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Alsyth wrote:Can't you notice how your good armor fits still have 2 links when the shield ones downgrade to 2 small neut?
And your dual 1600 astarte is easier to fit (with links) than a single XLASB Nighthawk? Same for dual MAR, triple MAR, or 1600+MAR Astarte/Eos: they are easier to fit than a bloody single XL-ASB Nighthawk (or Sleipnir).
Really... Thank you for these proofs that armor CS have good fittings and shield CS [with the exception of Vulture) lack PG and CPU, what some of us keep saying from the start. The XLASB is a battleship-sized module. You can't even get a LAR on an astarte. Try fitting it with appropriately sized modules. Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers. If you want to skirmish in a shield self-tanked command ship, the recommended option is the minmatar hulls. I know, I know, we all agree that all races should have 1 skirmish and 1 fleet hull, but that's not the way it's going to be so we just have to adapt. C'est la vie!
Stopped reading at "XLASB is a battleship-sized module". You obviously know nothing.
Just to help you realize how wrong you are: 1600mm plate is as much of a BS-sized module as XL-ASB is, and as Fozzie showed, Astarte can fit 2 with 700dps and 2 links.
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:04:00 -
[797] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.
First off, the Fleet/Field command ship distinction no longer exists.
Second, the Nighthawk was the FIELD command ship, while the Vulture was the FLEET command ship, so even if the distinction existed anymore, you'd still be wrong.
The Nighthawk is terrible next to the Claymore. Giving it six mids would be a start towards evening the balance--it could have a stiffer tank, but would still be much slower and have a larger sig.
Currently, the Claymore can field a stronger tank than the Nighthawk, with not much less DPS, with a smaller sig and ~300m/s faster under MWD, and with easier fittings so you don't even come close to needing implants. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
536
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:55:00 -
[798] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.
First off, the Fleet/Field command ship distinction no longer exists.
His remark about it being a "Fleet" ship has nothing to do with the old names and everything to do with the overall role of the ship. It's quite obvious to anyone who did not grow up eating paint chips that a slower ship with a resistance bonus is generally geared towards fleet work compared to faster ships with rep/boost bonuses.
Overall, you're straw man post that ignores the actual definition of "fleet" needs a dislike button. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:17:00 -
[799] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Additionally, the nighthawk is a FLEET command ship - it's not designed to self rep at all. It's designed to soak up loads of alpha and then get repped by basilisks or carriers.
First off, the Fleet/Field command ship distinction no longer exists. Second, the Nighthawk was the FIELD command ship, while the Vulture was the FLEET command ship, so even if the distinction existed anymore, you'd still be wrong. The Nighthawk is terrible next to the Claymore. Giving it six mids would be a start towards evening the balance--it could have a stiffer tank, but would still be much slower and have a larger sig. Currently, the Claymore can field a stronger tank than the Nighthawk, with not much less DPS, with a smaller sig and ~300m/s faster under MWD, and with easier fittings so you don't even come close to needing implants.
Yes the claymore has a stronger tank than the nighthawk. It is designed to. The claymore is designed to sit in the front line and skirmish with the rest of the fleet.
The nighthawk is designed to be well back from the front line and provide fleet boosts with a buffer tank and incoming reps.
To compare the two ships' performance in a role for which one has been designed and the other not does not serve any useful purpose.
If you want to boost a fleet, use the nighthawk. If you want a combat skirmish tanking dps booster, use a claymore. The training conversion time is negligible.
The same argument holds for the amarr and gallente command ships.
CCP has decided that Caldari and Amarr command ships shall be suited for fleet boosting, while Gallent and Minmatar ships shall be skirmish boosters. I think we have to live with that. It's something I disagreed with to begin with, but have come to terms with.
I have already altered my training plans accordingly.
Adapt and survive... |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
338
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:57:00 -
[800] - Quote
And those of us who took full advantage of the great BC & CS skill changes.... :P Have all four. |
|
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:56:00 -
[801] - Quote
CCP Fozzie have you ever thought about making it possible to overheat gang links? Im thinking especially if you have a gank linked ship on grid in a fight it could be cool to overheat them to maybe get a 3-6% extra fleet boost from them?
Could be nice to use as a last resort option in the final seconds before your command ship turns into scrap metal
A little Offtopic but it would be nice if you could overheat your primary weapons on drone boats imo, Like adding the ability to overheat drone speed mods, drone tracking mods and drone optimal range and maybe drone dmg mods too?
To give them the same abilities as turret and missile ships have would be fair imo. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 12:03:00 -
[802] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:CCP Fozzie have you ever thought about making it possible to overheat gang links? Im thinking especially if you have a gank linked ship on grid in a fight it could be cool to overheat them to maybe get a 3-6% extra fleet boost from them? Could be nice to use as a last resort option in the final seconds before your command ship turns into scrap metal A little Offtopic but it would be nice if you could overheat your primary weapons on drone boats imo, Like adding the ability to overheat drone speed mods, drone tracking mods and drone optimal range and maybe drone dmg mods too? To give them the same abilities as turret and missile ships have would be fair imo.
it sounds to me about as realistic as the concept of overheating armour plates.
command links simulate better fleet communication and coordination. you won't prove that by turning up the power of the radios and shouting louder :-) |
Alduin666 Shikkoken
MIS Auxiliaries Kadeshians
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:37:00 -
[803] - Quote
I'm a Rorqual pilot currently training Capital Industrial Ships V to get the maximum amount of boosting available out of this toon (yes my main toon is a booster, deal with it). Contrary to what most mining boosters thing, getting the Orcas and Rorqs out of the POS would be nice. Actually compressing ore and having haulers actually ferry heavy water to the Rorq to keep the indy core running in the belt would actually spice things up a bit for 0.0 mining ops.
What I'm a little concerned with is that you are changing the mindlink bonus from 50% to 25%. Now if I had gotten any other mindlink I wouldn't be upset as much but I spent 1.4 bil on a mining foreman mindlink to get that 50%. If by some freak accident I get podded it might actually be more beneficial to save up for a Chimera (what I'm training for next) because I'm not going to spend 1.4 bil to get a 25% increase to my boosting.
Angry 0.0 industrialist rant over, carry on reading the rest of the thread now. Honor is a fools prize. Glory is of no use to the dead. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
486
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:38:00 -
[804] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:it sounds to me about as realistic as the concept of overheating armour plates.
command links simulate better fleet communication and coordination, presumably by dedicated staff and equipment. you won't improve that by turning up the power of the radios and shouting louder. you do it by remaining calm :-) Remaining calm racks up inner tension, up to the point when you blow up on comms and is rendered unable to command unless you take a minute to have a shot of something right before anything undesireable happens. You don't issue commands in the process, obviously.
Or really, insert any technobabble about overclocking any of that sensitive iCircuitry installed into link.
Do I have to spend 2 more minutes on how you benefit from overheating plates as well? |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:51:00 -
[805] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:it sounds to me about as realistic as the concept of overheating armour plates.
command links simulate better fleet communication and coordination, presumably by dedicated staff and equipment. you won't improve that by turning up the power of the radios and shouting louder. you do it by remaining calm :-) Remaining calm racks up inner tension, up to the point when you blow up on comms and is rendered unable to command unless you take a minute to have a shot of something right before anything undesireable happens. You don't issue commands in the process, obviously. Or really, insert any technobabble about overclocking any of that sensitive iCircuitry installed into link. Do I have to spend 2 more minutes on how you benefit from overheating plates as well?
I was hoping to present an argument as to why allowing overheat of command links was a bad idea :-)
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:37:00 -
[806] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I was hoping to present an argument as to why allowing overheat of command links was a bad idea :-)
It's most probably bad for balance, the end
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:42:00 -
[807] - Quote
Overheating should only increase Range (if CCP deside to give Warefare Links specific Ranges) or increase the Cycle duration to safe some Cap.
It would be funny if OnGrid Warfare links could OffGrid Boosting while Overheating . ;) |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:13:00 -
[808] - Quote
Alduin666 Shikkoken wrote:
I'm not going to spend 1.4 bil to get a 25% increase to my boosting.[/b] [/i]
Angry 0.0 industrialist rant over, carry on reading the rest of the thread now.
Don't worry, CCP have changed how you get mindlinks so the price will be much cheaper than 1.4bil (likely not over 200mil). |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:34:00 -
[809] - Quote
Alduin666 Shikkoken wrote:I'm a Rorqual pilot currently training Capital Industrial Ships V to get the maximum amount of boosting available out of this toon (yes my main toon is a booster, deal with it). Contrary to what most mining boosters thing, getting the Orcas and Rorqs out of the POS would be nice. Actually compressing ore and having haulers actually ferry heavy water to the Rorq to keep the indy core running in the belt would actually spice things up a bit for 0.0 mining ops.
What I'm a little concerned with is that you are changing the mindlink bonus from 50% to 25%. Now if I had gotten any other mindlink I wouldn't be upset as much but I spent 1.4 bil on a mining foreman mindlink to get that 50%. If by some freak accident I get podded it might actually be more beneficial to save up for a Chimera (what I'm training for next) because I'm not going to spend 1.4 bil to get a 25% increase to my boosting.
Angry 0.0 industrialist rant over, carry on reading the rest of the thread now. The price on mindlinks is going to fall, given that they'll be easier to obtain. When the supply goes up, demand will go down and that lowers the price. It won't be a 1.4b investment for 25%, but even still, people pay a lot of money for a miniscule gain (faction/deadspace mods), and 25% certainly isn't anything to scoff at.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 19:05:00 -
[810] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW? I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers..... How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?
|
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
204
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 20:21:00 -
[811] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote:CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW? I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers..... How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?
I don't think it's a bad thing if complexes that only allow frigates/dessies/cruisers will stop allowing these ships to be significantly stronger as a result of off grid boosts. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
341
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 22:02:00 -
[812] - Quote
Given all the discussion on fleet boosting being OP in a 250 man fleet, I'm going to float an idea now, it's been mentioned before in various silly forms.
Squad Boosters stay at current levels. Wing Boosters only get 75% of boosts Fleet Boosters only get 50% of boosts.
This means a Fleet booster still gives substantial boosts, but a T1 BC in Squad position gives about the same boost (I think) as a CS in Fleet boost position. It also means redundancies are a good thing as you can put proper boosters in your more key squad booster positions to give max bonuses, while your wing and fleet boosts give some overall buffs, and you also have to prioritise which boost is most valuable to your fleet 'Right now'. Since you can reallocate wing & fleet boosters on the fly this also allows for a skilled FC to respond to situations and alter the overall stats of the fleet slightly. Need more tank, rearrange for max resists, need info warfare, sort those boosters into your key roles. Fleet just out of point range... etc. |
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 01:34:00 -
[813] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Madbuster73 wrote:CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW? I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers..... How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?
I don't think it's a bad thing if complexes that only allow frigates/dessies/cruisers will stop allowing these ships to be significantly stronger as a result of off grid boosts.
I do think it is a bad thing, A lot of people have put a lot of isk, time and real money into those characters and now they become useless?
Why should an armor hac gang fighting in a medium plex not be allowed to get boosts but an armor hac gang fighting in 0.0 can?
Your answer makes no sense.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1464
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 02:16:00 -
[814] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Madbuster73 wrote:CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW? I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers..... How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?
I don't think it's a bad thing if complexes that only allow frigates/dessies/cruisers will stop allowing these ships to be significantly stronger as a result of off grid boosts. I do think it is a bad thing. A lot of people have put a lot of isk, time and real money into those boosting characters and now they become useless? . The funny thing is, they are not useless, they still boost, and can boost almost as well as they could before. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 05:21:00 -
[815] - Quote
Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1464
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 05:44:00 -
[816] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop? Yes, but the overall performance of mining links will be the same or decimal points better. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 06:14:00 -
[817] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Rowells wrote:Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop? Yes, but the overall performance of mining links will be the same or decimal points better. how did that work out? something else get changed that i missed? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1464
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 06:15:00 -
[818] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Rowells wrote:Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop? Yes, but the overall performance of mining links will be the same or decimal points better. how did that work out? something else get changed that i missed? They are changing the base strength of the links. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:01:00 -
[819] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Madbuster73 wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Madbuster73 wrote:CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW? I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers..... How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?
I don't think it's a bad thing if complexes that only allow frigates/dessies/cruisers will stop allowing these ships to be significantly stronger as a result of off grid boosts. I do think it is a bad thing. A lot of people have put a lot of isk, time and real money into those boosting characters and now they become useless? . The funny thing is, they are not useless, they still boost, and can boost almost as well as they could before.
Next time please read the post before you answer, and to make your life easier I will quote it for you again:
Madbuster73 wrote:CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW? I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers..... How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
195
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:10:00 -
[820] - Quote
I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:35:00 -
[821] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
If by fair you mean one more combat hull vs a booster....yeah sure. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:54:00 -
[822] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
If by fair you mean one more combat hull vs a booster....yeah sure.
What I mean by fair is this: There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be engaged in a FW site (other than a large one which has no gate) if they do not wish to be.
looking at the site's beacon on narrow-band d-scan gives an exact inventory of the ships already in the site, and for those in the site, keeping d-scan on 360 degrees at range 200,000 km gives easy and early warning of anyone trying to get through the gate.
So attackers and defenders will know each others fleet composition, and they will know that there is no booster (unless he's identified in the fleet at the gate, and it's big enough to let him in).
Thus both attacker and defender must consent to the fight for it to happen - they must both feel that they have fair odds of a victory. So I'd say that's about as fair a fight as you're ever going to get in the game of Eve.
Of course, because the last thing that any Eve player wants is a fair fight (particularly a lowsec OGB-boosted troll), the number of fights (sorry, ganks) in plexes will most likely noticeably reduce. But those that do happen are likely to be more rewarding for all participants.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 21:18:00 -
[823] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for?
I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1464
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 21:35:00 -
[824] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for? I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char. You gained the benefit of the boosting character while it could OGB, you cans still gain benefit from it for a while longer, but yes it is reasonable. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
551
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 21:35:00 -
[825] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for? I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char.
You have used it exclusively for what it's trained for. You are a prime example of why these OGB's are unbalancing in the game. Use those alts for other things like trading or if you want to go full derp falcon At least then you'll actually have to field them and put something on the line rather than farming 'easy' kills and crying when you get blobbed out. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/ |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 21:37:00 -
[826] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote: So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for?
I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char.
Yes, it's reasonable, because you no longer have a major advantage over other frigates/cruisers/dessies in the complex.
FW, particularly the smaller complexes, was supposed to be reasonably fair PvP that even relatively new players could get involved in.
Your usage of off-grid boosting defeats that purpose, and removing it is entirely reasonable. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 22:54:00 -
[827] - Quote
The people have spoken.
For the record, I have an alt called Goody Twoshoes Virpio. He's trained 40 million skillpoints in scanning and boosting, and he's looking forward to appearing on grid in a boosting ship before too long.
He'll look out for you.
x A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 07:17:00 -
[828] - Quote
Madbuster73 wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"
Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.
Reasonable?
So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for? I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char. No, I do believe it is unreasonable. If you really want your links in a FW plex you should be allowed. That being said, I think they should open up T2 destroyer based boosting platforms. With of course at level tank. So around 15-20k EHP, and a good resist profile so they can join dessy gangs with frigate logi and perform. But as for getting them out of novices? Hell yes. I don't see any damn reason that an advanced tactic like that would be allowed in "novice" plexes. They are named "Novice".
Of course I do think that these boosting dessies should be about 70 mil apiece and only be able to fit 2 links, tops. And should be forced on grid. Yeah, it should be made obvious that you're getting boosts.
Also, you will also still have full functionality in larges, and everywhere that isn't a FW complex.
Oh, and I have my own boosting characters. It'll be good to shove them into... I'm thinking Damnation and Sleipnir, that'll cover the full spectrum of boosts and still be able to boost a wing. Replacing the FC with whatever is more relevant of course. Might have to get an Astarte and Vulture too just for the opposite circumstances, though it is rare for an FW fleet to surpass 50 people. |
Klendatu Niban
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 08:12:00 -
[829] - Quote
Apart from OGB, an idea to boosting bonus application in general:
Reading that small gangs get nerfed more than large fleets by the decrease in fleet booster strength, what about the following idea:
The fleet booster bonus could be coupled to the amount of fleet members. The more members in fleet, the smaller the bonus for the single ship. See it a kind of stacking penalty.
This way small fleets could get maximum bonus or minor boost penalties per ship than large fleets. If large fleets want higher bonus, they would have to divide the fleet and/or install more ships with boosters.
The fleet leader could give his bonuses to, say, 50 members, each receiving only a bit of the original bonus. The wing commanders and squad commanders could use ships that "refresh" the bonus or add other bonuses.
This way a large fleet has to take significant efforts to keep their bonuses up.
Another thought is that only the booster ship and the hierachie level below gets full bonus, each sub-level down the ships gets, say, half of the upper level. e.g. a fleet commander boosting wings boosts each wing commander with 100% of the original bonus, the squad commanders get 1/2 the bonus and the squad members get only 1/4 of the fleet booster bonusses.
The wing commanders can give their own boosts to 100% to the squad commanders and 50% to the squad members etc.
It might become challenging to predict the concrete bonus to your ship in that large fleet but hey, fleet is a complicated thing and blob is uncool anyway, right?
How is that? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 08:49:00 -
[830] - Quote
Klendatu Niban wrote:Apart from OGB, an idea to boosting bonus application in general: Reading that small gangs get nerfed more than large fleets by the decrease in fleet booster strength, what about the following idea: The fleet booster bonus could be coupled to the amount of fleet members. The more members in fleet, the smaller the bonus for the single ship. See it a kind of stacking penalty. This way small fleets could get maximum bonus or minor boost penalties per ship than large fleets. If large fleets want higher bonus, they would have to divide the fleet and/or install more ships with boosters. The fleet leader could give his bonuses to, say, 50 members, each receiving only a bit of the original bonus. The wing commanders and squad commanders could use ships that "refresh" the bonus or add other bonuses. This way a large fleet has to take significant efforts to keep their bonuses up. Another thought is that only the booster ship and the hierachie level below gets full bonus, each sub-level down the ships gets, say, half of the upper level. - A fleet commander boosting wings boosts each wing commander with 100% of the original bonus, the squad commanders get 1/2 the bonus and the squad members get only 1/4 of the fleet booster bonusses. - The wing commanders can give their own boosts to 100% to the squad commanders and 50% to the squad members. - A single squad with 10 ships plus squad commander could have full boost bonuses without penalty. It might become challenging to predict the concrete bonus to your ship in that large fleet but hey, fleet is a complicated thing (overhead, computing power) and blob is uncool anyway, right? How is that?
The problem with this is that there are ways around it, either by having many small fleets or other methods, that would make this mostly a change that affects smaller alliances and poorer players who don't have tons of boosting alts or characters who can boost.
The other problem is that these link changes are balanced against the current values, not against a weird reducing bonus.
Small Gangs are always going to be more adversely affected by any nerf or change in tactics because they have fewer members so the effectiveness of each individual ship matters more and anything that reduces the effectiveness of an individual ship is going to show more than in a large fleet where you can compensate with numbers. For example web range matters less when you're very likely to have 3 people with webs in range of any given target. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:25:00 -
[831] - Quote
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the guy who suggested we just get rid of gang links.
They're actually silly and generate unrealistic and indefensible effects.
Arnour does not get harder because people are communicating, engines do no generate more thrust because there are other ships in your fleet.
In a scenario involving on-grid boosting, you could argue that targeting may become more accurate if there is a central command centre co-ordinating the data from the entire fleet's sensor arrays, but none of the command links actually do this (increasing tracking or missile explosion velocity would be a reasonable proxy for this effect).
The information warfare links are probably the only reasonable (in terms of realism) ones available - and they're the last ones I choose in a small fleet, being nowhere near as useful as the ridiculous armour or shield hardening ones.
Having a good human FC (a commander) does already increase a fleet's power many times over.
Bin them and use the SP for something more creative. A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 10:55:00 -
[832] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The more I think about it, the more I agree with the guy who suggested we just get rid of gang links.
They're actually silly and generate unrealistic and indefensible effects.
Arnour does not get harder because people are communicating, engines do no generate more thrust because there are other ships in your fleet.
In a scenario involving on-grid boosting, you could argue that targeting may become more accurate if there is a central command centre co-ordinating the data from the entire fleet's sensor arrays, but none of the command links actually do this (increasing tracking or missile explosion velocity would be a reasonable proxy for this effect).
The information warfare links are probably the only reasonable (in terms of realism) ones available - and they're the last ones I choose in a small fleet, being nowhere near as useful as the ridiculous armour or shield hardening ones.
Having a good human FC (a commander) does already increase a fleet's power many times over.
Bin them and use the SP for something more creative. It honestly would make more sense if ganglinks increased the effectiveness of offensive weaponry. Better tracking formulas, firing solutions, more prcise missile hits, and coordinated launch/firing times.
Would be the opposite of how links work now and probably bad but it does make more sense.
E: also drones. ESPECIALLY makes sense for drones to have a more centralized, efficient hub |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 12:38:00 -
[833] - Quote
Rowells wrote: It honestly would make more sense if ganglinks increased the effectiveness of offensive weaponry. Better tracking formulas, firing solutions, more prcise missile hits, and coordinated launch/firing times.
Would be the opposite of how links work now and probably bad but it does make more sense.
E: also drones. ESPECIALLY makes sense for drones to have a more centralized, efficient hub
I dont think your thinking about this right, think of it like this, If you have 20 warships in a fleet with set weaponry, the abilities of each ship is determined by their captain's and crew's ability. When a comander is there he would coordinate the ships so as to mean the least casualties, he does not get involved in the firing and reloading/aiming of weapons. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 16:54:00 -
[834] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Rowells wrote: It honestly would make more sense if ganglinks increased the effectiveness of offensive weaponry. Better tracking formulas, firing solutions, more prcise missile hits, and coordinated launch/firing times.
Would be the opposite of how links work now and probably bad but it does make more sense.
E: also drones. ESPECIALLY makes sense for drones to have a more centralized, efficient hub
I dont think your thinking about this right, think of it like this, If you have 20 warships in a fleet with set weaponry, the abilities of each ship is determined by their captain's and crew's ability. When a comander is there he would coordinate the ships so as to mean the least casualties, he does not get involved in the firing and reloading/aiming of weapons.
But all of this is already achieved by having a human FC.
Where's the rationale for further command module-based buffs? There is none.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
542
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:24:00 -
[835] - Quote
Yeah, dps increasing gang links is a bad idea :/ |
Taoist Dragon
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
555
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:52:00 -
[836] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Yeah, dps increasing gang links is a bad idea :/
More to the point power creep is bad in any game and mindlinks/OGB have increased the power significantly since their introduction.
Also if links increased dps by say 10% then that would be way more managable than the 50%+ bonuses that are to speed/HP/scram/web etc that are there now. At least then I could still kill them in the same time the main concern would then be mitigating their damage output rather than having no chance to catch or kill them.
But all in all just removing them from the game all together would put the game in a better place IMO. Remove all the leadership types of skills an reimburse the SP so you can get your falcon alts trained up. At least with ewar alts you have t put them on the line and ewar like ecm have had blanket (small) nerfs over the last couple of years with the sensor comp skills and ship re-balances. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/ |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
293
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 01:16:00 -
[837] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The more I think about it, the more I agree with the guy who suggested we just get rid of gang links.
They're actually silly and generate unrealistic and indefensible effects.
Arnour does not get harder because people are communicating, engines do no generate more thrust because there are other ships in your fleet.
In a scenario involving on-grid boosting, you could argue that targeting may become more accurate if there is a central command centre co-ordinating the data from the entire fleet's sensor arrays, but none of the command links actually do this (increasing tracking or missile explosion velocity would be a reasonable proxy for this effect).
The information warfare links are probably the only reasonable (in terms of realism) ones available - and they're the last ones I choose in a small fleet, being nowhere near as useful as the ridiculous armour or shield hardening ones.
Having a good human FC (a commander) does already increase a fleet's power many times over.
Bin them and use the SP for something more creative.
The rationale behind it is that commandships have more advanced super computer clusters that can receive telemetry data from a ship and process a more efficient solution and send it back to the ship. (Look at the industry side of command ship/module production). Engines for instances aren't just dumb rocket thrusters but constantly adjusting and monitoring performance - applies to armor, etc. to as it tends to have certain degrees of nanite functionality and so on.
As far as the lore technical side of it goes there is no reason for command ships to need to be ongrid the only thing that doesn't really fit is that a command ship could operate links and be close to unscannable. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:29:00 -
[838] - Quote
The telemetry cluster argument would have more merit if we took into account the propagation time of the telemetry.
Radio signals take 8 minutes to travel 1AU, 80 minutes to travel 10AU. An off-grid booster is going to be routing and analysing telemetry so old that the fight will already be over by the time the updated commands come back to the fleet.
In addition, radio signals that are distinguishable from background noise are extremely detectable. If a command ship is emitting this telemetry I think any self-respecting New Eden scientist would have worked out how to get its position data onto your overview, in the same way they managed it for cynosural fields.
Furthermore, the current link-boosting effects seem to me to be the kinds of effects that do not require input from other ships in a fleet. An eve battleship has a mass of 100 million kilograms. The command modules have a mass of a few thousand kilograms. It seems plausible to me that a little bit of space could be found of every ship to install sufficient computing power to ensure that the shields, armour, engines and electronics run optimally without the additional complication of telemetry transponders, encoders, decoders, sensors and actuators.
Whichever way you rationalise it warfare links are silly, and more importantly they have no positive effect on the overall enjoyment of the game.
I still think they should go.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
349
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:44:00 -
[839] - Quote
Given EVE lore already says we have FTL coms, trying to claim Radio limitations is silly.
As for why CS comps are better, well obviously they are special hardware. With special operators required (Hence the skills). That do things in a different manner from normal comps so are more effective. The CS also has all the built in Hardware surrounding the needs of those specific links, which could be a lot more than just a few thousand KG's.
So... its quite easy to rationalise exactly how links work & even how OGB's work. You just have to not be narrow minded and ignore any option that doesn't match the conclusion you want to reach. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:00:00 -
[840] - Quote
The conclusion I want is a better game.
Understand that I have many millions of SP invested in command ships and gang links, being able to fit T2 versions of all except the information links.
I perfectly understand the benefit to my fleet in having gang boosts and obviously seek to make them available wherever possible.
And I still think that the presence of these modules damages the game.
Fleet pvp is very much about making correct choices under pressure.
The potential presence of gang links adds a hidden variable to every encounter, which has the effect of adding randomness to the outcome. This has the effect of devaluing the tactical ability of fleet members.
I think that's not a good thing for the awesome game of Eve.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
349
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 10:26:00 -
[841] - Quote
Hidden variables are good. You should always be uncertain about what you are up against. Otherwise everything just becomes Ganks. The only reason you find links such an unpalatable hidden variable is because everything else is in plain sight, If instead of knowing exactly what ship your opponents had all you got was their class, i.e. Cruiser on Deep scan, and only their race when on the same grid and had to eyeball ships & know what ship models are what or lock them to get actual hull type it would introduce even more uncertainty and make for non perfect intel on other things. Which would then result in 'Oopsie' engagements happening more often, which would be better for the game than the current meta as to when to engage. Gang boosts are no worse for the game than T2 modules, Implants or anything else. The scale may be out, *shrugs*, but the actual mechanic is for the most part fine. I'd even allow OGB's still I think on recent reflection but at reduced efficiency compared to an OGB which creates a decision point. Do you bring them on grid and risk the ship or off grid but with less effect. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 11:01:00 -
[842] - Quote
I don't entirely disagree. Skillpoints and fittings are of course themselves hidden variables.
However, skillpoints (in the main) have some tenuous connection with a coherent narrative, as does the use of better materials and technology in the manufacture of superior T2 items.
Centralized fleet command and control is also part of a coherent narrative, at least in the sense that the command ship could be an information bus that allows other ships in the fleet to share knowledge.
However, the idea that such a data bus should harden armour (already a ridiculous concept) and shields (a concept that would require exponential increments in power output into order to produce linear increments in effectiveness) just seems... unnecessarily ridiculous, and does not in my view add to the game.
Perhaps if the boosts were limited to the squad level only that would make more sense, because the tradeoff would be more difficult to call:
do I bring 10% more dps or another 27 slots to the fight? It's a closer call.
addendum: I got the number of 27 slots this way: each gang link is worth (roughly) the power of 1 more slot on each boosted ship, but costs 1 slot on the command ship. In a squad of 10, I gain 10 slots and lose one for each gang link I bring. In a squad of 10, a command ship with 3 links brings the power of +30 slots, but at a cost of -3.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
293
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 16:54:00 -
[843] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: Centralized fleet command and control is also part of a coherent narrative, at least in the sense that the command ship could be an information bus that allows other ships in the fleet to share knowledge.
However, the idea that such a data bus should harden armour (already a ridiculous concept) and shields (a concept that would require exponential increments in power output into order to produce linear increments in effectiveness) just seems... unnecessarily ridiculous, and does not in my view add to the game.
Your looking at it too 1 dimensionally - a lot of the way ganglinks "work" is about opptimising solutions, evading an outcome and so on not opptimising power output or straight up tanking but is reflected as an increase in the raw stats to keep it simple/practical. A lot of it isn't actually about sharing the data of ships in fleet but having specalised more advanced/extra processors for certain aspects of ship operation that can produce better results than the hardware on non-commandsips - hence why command modules have fairly large fitting and physical properties compared to other comparable modules.
My biggest issue with what your saying tho - and its not just you I see it a lot in these types of threads - people are complaining about (and often validly so) about how ganglinks break a specific part of eve that they spend a lot of time in but don't consider (or just don't care about) the wider implications of the measures they are proposing to fix that. Personally I use ganglinks a lot in pretty much every aspect of eve - wormholes, highsec, nullsec, PVE, PVP whatever - except FW (which I have very limited experience of but I can imagine they are quite broken there for a lot of stuff) and solo PVP (as my skills are better suited to fleet stuff) theres a lot of areas where they are very useful and not (totally) broken at all. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
218
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:13:00 -
[844] - Quote
centralised computing power is a concept from the 60s. dustributed information processing is currently producing far better results.
whichever you you rationalise it, I find no defensible narrative to support gang links in their current form.
I know that they offer an advantage to a "solo" pvper with 2 accounts (the irony is intentional).
but they do not, when examined in any number of dimensions, add to the depth, realism or sense of involvement in the game of eve.
or is there a dimension I am missing?
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:35:00 -
[845] - 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 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
218
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 18:02:00 -
[846] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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
Well I think it's pretty simple.
We already have a real information nexus making decisions that improve the prospect of the fleet. He is called the FC and he is supported by scouts, fleet doctrine and a pan-galactic communications system called TeamSpeak (etc)
In my view there is no role at all for performance-boosting gang links. I think it was an ill-conceived idea that, in the case where both fleets have gang links, always favours larger fleets over smaller ones.
I can see a sensible narrative behind an arrangement where command modules improve the performance of ship's electronics, by virtue of more information being made available in parallel, so:
gun accuracy, missile accuracy (explosion radius), lock times, sensor strength (on grounds of redundancy) and so on could be improved by links. All of which would require the booster to be on grid.
A believable narrative could also be constructed that would support the idea of ships in the fleet being able to slave themselves to the command ship, effectively becoming offensive batteries of that ship.
However, considering the current anti-drone-slaving rhetoric in these forums, that's probably a topic better left alone A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Sigras
Conglomo
518
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 00:45:00 -
[847] - Quote
I completely agree with you if you are talking about contemporary gang link mechanics
Everything will be different when gang links are forced on grid.
With gang links forced on grid, the dynamic changes. Now the enemy FC has different decisions to make:
1. go after the heavily tanked CS knowing they may have a backup CS, but possibly depriving them of links 2. Ignore the CS and try to burn down the fleet assuming they have it bait tanked.
The fleet bringing the command ship also has choices to make
1. Bring a bait tanked CS and hope they shoot at it. 2. Bring a CS that has a good mix of damage and tank and hope they ignore it 3. Dont bother with a CS and bring a fully combat capable ship
more important decisions are better for gameplay.
The only thing I would like to see is that command ships shouldnt be fully combat capable when using links. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 05:46:00 -
[848] - Quote
Sigras wrote: With gang links forced on grid, the dynamic changes. Now the enemy FC has different decisions to make: ..... 1. Bring a bait tanked CS and hope they shoot at it. 2. Bring a CS that has a good mix of damage and tank and hope they ignore it 3. Dont bother with a CS and bring a fully combat capable ship .... .
What game are you playing mate? It does not sound like eve.
You want to force the bonuses on grid, that you can kill em? What about the other 1k people on grid ?
Or maybe you are talking about small scale pvp? Gang bonuses are hardly relevant for a small fleets, if they ever meet a matching force it usually has gang links as well.
Anyway with the changes coming to CS you will see gang links on field a lot. I wonder what you gonna complain next ?
95% of ideas for "changes" in this forum are inability of losers to adapt or use the mechanics they already have. It a sad day when I see one of this "changes" becomes reality.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
228
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 18:32:00 -
[849] - Quote
I think Sigras' post indicates that he is already thinking about the change and is ready to embrace it.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Noisrevbus
477
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 18:55:00 -
[850] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: whichever you you rationalise it, I find no defensible narrative to support gang links in their current form.
I know that they offer an advantage to a "solo" pvper with 2 accounts (the irony is intentional).
but they do not, when examined in any number of dimensions, add to the depth, realism or sense of involvement in the game of eve.
or is there a dimension I am missing?
There are tenfolds of dimensions that you are missing.
The problem with your rationale or any "the existance of links necessitate the use of links" remark is that that it can be applied to almost any thing in this game. The other side had points, so now you have to have points. The other side had guns, so now you have to have guns. It literally applies to everything in EVE - and removing one such factor makes the game poorer. As do the currently proposed changes, but in slight more complicated ways - by ripping up the existing balance of "more on few - less on many" in favour of one ship being outright better in every regard while restricted to a certain defensive subset (being "tanky").
The second thing you need to understand to see how the changes will impact the game is that in EVE any change cut both ways. It's sensitive to argue that "this will help small-gang PvP" unless you have a comprehensive definition of what small-gang PvP implies to support your claim. In many situations changes endorsed to help small-gang PvP end up ruining it long-term. There are still people living under the toughest conditions possible: deep (sov-space) Nullsec that engage in small-gang PvP (playing only "corp-sized", not having blues etc.). They are still by definition "small gang". They exist, but are extremely rare these days - far more rare than the self-proposed small-gang groups that dwell in Lowsec so the Lowsec perspectives on small-gang concepts are gaining traction.
I'm not casting any aspirations on the topic more than this: If you live in lowsec, whatever perspective you have on players in empire, a shallow nullsec player is bound to have on you and a deep nullsec player is bound to have on them (provided they still envision themselves as "small gang"). Take it as you may, but any argument or counter-argument derived from such a hierarchy still applies throughout that span and not just in your immidiate environment.
If you believe fighting a solo-duel against someone with an OBG is a challenge or unfair - try fighting against someone who outnumber you 10:1 and have larger ships with more links. Once you understand that perspective you might appreciate the ability to dedicate into some very narrow extreme in order to give you a fighting chance against something that outright beat you on any other premise but that single thing you dedicate into to at least chance an engagement.
Engage under the most unfair conditions imaginable, then you may see gang-bonuses and their dimensions in a different light.
Look at the track-record of most similar changes (extreme speeds, ranges, signatures, EW, etc.) - have they helped small gang PvP? I would say it's in the negative. Most notable small-gang concepts, that have thrived in the face of larger gangs or ships throughout the history of the game, have somehow utilzed some extreme to overcome their initial numerical or volumous disadvantage.
Now, here is the crunch-point: the depth, realism and most importantly, involvement that this leads to is encouraging players to overcome numerics or any other percieved unfairness and chance engagement. Take fights. The idea of "adapting" (or HTFU) is getting a very widespread miss-use where people seem to think that choosing not to fight (not to play) is an adaption: "if you can't roam anymore, adapt and only fight similarily sized duders in lowsec". That's not adaption, that's a missconception and poor assumption - it's not "something else" it's "less of what you already had" - because it assumes you wouldn't take similarily sized fights in Lowsec before. What is actually changing in the "small gang world" is that fewer groups are roaming nullsec against tougher odds.
These changes to Links are likely to contribute to those trends - that's why I see them as negative.
What this game needs now more than anything or ever before - is encouraging people to go out there and fight against the odds (fight someone with more and larger ships) and so forth. That's the changes and adaption we need. |
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
351
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:15:00 -
[851] - Quote
I still don't understand why: CCP Fozzie wrote:We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. is still a valid response from CCP.
Take a look at how many supers are in the game right now and then see how much 350 mil means these days.
CCP Fozzie wrote:~350m isk final product sale price = there will be no reason whatsoever to have anything but a navy mindlink
T2 needs to give a higher bonus to 1 discipline. Not today spaghetti. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:22:00 -
[852] - Quote
I like how CCP is nerfing 11 million skill points. Next year you should remove leadership skills and refund everyone that went out of their way to help a fleet.
idea of boosters = weapon timer
God forbid someone running ganglinks can't dock because 1 dumbass in his 250 person fleet aggressed a drone. Might as well make everyone suspect when one person in their fleet goes suspect. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
237
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:34:00 -
[853] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:idea of boosters = weapon timer
God forbid someone running ganglinks can't dock because 1 dumbass in his 250 person fleet aggressed a drone. Might as well make everyone suspect when one person in their fleet goes suspect.
That is an excellent idea.
Guilt by association seems reasonable to me.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:49:00 -
[854] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I like how CCP is nerfing 11 million skill points. Next year you should remove leadership skills and refund everyone that went out of their way to help a fleet.
idea of boosters = weapon timer
God forbid someone running ganglinks can't dock because 1 dumbass in his 250 person fleet aggressed a drone. Might as well make everyone suspect when one person in their fleet goes suspect.
Links in their current state is way too easy to abuse, and jugding by your whining you abuse them all the time, CCP should nerf your ability to post, crybaby. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:57:00 -
[855] - Quote
I'm doing it for everyone else's sake to be honest. I can always put my booster in a guardian or falcon. You see these changes come about because it's the sore losers that make the loudest complainers. If they didn't die so much then they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Just wait, after boosts get nerfed people will be calling for logi and falcon nerfs again. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
237
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:16:00 -
[856] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I'm doing it for everyone else's sake to be honest. I can always put my booster in a guardian or falcon. You see these changes come about because it's the sore losers that make the loudest complainers. If they didn't die so much then they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Just wait, after boosts get nerfed people will be calling for logi and falcon nerfs again.
But if you put your booster in a guardian and he then repairs someone who is flashy, he himself will become flashy since he aided a criminal.
Giving gang link boosts to a criminal is no less aiding him than supplying him with shields, cap or armour.
Frankly, if he takes ammo from a fleet-member's can or uses a fleet orca to refit, I think the fleet member should get a criminal flag / weapons timer also.
Supplying ammo or giving solace to a murderer does actually make you an accomplice.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:28:00 -
[857] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Zeus Maximo wrote:I'm doing it for everyone else's sake to be honest. I can always put my booster in a guardian or falcon. You see these changes come about because it's the sore losers that make the loudest complainers. If they didn't die so much then they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Just wait, after boosts get nerfed people will be calling for logi and falcon nerfs again. But if you put your booster in a guardian and he then repairs someone who is flashy, he himself will become flashy since he aided a criminal. Giving gang link boosts to a criminal is no less aiding him than supplying him with shields, cap or armour. Frankly, if he takes ammo from a fleet-member's can or uses a fleet orca to refit, I think the fleet member should get a criminal flag / weapons timer also. Supplying ammo or giving solace to a murderer does actually make you an accomplice.
In the long run people would much rather deal with a booster than 2 guardians and a falcon. What I'm getting at is people like me will still have these accounts at our disposal. If they aren't offgrid in a safer spot then they will be on grid in disposable ships to keep me alive.
When choosing the lesser of two evils its wise to know what will more greatly impact the fight.
I do agree with fleet wide aggressions if they apply to ALL SCENARRIO's. Example: Orcas in the same fleet as suicide gankers should get criminal timers. Booster gets flag then orca gets flag. |
Jane Shapperd
Sanctuary Reapers II
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:33:00 -
[858] - Quote
thank you fozzie . good changes |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:39:00 -
[859] - Quote
Doed wrote:Zeus Maximo wrote:I like how CCP is nerfing 11 million skill points. Next year you should remove leadership skills and refund everyone that went out of their way to help a fleet.
idea of boosters = weapon timer
God forbid someone running ganglinks can't dock because 1 dumbass in his 250 person fleet aggressed a drone. Might as well make everyone suspect when one person in their fleet goes suspect. Links in their current state is way too easy to abuse, and jugding by your whining you abuse them all the time, CCP should nerf your ability to post, crybaby.
Guess what, blob alliances are still going to abuse them.
Its just going to be more of a headache arranging the fleet. Even ongrid you would just have the boosts in a BC or a brick tanked loki with near 200k eHP and the logi to back it up.
What is a gang of 20 going to do that only HAS three booster spots available Fleet, Wing, and, Squad, how many more slots are you going to dedicate to logi, its not like its hard to spot a booster ship in a crowd, its a pretty obvious graphic.
....so the "boosts aren't fair" crowd are STILL going to get more boosts then they have available jammed down their throat. But if they want them at all they have to dedicate a very expensive clone AND likely a hull that is as much or more to get any advantage.
So by all means, keep crying. |
Ginger Barbarella
State Protectorate Caldari State
1465
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:05:00 -
[860] - Quote
Just one quick question (and no, I haven't searched 43 pages of posts to see if this has been asked yet): why not just eliminate the Warfare Processor for Strat Cruisers if the bonus on them is going to be castrated from 5% to 2% per level? This basically will end my use of a Loki as a booster in low... No tears, just wondering why even bother keeping it around anymore? "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 19:41:00 -
[861] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Just one quick question (and no, I haven't searched 43 pages of posts to see if this has been asked yet): why not just eliminate the Warfare Processor for Strat Cruisers if the bonus on them is going to be castrated from 5% to 2% per level? This basically will end my use of a Loki as a booster in low... No tears, just wondering why even bother keeping it around anymore?
None, they want you in a slower less manuverable command ship.
.....because that is the perfect match for hack and slash style low sec fights, amirite., |
Ginger Barbarella
State Protectorate Caldari State
1466
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 21:23:00 -
[862] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Just one quick question (and no, I haven't searched 43 pages of posts to see if this has been asked yet): why not just eliminate the Warfare Processor for Strat Cruisers if the bonus on them is going to be castrated from 5% to 2% per level? This basically will end my use of a Loki as a booster in low... No tears, just wondering why even bother keeping it around anymore? None, they want you in a slower less manuverable command ship. .....because that is the perfect match for hack and slash style low sec fights, amirite.,
Blob is Best. (I guess) "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
Saxe Coburg Gotha
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 21:42:00 -
[863] - Quote
What about boosting from a Titan so you get some of their special bonuses? Is that treated like a special case like the Rorqual? Or are you expected to leave the forcefield and change the entire fight into a Titan gank? Or no one thought about this because too few people do it? |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
413
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:04:00 -
[864] - Quote
Saxe Coburg Gotha wrote:What about boosting from a Titan so you get some of their special bonuses? Is that treated like a special case like the Rorqual? Or are you expected to leave the forcefield and change the entire fight into a Titan gank? Or no one thought about this because too few people do it?
Guess here those 11 million leadership skill points will turn into a burden for the titan pilot.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I still can't wrap my head around this. Hard to believe 11 million specialized skill points could turn into such a burden. I figured the on-grid stuff would make the null bears happy but damn, is this a witch hunt?
I figured an untanked 5,000 ehp loki with no guns on grid was bad enough. Now it needs an aggression timer for the hell of it? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:56:00 -
[865] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: I still can't wrap my head around this. Hard to believe 11 million specialized skill points could turn into such a burden. I figured the on-grid stuff would make the null bears happy but damn, is this a witch hunt?
I figured an untanked 5,000 ehp loki with no guns on grid was bad enough. Now it needs an aggression timer for the hell of it?
You missed the bit where this is not going to be in Odyssey 1.1 it's just a possibility they are considering between now and when they bring boosts on-grid. |
Ryan SilverHand
Shattered Sword Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:01:00 -
[866] - Quote
I am upset at the T3 changes. However im hoping that everything works out and the changes do not happen |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:17:00 -
[867] - Quote
Ryan SilverHand wrote:I am upset at the T3 changes. However im hoping that everything works out and the changes do not happen
Not going to happen, the change in balance between Command Ships and T3s has been requested more or less since the T3s came out and has pretty broad support from the player base. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
244
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:27:00 -
[868] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I still can't wrap my head around this. Hard to believe 11 million specialized skill points could turn into such a burden. I figured the on-grid stuff would make the null bears happy but damn, is this a witch hunt? I figured an untanked 5,000 ehp loki with no guns on grid was bad enough. Now it needs an aggression timer for the hell of it?
Why would you bring an untanked 5,000 ehp loki when you can bring a very effectively tanked claymore or sleipnir?
Why should aiding and abetting an act of war not carry the same penalty as performing it? If you provide fleet boosts to someone you are part of his tank. You're involved. Why shouldn't you get a gate (or criminal) timer?
The game is changing (for the better). You're going to have to change with it.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 02:39:00 -
[869] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Onictus wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:Just one quick question (and no, I haven't searched 43 pages of posts to see if this has been asked yet): why not just eliminate the Warfare Processor for Strat Cruisers if the bonus on them is going to be castrated from 5% to 2% per level? This basically will end my use of a Loki as a booster in low... No tears, just wondering why even bother keeping it around anymore? None, they want you in a slower less manuverable command ship. .....because that is the perfect match for hack and slash style low sec fights, amirite., Blob is Best. (I guess)
Wasn't the blob screaming about OGB all of this time. We just assume there are going to be boosters present. |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:16:00 -
[870] - Quote
I have more than one Booster alt and to be honest, the fact I can't boost from within a POS anymore when in my home-system, while annoying, is still bearable. Plus, in the future you can't boost on station either, because you WILL die, since those warfare modules will apparently refresh a weapons time of sorts (like agression) which won't allow you to insta-dock or jump. But I can work around that...somehow.
I don't see the problem with command ships, especially once 1.1 hits. They're tanky and the buff they are getting is huge enough to be worth abused as much as chicks on bread. The problem I see with is with T3 boosts, since "yay we lowered fitting reqs. for warfare modules", but not for the damn processor. And THAT is the main bottleneck. the T3s are supposed to bonus THREE different types, so why would you ever expect a T3 to run around with a single link??? Give the warfare subsytem the same bonus that command ships have, aka fitting 3 links natively. That should fix a LOT of things. Especially the "tank" aspect, since I can't see T3 boosts EVER on grid, since well, you can't have a decent boosting T3 AND have a tank to sustain more than destroyer dmg. If you wish to nerf T3 boosts that much, might as well remove them, because current state, they don't belong on-grid, due to the fittings.
The reduction in boost strength is acceptable. i put us roughly where we were before the introduction of T2 links. And let's face it, back then, it was already so much better than not having boosts.
tl;dr: T3 Warfare subsystem to natively be able to fit 3 links, as Command Ship counterparts. Then you get about same EHP/Boost trade-off than CS and at least you can bring them on grid. also, titan boosts? Since Rorqual boosts are allowed IN-POS, because well, the ship isn't suited for effing around warps in system, how about titan boosts? |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:26:00 -
[871] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:I have more than one Booster alt and to be honest, the fact I can't boost from within a POS anymore when in my home-system, while annoying, is still bearable. Plus, in the future you can't boost on station either, because you WILL die, since those warfare modules will apparently refresh a weapons time of sorts (like agression) which won't allow you to insta-dock or jump. But I can work around that...somehow.
I don't see the problem with command ships, especially once 1.1 hits. They're tanky and the buff they are getting is huge enough to be worth abused as much as chicks on bread. The problem I see with is with T3 boosts, since "yay we lowered fitting reqs. for warfare modules", but not for the damn processor. And THAT is the main bottleneck. the T3s are supposed to bonus THREE different types, so why would you ever expect a T3 to run around with a single link??? Give the warfare subsytem the same bonus that command ships have, aka fitting 3 links natively. That should fix a LOT of things. Especially the "tank" aspect, since I can't see T3 boosts EVER on grid, since well, you can't have a decent boosting T3 AND have a tank to sustain more than destroyer dmg. If you wish to nerf T3 boosts that much, might as well remove them, because current state, they don't belong on-grid, due to the fittings.
The reduction in boost strength is acceptable. i put us roughly where we were before the introduction of T2 links. And let's face it, back then, it was already so much better than not having boosts.
tl;dr: T3 Warfare subsystem to natively be able to fit 3 links, as Command Ship counterparts. Then you get about same EHP/Boost trade-off than CS and at least you can bring them on grid. also, titan boosts? Since Rorqual boosts are allowed IN-POS, because well, the ship isn't suited for effing around warps in system, how about titan boosts?
The weapons timer is not going in with 1.1, nor do we know for sure if it's ever going to go in.
The Command Processors are probably going to get a revamp as well just not for 1.1. Currently it looks like they're going to turn into rigs of some kind but they may also just make a low-slot version (both of these are ideas Fozzie has put forward or commented on) |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:44:00 -
[872] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The weapons timer is not going in with 1.1, nor do we know for sure if it's ever going to go in. The Command Processors are probably going to get a revamp as well just not for 1.1. Currently it looks like they're going to turn into rigs of some kind but they may also just make a low-slot version (both of these are ideas Fozzie has put forward or commented on)
I commented according to Fozzie's wording at the time of my post. For stuff like timer i know and therefoe mentioned "in the future".
Moving Command processors to lowslots doesn't help jack, because fitting requirements would still not allow you to fit a decent tank. The problem is that you won't be able to have a T3 on grid. you could, if the subsystem would get the same 3 link allowance as the CS counterpart has. And then its a trade choice of "3 different bonus @ 2%/level" or "2 different bonus @ 3%/level" on grid... sounds solid. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:52:00 -
[873] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:I commented according to Fozzie's wording at the time of my post. For stuff like timer i know and therefoe mentioned "in the future".
Moving Command processors to lowslots doesn't help jack, because fitting requirements would still not allow you to fit a decent tank. The problem is that you won't be able to have a T3 on grid. you could, if the subsystem would get the same 3 link allowance as the CS counterpart has. And then its a trade choice of "3 different bonus @ 2%/level" or "2 different bonus @ 3%/level" on grid... sounds solid.
Gee, it almost sounds like they're forcing you to make trade-offs with T3s being more generalized and "I can boost if we need it" and Command Ships being a more focused booster rather than the generalist T3.
When they finally move boosts on-grid it's likely that T3s will only boost in T3 gangs with each ship fitting a different link.
Fozzie already commented on the T3s issue saying they weren't interested in making 6-link T3 boosting easier at the moment. |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:06:00 -
[874] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Gee, it almost sounds like they're forcing you to make trade-offs with T3s being more generalized and "I can boost if we need it" and Command Ships being a more focused booster rather than the generalist T3. When they finally move boosts on-grid it's likely that T3s will only boost in T3 gangs with each ship fitting a different link. Fozzie already commented on the T3s issue saying they weren't interested in making 6-link T3 boosting easier at the moment.
And they shouldn't make 6 links more easy. If you fit 6 links on a CS, you'll trade a huge portion of your survivability. the same applies for T3s, and rightly so. But trading survivability up to being uttterly squishy for 3 links is just plain NO. should be the same.
where's the sandbox we used to play in? How will having 3 T3s with a command subsystem each, to carry one link each, benefit ANY T3 gang... We don't all fly in 10+ gangs, to be honest, and having to slot 3 people into squad-co, wing-co and fleet-co just for 3 measly links is the equivalent of a word that won't make it through censor. I can put up with all of those changes to the ships and modules, no matter how bad of game design they might be, in the past and present and probably the future, but as I said, you might as well removing boosting from T3s, if the goal is to put them on field but they will only be viable with one link / ship. Hence, I am hoping Fozzie in all his wisdom might consider this.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:50:00 -
[875] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Gee, it almost sounds like they're forcing you to make trade-offs with T3s being more generalized and "I can boost if we need it" and Command Ships being a more focused booster rather than the generalist T3. When they finally move boosts on-grid it's likely that T3s will only boost in T3 gangs with each ship fitting a different link. Fozzie already commented on the T3s issue saying they weren't interested in making 6-link T3 boosting easier at the moment. And they shouldn't make 6 links more easy. If you fit 6 links on a CS, you'll trade a huge portion of your survivability. the same applies for T3s, and rightly so. But trading survivability up to being uttterly squishy for 3 links is just plain NO. should be the same. where's the sandbox we used to play in? How will having 3 T3s with a command subsystem each, to carry one link each, benefit ANY T3 gang... We don't all fly in 10+ gangs, to be honest, and having to slot 3 people into squad-co, wing-co and fleet-co just for 3 measly links is the equivalent of a word that won't make it through censor. I can put up with all of those changes to the ships and modules, no matter how bad of game design they might be, in the past and present and probably the future, but as I said, you might as well removing boosting from T3s, if the goal is to put them on field but they will only be viable with one link / ship. Hence, I am hoping Fozzie in all his wisdom might consider this.
So, first, if you haven't you should read this bit by CCP Fozzie earlier in this thread to get a better idea of where they're heading with on-grid boosts.
For a start your concern about Fleet/Wing/Squad doesn't apply.
Then go and take a look at this thread about future ship balancing plans from Ytterbium
It's likely that T3s and their command links will come around when they get to the T3 balancing pass.
This kind of sucks and I sympathize that it's likely to be a long way out but it probably won't be too far removed from bringing gang links on field and it's also likely that such a change would precipitate a second look at all boosting ships. |
Presidente Gallente
Dark-Rising
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:22:00 -
[876] - Quote
People who hate off-grid booster because they can't use them just see the disadvantage they have. But booster brought much more fun to PvP. The main problem in EVE is that solo players or small gangs will be pwned by bigger fleets with logistics, blops, ecm etc. these days. To me skirmish boosting is one fun way to go solo or in a small group against larger fleets. I remember a small group of hostiles playing with us in their boosted nano-setups. Ofc it was annyoing at the first glance but this brought a lot of fun on grid especially when we started to counter them the same way.
The main problem I see with links on-grid is that this will take away the boost from solo players or very small gangs while it will be another exclusive feature for bigger fleets only which still have the advantage by numbers, logistics and everything you can imagine to pimp a fleet to be awesome. They can field their booster easily on grid beeing repped up while a small gang trying to play with them and skirmish links will definitely lose their booster because it can't stay long at distance on grid or has to jump out when fighting at a gate.
We still have the issue that bigger roaming fleets just can be countered if you bring well skilled and equiped numbers or you need to stay docked and let them pass. With links it's possible to play against them on grid. And to me it makes more sense to boost the weaker ones instead of boosting the stronger setups only at the end. But it seems that CCP wants to see the bigger fleets and blob-fests what might be a problem because everyone who's playing EVE for years knows what kind of players and how many players you finally need in a corp to field a decent bigger gang anytime. |
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:25:00 -
[877] - Quote
Presidente Gallente wrote:People who hate off-grid booster because they can't use them just see the disadvantage they have. But booster brought much more fun to PvP. The main problem in EVE is that solo players or small gangs will be pwned by bigger fleets with logistics, blops, ecm etc. these days. To me skirmish boosting is one fun way to go solo or in a small group against larger fleets. I remember a small group of hostiles playing with us in their boosted nano-setups. Ofc it was annyoing at the first glance but this brought a lot of fun on grid especially when we started to counter them the same way.
The main problem I see with links on-grid is that this will take away the boost from solo players or very small gangs while it will be another exclusive feature for bigger fleets only which still have the advantage by numbers, logistics and everything you can imagine to pimp a fleet to be awesome. They can field their booster easily on grid beeing repped up while a small gang trying to play with them and skirmish links will definitely lose their booster because it can't stay long at distance on grid or has to jump out when fighting at a gate.
We still have the issue that bigger roaming fleets just can be countered if you bring well skilled and equiped numbers or you need to stay docked and let them pass. With links it's possible to play against them on grid. And to me it makes more sense to boost the weaker ones instead of boosting the stronger setups only at the end. But it seems that CCP wants to see the bigger fleets and blob-fests what might be a problem because everyone who's playing EVE for years knows what kind of players and how many players you finally need in a corp to field a decent bigger gang anytime.
+1 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:57:00 -
[878] - Quote
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that it might be a good idea to make gang links progressively less effective as your fleet size grows, simulating the difficulty in executing command and control over a large organisation.
This would give small gangs meeting a larger one a small advantage that they could use in the face of otherwise overwhelming odds.
I think that's a reasonable idea which would work well with on-grid boosting, particularly with skirmish links. It would go some way to balancing the odds of a smaller fleet, keep boosters on grid where they should be, and still not disincentivise a large fleet from taking gang links.
Anyone agree?
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Sarah Nahrnid
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:56:00 -
[879] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3458485#post3458485] :words:
I understand combat boosts being on grid, but why change mining bonuses? *NOTE* I am not a miner I have before and hated it that said, if people are lazy bastards and don't want to work for a kill then just wow...
Perhaps if any of the Devs mined, they'd know it just about makes you want to kill yourself.
Lets also not forget that some miner made the very ship we all sit in (with certain exceptions to be fair)
Remove Rorq / Orca mining boosts, I doubt miners will be very interested to do their thing or willing to risk their (near) defenceless Rorq/Orca because, lets face it, they're slow, cumbersome and a take a year to align / get up to 3/4 speed
Putting Off Grid (COMBAT) boosts on grid is understandable, but balance Risk vs. Reward.
Why would I want to risk my boosting Legion if the boosts have been nerfed? Seems stupid to me mate.
Though in my opinion, fixing something doesn't mean belting it around with the nerf bat. There hasn't been an issue with boosts before in my opinion and I was in TEST, we struggled to get boosts at the best of times!
I'd personally put combat boosts on grid and leave them as they were.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:58:00 -
[880] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think that's a reasonable idea which would work well with on-grid boosting, particularly with skirmish links. It would go some way to balancing the odds of a smaller fleet, keep boosters on grid where they should be, and still not disincentivise a large fleet from taking gang links.
Anyone agree?
Except that the best boosters are now slow cruisers that move like battleships, sure.
Guess what the high value target is, particularly if everyone is forced onto grid. So while the blob applies webs, points, and painters to you boosts how exactly are you going to save it?
|
|
Elizabeth Aideron
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 14:27:00 -
[881] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3458485#post3458485] :words: I understand combat boosts being on grid, but why change mining bonuses? *NOTE* I am not a miner I have before and hated it that said, if people are lazy bastards and don't want to work for a kill then just wow...
The linked post doesn't mention mining links, they can still be run from within a POS shield.
Quote: Lets also not forget that some miner made the very ship we all sit in (with certain exceptions to be fair)
No they didn't. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
413
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 14:37:00 -
[882] - Quote
Sad to see CCP trying to nerf small gang warfare so hard.
It would make sense to nerf boosts for however much larger a fleet got but damn. People have been complaining in the patch thread that massive blobs greatly benefit from "these boosts" even though we can all see it takes them 30 seconds to lock a target and a half a second to destroy the ship. There comes a point when boosts go from being effective to just being there in the fleet for looks.
As stated earlier in this thread it is rather sad that CCP is taking away all the worth a t3 booster once had. Boosts have never been game changers but when it comes down to a player/small gang taking on more numbers it gives the fleet more confidence in their objective(as leadership should). It's also nice to know you can point 10k farther or be able to tank for a few more seconds when you put yourself in a tight situation. In the end nevertheless, none of the boosts were affecting applied dps so winning the fight came down to the pilot(s). Logi, falcons, and boosts are all the same when it comes to an advantage in a fight. Although "popular" demand suggests boosts to be nerfed one can only wait for the tears when those boosting alts are put into logi's/falcons.
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. After CCP nerfed HM for tengus and now boosts for t3's it leads me to believe that the t3 market will go to crap. They should pat their developers on the back and let them know how wrong they were when they came up with the T3. Obviously you think they failed. |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty. The Cursed Few
3296
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:15:00 -
[883] - Quote
CCP, can we have some sort of confirmation (or denial) that the eventual intention is to move warfare link bonuses to on-grid only? There's some ambiguity here. Mane 614
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
413
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:31:00 -
[884] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:CCP, can we have some sort of confirmation (or denial) that the eventual intention is to move warfare link bonuses to on-grid only? There's some ambiguity here.
+1 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
777
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:44:00 -
[885] - 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. |
Baali Tekitsu
God Bless My Enemies
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:47:00 -
[886] - Quote
Idea to balance gang links: Make them only available to ships who have a "small/med/heavy gang link receiver" fitted, with the fitting requs of a small/med/heavy neut. Power of the gang links received would be 50/75/100%, to compensate this make gang links stronger (a bit) overall.
EDIT They could stay off grid then |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:25:00 -
[887] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: 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.
I'm under the assumption that you are describing a 100mn gang that is easily countered by sensor dampening ships paired with web bonused ships. Killing a ship in eve is easy no matter what boost or mods they have on. You just have to bring the proper counter to fight. Would you bring a bs fleet to fight a 100mn gang? Would you bring Amarr to fight a neut heavy fleet? Would you bring a frigate gang against a destroyer gang? Eve is easy if you use your head. Excuses that someone used boosts to beat you won't get you far in the pvp community.
Now if most understood what the tank bonus actually was then we wouldn't even discuss this part. When you add resists to your ship it takes into account what is not covered. If you have 60% resists that means 40% is not covered. Lets say your boost is applying 40% more resists. 40(not covered) x .4(your boost) is 16%. Your resist will now be 76%. If we did it your way(60% * .4) then the resists would be 84%. Huge EHP difference between 76% and 84%. In the grand scheme of things this all narrows down to 2,000-5,000 more damage taken on a killmail.
Veshta Yoshida wrote: 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).
When someone loses to a ship they believed to be inferior their first reaction tends to be "how?" A lot of the blame falls under the assumption that a person only beat them because they had boosts. I have yet to hear a valid response to this statement over the years.
If boosts were so good how come entities during the alliance tournament don't use them every match? If they were effective how come they don't win every match when using them? History has shown that they don't make a difference as many would like you to think. Boosts don't win fights.
Veshta Yoshida wrote: 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.
I'm getting the impression that you are talking in a blob sense. Boosters are the most effective in a small gang/solo scenario. Who cares how much you tank when you have 10 people shooting you? Who cares if you can point farther when the enemy fleet has more tacklers than you have mods on your ship. People that use boosters apply them against small gangs where a logi or falcon would also be extremely effective. If anything the top 50 pilots on the killboards that I have flown with just use them for point range. You know why? Because people bite off more they than can chew and try to run away. Longer point prevents that :) |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:41:00 -
[888] - Quote
blah blah blah all hypothetical
at the end of the day you are still 35%+ better by the use of something that is not commited to the fight at all
Get used to the fact that OGB's are getting phased out Not today spaghetti. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:29:00 -
[889] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:blah blah blah all hypothetical
at the end of the day you are still 35%+ better by the use of something that is not commited to the fight at all
Get used to the fact that OGB's are getting phased out
CCP shouldn't have to phase out 12 million skill points |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:47:00 -
[890] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:blah blah blah all hypothetical
at the end of the day you are still 35%+ better by the use of something that is not commited to the fight at all
Get used to the fact that OGB's are getting phased out
Exactly why the toon I was training for a booster alt went full stop like 6 months ago, fortunately before I got to anything expensive. On grid boosting just means that boosting is going to only be availble to the blob.
Would you put 2bil in T3 and a commandship booster with a 500ish mil in ship and AND a billion in clone on grid against better numbers dual boxing?
...I wouldn't
Its no nevermind to me. |
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:51:00 -
[891] - Quote
Onictus wrote:On grid boosting just means that boosting is going to only be availble to the blob.
Exactly. CCP only wants boosts on grid for blobs.
CCP does not want solo/small gangs to be viable |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:54:00 -
[892] - Quote
Presidente Gallente wrote:....
The main problem I see with links on-grid is that this will take away the boost from solo players or very small gangs while it will be another exclusive feature for bigger fleets only which still have the advantage by numbers, logistics and everything you can imagine to pimp a fleet to be awesome. They can field their booster easily on grid beeing repped up while a small gang trying to play with them and skirmish links will definitely lose their booster because it can't stay long at distance on grid or has to jump out when fighting at a gate.
We still have the issue that bigger roaming fleets just can be countered if you bring well skilled and equiped numbers or you need to stay docked and let them pass. With links it's possible to play against them on grid. And to me it makes more sense to boost the weaker ones instead of boosting the stronger setups only at the end. But it seems that CCP wants to see the bigger fleets and blob-fests what might be a problem because everyone who's playing EVE for years knows what kind of players and how many players you finally need in a corp to field a decent bigger gang anytime.
Two issues with this. One, if you're using off-grid boosts you're no more "going solo" than the guy dual-boxing Sentry Domis in top belt is.
Second, there's still nothing stopping you from harassing smaller fleets without boosts. They are by no means required to give a larger fleet headaches as long s they're made up of less skilled pilots. If they're as good as you are then the boosts aren't likely to have helped anyway.
Sarah Nahrnid wrote: I understand combat boosts being on grid, but why change mining bonuses?
Read the patch notes, Mining Boosts can still be used from inside a POS you just can't active your shield link. They're not touching mining bonuses until they do a balance pass on Mining boost ships to make bringing them on grid less of an ulcer inducing experience.
Zeus Maximo wrote:Sad to see CCP trying to nerf small gang warfare so hard.
It would make sense to nerf boosts for however much larger a fleet got but damn. People have been complaining in the patch thread that massive blobs greatly benefit from "these boosts" even though we can all see it takes them 30 seconds to lock a target and a half a second to destroy the ship. There comes a point when boosts go from being effective to just being there in the fleet for looks.
As stated earlier in this thread it is rather sad that CCP is taking away all the worth a t3 booster once had. .....
No, they are taking away precisely 1/3rd of the effective value of T3 boosters. The new max values for boosts with Command Ships are, except in cases where links have been rebalanced, equal to the old levels and since T3s get a 2% boost compared to the 3% boost from Command Ships they are 1/3rd less effective.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:CCP, can we have some sort of confirmation (or denial) that the eventual intention is to move warfare link bonuses to on-grid only? There's some ambiguity here.
This not in the least bit ambiguous per this post earlier in this thread that I've linked more times than I can remember now.
Zeus Maximo wrote: CCP shouldn't have to phase out 12 million skill points
Because having your out of corp boosts on-grid for high-sec wars is going to be oh so risky...
Seriously, they haven't phased anything out, they're just adding some risk to it. You know, risk, that thing that gets brought up (quite rightly so) every time someone tries to make High Sec completely safe. OGBs are at almost no risk. There aren't any significant trade-offs involved, it's just "do you have them or don't you?".
From Fozzie's post (linked above) links being redundant should make Command Ships and T3s with a couple links extremely viable as part of a small fleet comp. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:19:00 -
[893] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Because having your out of corp boosts on-grid for high-sec wars is going to be oh so risky...
Seriously, they haven't phased anything out, they're just adding some risk to it. You know, risk, that thing that gets brought up (quite rightly so) every time someone tries to make High Sec completely safe. OGBs are at almost no risk. There aren't any significant trade-offs involved, it's just "do you have them or don't you?".
From Fozzie's post (linked above) links being redundant should make Command Ships and T3s with a couple links extremely viable as part of a small fleet comp.
Who said I'm only talking about high sec wars? That makes most of your post irrelevant and off topic.
What if Im wanting to bust a gate camp in low and I need that extra speed boost to better cope with their tacklers. If I aggress and Fozzies changes go into effect, booster gets aggro timer(also on grid), then those sentry guns are gonna love my booster. 5,000 EHP isn't very much......
Risky enough to fly a loki booster: 12 mil skill points for 3 gang links 5000 EHP can only perma run AB since gang link are so cap reliant cant run gang links while cloaked defensive sub is for boosts due to command processors there is no power for guns no drone bay 600+ mil ship expensive clone for probing/sig radius
I'm sorry that in order for me to take on a 5 person gate camp I sometimes use a ship that costs more than their fleet and potentially has more skill points in leadership than they have trained individually. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:13:00 -
[894] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: Who said I'm only talking about high sec wars? That makes most of your post irrelevant and off topic.
What if Im wanting to bust a gate camp in low and I need that extra speed boost to better cope with their tacklers. If I aggress and Fozzies changes go into effect, booster gets aggro timer(also on grid), then those sentry guns are gonna love my booster. 5,000 EHP isn't very much......
This is not what Fozzie is talking about at all. You would not get PvP flagged or suspect flagged for activating gang links. What Fozzie's idea, which is not being implemented in 1.1, is that Links would trigger a 60 second weapons timer, preventing you from jumping through a gate or docking for 60 seconds.
This would not in any way trigger a combat or criminal flag.
Someone suggested that boosting someone with a combat flag should pass that along but Fozzie pointed out that this was unfeasible due to the load it would put on the server with even moderately sized fleets.
If you are jumping your boosts into a gate-camp I would be far more concerned with them being alpha'd off the field by said camp if you only put 5k EHP of tank on them.
Zeus Maximo wrote: Risky enough to fly a loki booster: 12 mil skill points for 3 gang links 5000 EHP can only perma run AB since gang link are so cap reliant cant run gang links while cloaked defensive sub is for boosts due to command processors there is no power for guns no drone bay 600+ mil ship expensive clone for probing/sig radius
I'm sorry that in order for me to take on a 5 person gate camp I sometimes use a ship that costs more than their fleet and potentially has more skill points in leadership than they have trained individually.
Congrats, sometimes I actually risk a ship worth that much using a character with over 6 times that SP total!
You could also probably actually bring a second ship on-grid and take out the camp rather easily without any boosts at all. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:44:00 -
[895] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
This is not what Fozzie is talking about at all. You would not get PvP flagged or suspect flagged for activating gang links. What Fozzie's idea, which is not being implemented in 1.1, is that Links would trigger a 60 second weapons timer, preventing you from jumping through a gate or docking for 60 seconds.
This would not in any way trigger a combat or criminal flag.
Someone suggested that boosting someone with a combat flag should pass that along but Fozzie pointed out that this was unfeasible due to the load it would put on the server with even moderately sized fleets.
If you are jumping your boosts into a gate-camp I would be far more concerned with them being alpha'd off the field by said camp if you only put 5k EHP of tank on them.
I'm glad this was cleared up. Still can't find the server load part but it's nice to see some logic there. Much appreciated
Cade Windstalker wrote:Congrats, sometimes I actually risk a ship worth that much using a character with over 6 times that SP total! You could also probably actually bring a second ship on-grid and take out the camp rather easily without any boosts at all.
I don't know what you're proud about? I was simply stating that my booster indirectly helps me out while being harmless to the entire system. I'd rather just have me on the killmail.... |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
687
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:58:00 -
[896] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:CCP, can we have some sort of confirmation (or denial) that the eventual intention is to move warfare link bonuses to on-grid only? There's some ambiguity here. +1 Already provided earlier in the thread. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 21:20:00 -
[897] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I'm glad this was cleared up. Still can't find the server load part but it's nice to see some logic there. Much appreciated
I didn't save that post and I don't feel like digging it up at the moment. I believe it's in this thread but it might be in another one where Fozzie posted.
The basic gyst of the issue is that you'd have to be running checks against the criminal and aggression status of every member of the fleet in order for that to work which if you've got a 255 man fleet with ~31 people passing boosts around at the very least you'd get a massive lag spike as soon as someone flipped an aggression timer if not just a flat lag increase to large fleet fights in general.
Zeus Maximo wrote:I don't know what you're proud about? I was simply stating that my booster indirectly helps me out while being harmless to the entire system. I'd rather just have me on the killmail....
Your booster is giving you very direct assistance. More so than someone bumping a ship to prevent it's warp or a neutral party sending back intel. Command Boosts aren't significantly different in this respect than remote repair or remote sensor or tracking boosts.
Also, again, any smart fleet is going to alpha that ship off the grid instantly.
Honestly if it were up to me I'd make it so you can't provide boosts to war targets unless you're in their corp but that would screw with too many other things and probably get in the way of revamping the war-dec mechanics as a whole. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1193
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 22:01:00 -
[898] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:
Risky enough to fly a loki booster: 12 mil skill points for 3 gang links 5000 EHP can only perma run AB since gang link are so cap reliant cant run gang links while cloaked defensive sub is for boosts due to command processors there is no power for guns no drone bay 600+ mil ship expensive clone for probing/sig radius
I'm sorry that in order for me to take on a 5 person gate camp I sometimes use a ship that costs more than their fleet and potentially has more skill points in leadership than they have trained individually.
Sounds like a fitting and ship selection problem, to me. Maybe you should try something with some actual tank to do your boosting. I hear they make these things called Command Ships that can fit links and have a decent tank at the same time. They appear to be cheaper than your gimmick fit Loki, too. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:13:00 -
[899] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Zeus Maximo wrote:
Risky enough to fly a loki booster: 12 mil skill points for 3 gang links 5000 EHP can only perma run AB since gang link are so cap reliant cant run gang links while cloaked defensive sub is for boosts due to command processors there is no power for guns no drone bay 600+ mil ship expensive clone for probing/sig radius
I'm sorry that in order for me to take on a 5 person gate camp I sometimes use a ship that costs more than their fleet and potentially has more skill points in leadership than they have trained individually.
Sounds like a fitting and ship selection problem, to me. Maybe you should try something with some actual tank to do your boosting. I hear they make these things called Command Ships that can fit links and have a decent tank at the same time. They appear to be cheaper than your gimmick fit Loki, too.
The day they let Command ships warp through bubbles is the day I'll start using them. T3 Boosters are much more than boosters. Having probes aboard also helps me find other peoples boosters/pounces. Hard to replace a cloak.
Cloaky scout is best scout. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
250
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:22:00 -
[900] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: The day they let Command ships warp through bubbles is the day I'll start using them. T3 Boosters are much more than boosters. Having probes aboard also helps me find other peoples boosters/pounces. Hard to replace a cloak.
Cloaky scout is best scout.
What you are describing is a very reasonable tradeoff, of the kind ccp are correctly seeking to promote.
You have chosen to forego maximised and multiple bonuses in return for the ability to evade warp disruption plus the ability to cloak and scan.
I would wager that you would make this trade even if the T3 did not offer gang link bonuses at all because of the very high utility value of the cloak, probes and interdiction nullifier.
This is an example of using the T3's versatility in a way that does not make it OP.
I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:31:00 -
[901] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
I don't think I'd say that. Because of the way the bonuses stack they're a full 1/3rd lower than the Command Ships at maxed level which is pretty significant. Especially given the "must maximize output" tendencies of Eve decision making.
Everything else about the T3 vs Command Ship trade-offs is spot on though. Love your posts in general, very level headed and logical :) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
251
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:36:00 -
[902] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
I don't think I'd say that. Because of the way the bonuses stack they're a full 1/3rd lower than the Command Ships at maxed level which is pretty significant. Especially given the "must maximize output" tendencies of Eve decision making. Everything else about the T3 vs Command Ship trade-offs is spot on though. Love your posts in general, very level headed and logical :)
Aww [blush] A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:51:00 -
[903] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Mournful Conciousness] I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
I wouldnt say on the high side considering how long it takes to train for max t3 skills along with the millions of skill points in leadership.
Logically Command ships should be more commanding since they literally have command in their name. They are meant to give a morale like boost to a fleet like any leader. The part I still struggle with is ,figuratively speaking, why put a commander on the front lines with his troops? I understand the squad commander but the fleet or wing commander? The last time we put people of that importance up front was medieval days.... If ever.
I guess another thing Im struggling with is the actual purpose of a t3. Is its ultimate purpose to not be good at one thing but decent at everything? Kind of like a Decathlete?
Why make boosts this much weaker considering they are one of the hardest things in the game to specialize? Should there not be a bonus for accomplishing such a task that only a handful of ships can properly handle?
I'm going back to the outer level of this conversation to get the foundation again..... Kind of got off the path.
---will have to agree. You are easy to communicate with. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 00:30:00 -
[904] - Quote
The point of bringing command ships on-grid is that you should be risking something for such useful boosts. At present an off-grid booster risks relatively little, especially if baby-sat correctly.
Skill-Point requirements and ship cost are barriers to entry, they are not the primary metrics of a ships power. That line of thinking got us AOE doomsday Titans and we all saw how that went. Hell, it's still being cleaned up after.
If the only thing your T3 pilot is good for is boosting in your eyes then well, you've already outlined the trade-offs that make that worth using for you, even in light of the nerf. You've also gotten a good year+ out of that T3 boosting pilot and with everyone being fairly sure this was going to change since at least Winter if not before.
What's going to happen to T3s in the future I honestly don't know, we'll have to see. The fact that they're at the end of Ytterbium's balance list says that CCP are going to take a lot of time to figure out where they fit into things and balance them against the state of the game at that point. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 00:45:00 -
[905] - Quote
I'd have to disagree about your reasoning regarding wing/fleet commanders. Given even land armies typically have a General in the field with them commanding. And certainly have company commanders.
When you go to Naval however which is the actual closest analogy to EVE, the Fleet Commander is right out there in the middle of the fleet. Where it changes however is that in EVE, you can't control an area of space in quite the same way as you can on the sea. In part due to flight controls, in part due to probe mechanics and in part due to the lack of LoS effects, meaning that you can hit the 'fleet booster' right off the gate.
Of course, they are also discussing changing boosts before they come on grid, making it much more likely boosters will not have to have the assigned positions like they currently do and will instead work in some other fashion on every fleeted member on the field. |
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
222
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 01:53:00 -
[906] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:
I'm under the assumption that you are describing a 100mn gang that is easily countered by sensor dampening ships paired with web bonused ships. Killing a ship in eve is easy no matter what boost or mods they have on. You just have to bring the proper counter to fight. Would you bring a bs fleet to fight a 100mn gang? Would you bring Amarr to fight a neut heavy fleet? Would you bring a frigate gang against a destroyer gang? Eve is easy if you use your head. Excuses that someone used boosts to beat you won't get you far in the pvp community.
Have you ever fought solo against a dual damp kiting Hookbill/Condor? Now have you ever done it with a Loki boosted one? I assure you that it's not simply bringing the proper counter to the fight, there is no fight. Literally the only way to deal with it is to have a clone with more speed implants and an even faster Loki boosted ship that can actually get in range to first of all lock, then apply tackle.
Zeus Maximo wrote: Now if most understood what the tank bonus actually was then we wouldn't even discuss this part. When you add resists to your ship it takes into account what is not covered. If you have 60% resists that means 40% is not covered. Lets say your boost is applying 40% more resists. 40(not covered) x .4(your boost) is 16%. Your resist will now be 76%. If we did it your way(60% * .4) then the resists would be 84%. Huge EHP difference between 76% and 84%. In the grand scheme of things this all narrows down to 2,000-5,000 more damage taken on a killmail.
So first up, lets take the mindlink into account. 15% more (shield/armour) HP, giving 15% more EHP there. Now for the resist mod. I'll admit this is before stacking penalties, so the amount isn't as large. But at current a T3 gives 35% higher resists. 35% higher resists means you're taking 35% less damage. So now you divide your EHP by 1-0.35.
This increases EHP by approximately 53%. That's like having a Slave set, by the way. Now you put that together with the mindlink bonus and you have 1*1.15*1.53=76.9% more EHP.
In all fairness the resists are stacking penalized, but I just wanted to point out how big of a difference that actually is. Buy a Merlin. Do it. Fit it up. Now fit up another one, exactly the same. Now have one of them have a perfect Siege booster, and the other nothing. Now what happens? The one with ~77% more EHP wins hands down.
I'd have no problem with this if it were an isolated incident. But it's to the point that half the fights go like this. Hell, even I use and abuse this ****, I have a perfect Damnation booster (I was training the leadership for a while, then when it came time to pick a ship to train I saw the dev blog announcing changes back in winter and picked CS... took a little longer than they said it would) that I use relatively frequently. Also worth noting is the reduction in duration of repper modules also increases the EHP/s repaired by them, which is also amplified by the higher resists granting more EHP for each actual hitpoint repaired. My armour tanking ships are tanking more than twice as strong as an unboosted one. I feel dirty using them in solo PvP.
Zeus Maximo wrote: When someone loses to a ship they believed to be inferior their first reaction tends to be "how?" A lot of the blame falls under the assumption that a person only beat them because they had boosts. I have yet to hear a valid response to this statement over the years.
If boosts were so good how come entities during the alliance tournament don't use them every match? If they were effective how come they don't win every match when using them? History has shown that they don't make a difference as many would like you to think. Boosts don't win fights.
So many people accuse CCP of using AT to balance... this guy's explaining why AT shows that links are balanced.
Zeus Maximo wrote: I'm getting the impression that you are talking in a blob sense. Boosters are the most effective in a small gang/solo scenario. Who cares how much you tank when you have 10 people shooting you? Who cares if you can point farther when the enemy fleet has more tacklers than you have mods on your ship. People that use boosters apply them against small gangs where a logi or falcon would also be extremely effective. If anything the top 50 pilots on the killboards that I have flown with just use them for point range. You know why? Because people bite off more they than can chew and try to run away. Longer point prevents that :)
What...?
In essence an OGB gives a free module/rig/slot to each and every ship it's boosting. If it's boosting 250 ships, it's giving (assuming 3 links) 250 ships 3 free modules/slots/etc. (in the case of webs, points and props with Loki, it's like giving everyone free faction mods). All this for one ship/toon that between the two probably costs less than the combined cost of all the "mods" it's giving people.
Also, I care if I can point farther when the enemy fleet has more tacklers than I have mods. If I can point/web farther than them I can slow down any tacklers that run the risk of getting close (you know, because I'm outrunning everything thanks to Loki boosts, so I only care about things in my potential paths) before they can apply tackle to me and kill them before they become a threat. Eventually if I get sloppy they might catch me, but I'll certainly take a lot out with me if I'm even semi-competent.
Of course, if my enemies were semi-competent, they'd have their own boosts. It's not like it's hard to get the alts. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:21:00 -
[907] - Quote
In a perfect world logi's, falcon's, maulus's, and t3 booster's would be seen as a game changer to most if we all went off paper statistics. BUT, news flash, we are in eve and no two situations will ever be the same. When people test major changes in real life they do sample groups or run advanced computer simulators to predict future results. The beauty of eve is that there are so many different factors involved in a fight that a guaranteed way to win isn't feasible.
Factors of a fight: who fires first velocity transversal mwd/ab boosts sig radius scan res logi ecm skills damage type used cap available sentry guns skill points Player Skill Intelligence
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. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:32:00 -
[908] - 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.
Boosts are not the end-all be-all of the game, this is true, however I disagree with your conclusion that there is "no reason to touch them"
There have been a number of reasons to bring boosts on-grid presented by the player base and CCP, and CCP have stated their intent to bring boosts on-grid. If you disagree with these reasons then by all means find an argument against those reasons. Don't just respond with "boosts are fine, leave mine alone". |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 04:29:00 -
[909] - 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.
Can you please explain what is wrong with mining boost from a pos?
I don't think you will find anyone crazy enough to deploy a rorq on grid. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 04:39:00 -
[910] - Quote
Harry Juana wrote: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. Can you please explain what is wrong with mining boost from a pos? I don't think you will find anyone crazy enough to deploy a rorq on grid.
Unless they balance the Roqual so that it's either survivable enough, cheap enough, or gives a big enough bonus to make that worth it...
Or hell, maybe all three? |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
779
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 07:35:00 -
[911] - 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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
253
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 08:51:00 -
[912] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: I guess another thing Im struggling with is the actual purpose of a t3. Is its ultimate purpose to not be good at one thing but decent at everything? Kind of like a Decathlete?
Why make boosts this much weaker considering they are one of the hardest things in the game to specialize? Should there not be a bonus for accomplishing such a task that only a handful of ships can properly handle?
I think I agree that a T3 should be like a decathlete, able to do every job but not as well as a specialised ship. This was probably the original intention, although I would find it very understandable if the devs wanted to give them 'something extra' to make them desirable at the time of inception.
This was at the same time as wormholes I think? They were a new thing at the time and there was no way to know whether players would make the effort to explore wormholes and build T3s. One tempting way to ensure that was to give them oversized bonuses.
This is something I understand very well, having spent the first 10 years of my career designing video and gambling games. You always want to introduce something awesome, but over time you realise that less is more. I think the devs unwittingly broke the game with 10%/level repair bonuses, armour amounts, power grid and damage application. Particularly when they all stacked together on the same ship!
As has been mentioned, 5% per level gang link bonuses on T3 actually translates to 5% per level per link (often 3) times the number of ships in fleet. That's such an outrageously high level of effectiveness. Out of line even with the other OP bonuses on a T3.
Another major flaw with T3s (in my view) was not being able to reconfigure them in a POS. Of course at the time, no-one would have predicted that people would set up home in wormholes. The Eve devs were, by all accounts, fascinated and shocked that people would do such a thing.
I think the right place for the T3 is as an advanced multi-role combat ship, able to be reconfigured at a battlefield outpost (POS) in order to bring the right abilities to the field quickly, but not quite as effectively as the real deal. They would still be heavily used because of the convenience, but they would be outclassed by a perfectly crafted specialist fleet. This would give both classes of ship a sensible place in the game. In order to properly take advantage of this, CCP might also be so kind as to allow T3s to decommission rigs without destroying them, or perhaps craft the bonuses in such a way that rigs are not necessary or possible on them.
I think that would make them perfect.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 10:31:00 -
[913] - Quote
The Problem with links is that they are Overpowered, but only at the moment, no one knows what CCP is doing with these links, besides the fact that they want them to bring it on the grid.
As long we dont know the facts and the future plans, repeating over and over to remove them for "Free" SP is kinda pointless. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 13:42:00 -
[914] - Quote
Dug up the flow chart from when this whole ship rebalancing thing began:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
T2 Mindlinks need to give a slightly higher bonus to 1 discipline than Navy IMO.
Not going to happen in 1.1 but maybe down the road.
Not today spaghetti. |
Kuklinski
Broken Wheel Mercantile and Trading Company Illusion of Solitude
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 14:00:00 -
[915] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I'm doing it for everyone else's sake to be honest. I can always put my booster in a guardian or falcon. You see these changes come about because it's the sore losers that make the loudest complainers. If they didn't die so much then they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Just wait, after boosts get nerfed people will be calling for logi and falcon nerfs again.
+1...especially the last line
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 15:59:00 -
[916] - Quote
@Mournful Conciousness
I do see where your coming from because that ship does project that 5% per level to everyone in the fleet. However, everybody and their mom has access to these skills so it would only make sense for them to train leadership too if that is what their fleet is lacking. This is almost like a fleet complaining that they can't remotely repair their ships like everyone else. Well damn, train up remote repair and logistics. I believe the main reason why boosters are being singled out is because people don't want to wait for 12 million skill points in their que to be completed.
If CCP made leadership x1 skills then we would see a booster in every single fleet.
When on the topic of skill training you then begin to see why titan pilots don't want jump bridges to be nerfed. Why train an entire year for something so special that can be taken away so easily? All it takes is a bunch of 20-30 mil skill pilots spamming the forms saying "this isn't fair". Eve is about wealth and power if you really want to get somewhere. I'll admit, instead of training characters I just buy a new one. Making isk is what I'm good. You look at most of the things people are good at that complain? It boils down to losing ships and complaining.
This is like a CEO choosing an interns opinion over a 30 year vet.
@Veshta Yoshida
Fitting faction and deadspace does not all of a sudden make someone good. Garmon is a great example when it comes to the best fittings mods, ships, and boosts in the game. Look at his killboard, he still died a lot..... Nobody is perfect in Eve because nobody is perfect in life. No two scenario's can ever be repeated so it is flawed logic to nerf something that hasn't been proven to be unbalanced. Proving that something looks good on paper is not a reason to make it an outcast. Everyday underdogs prove that statistics are just that, compiled information that are easier to read. In relation to Mournful on this I too deal with gambling and racing for a living. Statistics can say all day that a specific horse will win but the realistic people know that isn't always the case. The "fastest horse on paper" doesn't always win.
@Everyone else
Boosts are not overpowered; they are extremely specialized skills that CCP made available to us. If you also crave boosts then do what everyone else did that has them. Train up 12 million+ skill points or pay 10 billion isk for a new toon along with another account subscription! Welcome to eve where only the rich, powerful, and the intelligent prevail. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:22:00 -
[917] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:@Mournful Conciousness
I do see where your coming from because that ship does project that 5% per level to everyone in the fleet. However, everybody and their mom has access to these skills so it would only make sense for them to train leadership too if that is what their fleet is lacking. This is almost like a fleet complaining that they can't remotely repair their ships like everyone else. Well damn, train up remote repair and logistics. I believe the main reason why boosters are being singled out is because people don't want to wait for 12 million skill points in their que to be completed.
......
@Everyone else
Boosts are not overpowered; they are extremely specialized skills that CCP made available to us. If you also crave boosts then do what everyone else did that has them. Train up 12 million+ skill points or pay 10 billion isk for a new toon along with another account subscription! Welcome to eve where only the rich, powerful, and the intelligent prevail.
No one is claiming that boosts are inherently over-powered, especially not CCP.
But the risk/reward for off-grid boosts is extremely out of proportion right now, hence why boosts are being pushed out of the POS now, and on-grid eventually and other changes are being considered to make bringing boosts to a fight involve actually risking something as opposed to just having them sitting in a safe-spot and assuming everyone has them.
Assuming everyone has boosts is a stupid assumption, not everyone has the real or in-game money to buy a boosting alt or the ability to support or run the second account. Some of us actually want to be able to fly command ships and boost on our main while participating in fights |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:50:00 -
[918] - Quote
I do understand the idea of bringing boosts on-grid so they can "see what is going on". But, that still doesn't explain why they are nerfing the links all together.
A few pages back a gentlemen explained that a good FC would alpha the booster off the field ASAP. Boosts don't really make a difference during a blob fest but they help magnify a good players skills to be 1 step ahead. If you have been following since yesterday on what I have been saying then you will also notice that many other ships in this game can provide that 1 step ahead too.
I can settle for boosts being moved on-grid
Anyways my original point on this topic still stands. Boosts should be left alone when it comes to their bonus %'s. If they are put on grid, in their current fragile EHP state, that is enough risk vs reward.
Possible idea: Switch the command subsystem from defensive to offensive. This way booster t3's can't cloak but can fit better defensive mods. Better defense would allow them on grid :) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:08:00 -
[919] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:@Mournful Conciousness
I do see where your coming from because that ship does project that 5% per level to everyone in the fleet. However, everybody and their mom has access to these skills so it would only make sense for them to train leadership too if that is what their fleet is lacking. This is almost like a fleet complaining that they can't remotely repair their ships like everyone else. Well damn, train up remote repair and logistics. I believe the main reason why boosters are being singled out is because people don't want to wait for 12 million skill points in their que to be completed.
I think CCP is primarily concerned with ensuring that the various ships built for given roles are actually used, and not obsolete.
Command ships were being obsoleted by T3s which was clearly wrong (we've mentioned this before), so CCP wanted to redress that. There are now reasons you'd choose a command ship over a T3 which once again makes them viable. I'm not saying that they are reasons you'd *always* choose a command ship over a T3, but at least now they seem (at least on paper, and on sisi) to have a battlefield role.
The 6-link lolfit booster ships were I am sure, also of concern to ccp because they are, let's face it, lolfits. Good for nothing except sitting in a safe spot or a POS. Whether these are lokis, tengus, claymores, feroxes or cyclone 6-link lolfits (which I admit I do use), they are actually bordering on pay-to-win because they cost a redundant subscription to use. In fact, I'm going to come out and say it - they are actually pay-to-win. GBP15 a month buys you 30% harder shields, better logistics and skirmish superiority. If CCP marketed this as a pay-for implant there would be a f*cking riot, and rightly so!
When on-grid boosting hits, there are going to be hurdles and things will be different (for me too!). New doctrines will be developed to cope though, and we'll get through it.
Whatever the difficulty though, I will be happier, because one more brick in the pay-to-win wall will have been removed. I won't feel that Goody Twoshoes Virpio's huge investment in command will have been wasted - I'll still use him as a fleet booster when circumstances dictate. May main (this character) will remain specialised in DPS and brawling. He'll never boost a fleet, but he'll certainly lead one. A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:26:00 -
[920] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I do understand the idea of bringing boosts on-grid so they can "see what is going on". But, that still doesn't explain why they are nerfing the links all together.
A few pages back a gentlemen explained that a good FC would alpha the booster off the field ASAP. Boosts don't really make a difference during a blob fest but they help magnify a good players skills to be 1 step ahead. If you have been following since yesterday on what I have been saying then you will also notice that many other ships in this game can provide that 1 step ahead too.
I can settle for boosts being moved on-grid
Anyways my original point on this topic still stands. Boosts should be left alone when it comes to their bonus %'s. If they are put on grid, in their current fragile EHP state, that is enough risk vs reward.
Possible idea: Switch the command subsystem from defensive to offensive. This way booster t3's can't cloak but can fit better defensive mods. Better defense would allow them on grid :)
I direct your attention to this post by CCP Fozzie on their plans for moving Command Ships on-grid.
He's essentially talking about distributed boosts, where you have to lose all your ships with a given link in order for that bonus to disappear, rather than having things relegated to one booster for fleet, wing, and squad.
This means that in any fleet where you have or are facing enough DPS to alpha the boosting ship off the field you also have enough pilots to bring multiple redundant boosting ships. Since these tend to be tankier and harder to hit than most battleships there's a decent chance that unless you possess absolutely overwhelming firepower you're going to kill one boosting ship for every two DPS ships you could have killed, either by splitting your Alpha or DPSing through their weaker tank faster.
In smaller fleets the same trade-off applies since the Command Ship is likely to be the tankiest ship on grid if you go for it as your primary then you had better be 100% sure it's worth it since the Logi are going to have an easier time keeping it up and it'll take longer to burn through even if there are no logi pilots.
Beyond that we've all agreed that T3s need a second look but I don't think you're going to get your way on the boost %s. Maybe when T3s get overhauled and boosts are moved on-grid they'll get buffed to have an easier time fitting more links.
Beyond that, pretty much everything Mournful Conciousness said. |
|
Jack Jab
Void.Tech FreiTek Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:39:00 -
[921] - Quote
Is there any compensation for people already using mind links? I find it would be fair to have some bonus added to the existing mind links so that the 1.4B I paid for mining mindlink couple months back, wont be for nothing.
Just placing a relatively fixed price that low, and then having everything on par sounds unfair for people already owning them. |
Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:56:00 -
[922] - Quote
Jack Jab wrote:Is there any compensation for people already using mind links? I find it would be fair to have some bonus added to the existing mind links so that the 1.4B I paid for mining mindlink couple months back, wont be for nothing.
Just placing a relatively fixed price that low, and then having everything on par sounds unfair for people already owning them. Well, didn't you use it for the last months when the other guys couldn't buy it? So you already have your compensation there... |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 21:40:00 -
[923] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Harry Juana wrote: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. Can you please explain what is wrong with mining boost from a pos? I don't think you will find anyone crazy enough to deploy a rorq on grid. Unless they balance the Roqual so that it's either survivable enough, cheap enough, or gives a big enough bonus to make that worth it... Or hell, maybe all three?
Will the rorq be able to tank 30 to 50 man (blops) gangs? Will it get some sort of a weapon like a doomsday to blow them up? And what am I supposed to do with my rorq on grid, even if it is cloaked, and a hot dropper decides to cloaky camp my system? let it die? stay on 24/7 untill the camper gets bored?
Will cloaking get nerferd, ehh rebalanced? After the blops rebalancing ppl get hot dropped every day without virtually nothing to counter the droppers as they cloak up and cyno out. You call this rebalancing ccp? Should we not at least get a fair chance to blow them up as well? Sure we can bait them but a good cyno will smell a trap xx jumps away.
I thought ccp had the intention to make mining in null sec more profitable and attractive to new players, seems they lied. Prices of megacyte and zydrine have never been this low for as far as I can remember. Low sec ores like hedbergite and hemorphite are still more profitable to mine than ABC-M. With rats still in the clusters (former hidden belts) I can not anti-gank fit my hulk and can get blown up by the first ganker that flies by. And even when I manage to warp out they probablyl will blow up my cans because they are upset that I got away. And now you want me to risk my rorq too?
Heck, i don't want to mine anymore already, which means I can close the accounts for my rorq and my mining alt. But I am sure ccp does not care about getting 30 of my euros less monthly either. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 21:53:00 -
[924] - Quote
I think your concerns about the rorqual are valid, but bear in mind that ccp have no intention of disabling off-grid mining boosts, at least for now.
I'd personally like to see a world where it was possible to mine with on-grid bonuses, but I think before that could possibly happen there would need to be a long hard look at cyno, covert cyno and bridging mechanics.
They currently all make it far too easy to bring an overwhelming fleet with almost no warning or possibility of escape.
Ironically, the only place I can see that a rorqual can be used on grid with a degree of certainty that it will come home is in a wormhole system (with appropriate scouts etc) since cynos and bridges do not happen there.
It saddens me a little that the most use we ever gave our rorqual was salvaging C5 sleeper wrecks while the dreadnoughts were creating them. It was ludicrous! We also used it in pvp a little (the owner was a little nuts... )
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 23:01:00 -
[925] - Quote
Jack Jab wrote:Is there any compensation for people already using mind links? I find it would be fair to have some bonus added to the existing mind links so that the 1.4B I paid for mining mindlink couple months back, wont be for nothing.
Just placing a relatively fixed price that low, and then having everything on par sounds unfair for people already owning them.
Such is Eve.
I just finished Marauders to 3 but I'm not going to start whining about getting my training back if the Marauder changes go in a direction I don't like.
As someone else pointed out, you've had that mining link for a month more than everyone else. Maybe it was worth it and maybe it wasn't but that's not really CCP's problem. If you couldn't afford it you wouldn't have bought it.
Harry Juana wrote:Will the rorq be able to tank 30 to 50 man (blops) gangs? Will it get some sort of a weapon like a doomsday to blow them up? And what am I supposed to do with my rorq on grid, even if it is cloaked, and a hot dropper decides to cloaky camp my system? let it die? stay on 24/7 untill the camper gets bored?
Will cloaking get nerfed, ehh rebalanced? After the blops rebalancing ppl get hot dropped every day without virtually nothing to counter the droppers as they cloak up and cyno out. You call this rebalancing ccp? Should we not at least get a fair chance to blow them up as well? Sure we can bait them but a good cyno will smell a trap xx jumps away.
I thought ccp had the intention to make mining in null sec more profitable and attractive to new players, seems they lied. Prices of megacyte and zydrine have never been this low for as far as I can remember. Low sec ores like hedbergite and hemorphite are still more profitable to mine than ABC-M. With rats still in the clusters (former hidden belts) I can not anti-gank fit my hulk and can get blown up by the first ganker that flies by. And even when I manage to warp out they probably will blow up my cans because they are upset that I got away. And now you want me to risk my rorq too? Where is the risk vs. reward in this? And how is this balanced?
Heck, i don't want to mine anymore already, which means I can close the accounts for my rorq and my mining alt. But I am sure ccp does not care about getting 30 of my euros less monthly either.
So, one you seem to be just a bit paranoid about covert-ops ships.
Cloaking is an ongoing discussion, this is not the thread for it.
Going back to your first points in no particular order:
- I doubt it will ever be able to tank enough that it's not gankable, that's not the point.
- I do suspect though that CCP will find a risk/reward balance that they feel is appropriate for it though. Whether or not this will mean you solo-boosting with your Rorqual is a good idea or not is another thing entirely. As a gang-boosting ship it's not really intended to be risk efficient for boosting a single miner.
|
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:19:00 -
[926] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think your concerns about the rorqual are valid, but bear in mind that ccp have no intention of disabling off-grid mining boosts, at least for now. I'd personally like to see a world where it was possible to mine with on-grid bonuses, but I think before that could possibly happen there would need to be a long hard look at cyno, covert cyno and bridging mechanics. They currently all make it far too easy to bring an overwhelming fleet with almost no warning or possibility of escape. Ironically, the only place I can see that a rorqual can be used on grid with a degree of certainty that it will come home is in a wormhole system (with appropriate scouts etc) since cynos and bridges do not happen there. It saddens me a little that the most use we ever gave our rorqual was salvaging C5 sleeper wrecks while the dreadnoughts were creating them. It was ludicrous! We also used it in pvp a little (the owner was a little nuts... )
Thank you for your response, it is nice to see that at least some1 is sharing my concerns somewhat. But tbh I would rather hear something form ccp themselves about this subject. That ccp has the intention to remove off-grid boosting for mining is reason enough for me to be worried about where this all will be going.
I would like to hear from ccp why off-grid mining boosting is wrong and why it needs to be rebalanced. The only reason I can think of is to provide the army of gankers and hot droppers with even more easy kills. Speaking of which, the reason that I have time to write this is because there are at least 3 cov op cynos (and just as many gangs) active in my neighbourhood right now. And without any effective measures to counter these gangs (rebalance this pls ccp) I have no choice other than to sit in my pos untill they get bored and go away. Did I mention that I am slowly losing interest in this game?
Without rebalancing blops gangs and giving us a way to counter these overpowered gangs there is nothing balanced about this game and on-grid mining boosting should be out of the question.
I think everything is fine and balanced enough as it is, mining has become just as dangerous as ratting. Now if the reward for mining would be the same as for ratting (risk vs. reward) then things would be really balanced :)
Here is my interpretation about what ccp means by rebalancing (at least for the carebear part of it): Make it harder for ppl to make isk while at the same time make it easier to kill ppl that are trying to make isk.
Oh hey, maybe I should reskill my alts for blops and join the ranks and just gank every carebear I see silly untill he cries and ragequits. Beats sitting in my pos for sure and is probably more profitable as well than mining with all the down time. Soon we can call this game gankers online, cloaky camping online, blops online or whatever. We should not forget that miners are the corner stone of eve, without them a simple frig wil cost +100mil or we will all be flying around in our rookie ships. Just my 2c. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:39:00 -
[927] - Quote
Harry Juana wrote:Thank you for your response, it is nice to see that at least some1 is sharing my concerns somewhat. But tbh I would rather hear something form ccp themselves about this subject. That ccp has the intention to remove off-grid boosting for mining is reason enough for me to be worried about where this all will be going.
I would like to hear from ccp why off-grid mining boosting is wrong and why it needs to be rebalanced. The only reason I can think of is to provide the army of gankers and hot droppers with even more easy kills. Speaking of which, the reason that I have time to write this is because there are at least 3 cov op cynos (and just as many gangs) active in my neighbourhood right now. And without any effective measures to counter these gangs (rebalance this pls ccp) I have no choice other than to sit in my pos untill they get bored and go away. Did I mention that I am slowly losing interest in this game?
Without rebalancing blops gangs and giving us a way to counter these overpowered gangs there is nothing balanced about this game and on-grid mining boosting should be out of the question.
I think everything is fine and balanced enough as it is, mining has become just as dangerous as ratting. Now if the reward for mining would be the same as for ratting (risk vs. reward) then things would be really balanced :)
Here is my interpretation about what ccp means by rebalancing (at least for the carebear part of it): Make it harder for ppl to make isk while at the same time make it easier to kill ppl that are trying to make isk.
Oh hey, maybe I should reskill my alts for blops and join the ranks and just gank every carebear I see silly untill he cries and ragequits. Beats sitting in my pos for sure and is probably more profitable as well than mining with all the down time. Soon we can call this game gankers online, cloaky camping online, blops online or whatever. We should not forget that miners are the corner stone of eve, without them a simple frig wil cost +100mil or we will all be flying around in our rookie ships. Just my 2c.
We are repeating things that CCP have said as to why boosts are being pushed on-grid. They are currently very high reward for little to no risk, whether that's mining or combat boosting and that's not what Eve is about.
If you want a counter to BLOPS gangs then I suggest finding friends who like to hunt such things or join up with a large null-sec group that's recruiting industrialists and will protect them (everyone likes when the bait is helping make your replacement ships after all). Alternatively you could find a wormhole corp to take you in, same principal, no hot-drops.
If you somehow feel that you should be able to, as a miner without using a combat ship, completely interdict an enemy force... well that's kind of unrealistic. They are working together to kill you and you should have to work together to kill them. This is not a solo-man's game.
If you want low risk for your reward then that's what High Sec space is for. |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:48:00 -
[928] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:So, one you seem to be just a bit paranoid about covert-ops ships. Cloaking is an ongoing discussion, this is not the thread for it. Going back to your first points in no particular order:
- I doubt it will ever be able to tank enough that it's not gankable, that's not the point.
- I do suspect though that CCP will find a risk/reward balance that they feel is appropriate for it though. Whether or not this will mean you solo-boosting with your Rorqual is a good idea or not is another thing entirely. As a gang-boosting ship it's not really intended to be risk efficient for boosting a single miner.
First off, I am not paraoid about cloaking, I just think it needs to be rebalanced as well, which makes this the appropriate thread to post my concerns regarding on-grid mining boosting and the frequency of the now o so popular blops gangs. Second I am not a solo miner, I have hosted big mining fleets but numbers have been dropping lately beacuse of said cloaky camping, ganking. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
417
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:51:00 -
[929] - Quote
Mine in high sec for safety. Ore may not be worth as much but you won't have to jeopardize a rorq! You'll noticate that your profits won't change much if any. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:59:00 -
[930] - Quote
Harry Juana wrote: First off, I am not paraoid about cloaking, I just think it needs to be rebalanced as well, which makes this the appropriate thread to post my concerns regarding on-grid mining boosting and the frequency of the now o so popular blops gangs. Second I am not a solo miner, I have hosted big mining fleets but numbers have been dropping lately beacuse of said cloaky camping, ganking.
Sounds like your big mining fleet needs protection or to move to high-sec or wormhole space, away from such gangs.
Cloaking and stealth mechanics in general do not seem to be in for any spectacular change any time in the near term if ever. If CCP manage to come up with a good fix that leaves them still useful then they will probably implement it but over 2 years of complaints and player suggestions have not yielded anything so far. |
|
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 07:39:00 -
[931] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Mine in high sec for safety. Ore may not be worth as much but you won't have to jeopardize a rorq! You'll noticate that your profits won't change much if any.
That is the point, The risk vs reward of mining in null sec is long gone. Not long ago you could even make more money mining scordite in hi sec. In null sec you just make a little more than in hi sec (even with rorq boost) while you have much bigger risks, especially post Odyssee where the hidden belts are gone and miners are now just (even easier targets because they can't shoot back) as easy targets than ratters. Ratters however make much better money. Adding another risk like on-grid boosting will even further lower the reward for mining. |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 08:12:00 -
[932] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: We are repeating things that CCP have said as to why boosts are being pushed on-grid. They are currently very high reward for little to no risk, whether that's mining or combat boosting and that's not what Eve is about.
For mining they are not, in null sec you just make a little more than mining in hi sec while the risks are much bigger, certainly post Odyssee. Addng on-grid mining boosts will only furhter unbalance this.
Quote: If you want a counter to BLOPS gangs then I suggest finding friends who like to hunt such things or join up with a large null-sec group that's recruiting industrialists and will protect them (everyone likes when the bait is helping make your replacement ships after all). Alternatively you could find a wormhole corp to take you in, same principal, no hot-drops.
I am part of a large null sec group, we do hunt these gangs with a passion. But do you have any idea what it takes to trap these gangs? Or even their cynos? With hit and run (read bridge in and out) tactics these gangs are long gone before we can even form up a fleet to counter them. And even if we do they just cloak up and bridge out. And where will I hire protection and how will I pay them while we are constantly at war with pvp pliots deployed? This shows that the risks of mining in null sec are already big enough without having to add more risks.
Quote: If you somehow feel that you should be able to, as a miner without using a combat ship, completely interdict an enemy force... well that's kind of unrealistic. They are working together to kill you and you should have to work together to kill them. This is not a solo-man's game.
You sould not have taken that literally but more as an example of current situation. I am surely no solo player, you can not be in null sec
|
Flextra Aurilen
Fang Corp Lycosidae Infernalis
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 13:40:00 -
[933] - Quote
I just read the changelog and I guess it has been mentioned already, but digging through 1k posts is kind of exhausting ... so, with the update, it's possible to buy T2 mindlinks in the LP store for just 20k SP and 20m isk. Does it really mean, we can buy the Mining Foreman Mindlink implant for just 20m ISK and that absurdly low 20k SP?! I mean, I just bought the implant for 1.2 bil 2-3 months ago before we every knew that it will be in the LP store... |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 14:35:00 -
[934] - Quote
How do Navy Mindlinks work on strategic cruisers? The patch notes say they boost two links based on the command ship bonus but strategic cruisers have three bonuses. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 14:41:00 -
[935] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:How do Navy Mindlinks work on strategic cruisers? The patch notes say they boost two links based on the command ship bonus but strategic cruisers have three bonuses.
One shall stand, one shall fall. - Optimus Prime
|
Joey Thelleree
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 20:53:00 -
[936] - Quote
Are you trying to get rid of mining all together? My Orca Pilots wanna go back to playing WOW now. I think you should look at Rebalancing Titans and other big money ships so that people actually get back in the pilot seat of these beasts. Why you catering to noobs for. This game is a grind and its not supposed to be something that happens overnight. You should be looking at keeping your long term players happy and not just noobs. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 21:00:00 -
[937] - Quote
Joey Thelleree wrote:Are you trying to get rid of mining all together? My Orca Pilots wanna go back to playing WOW now. I think you should look at Rebalancing Titans and other big money ships so that people actually get back in the pilot seat of these beasts. Why you catering to noobs for. This game is a grind and its not supposed to be something that happens overnight. You should be looking at keeping your long term players happy and not just noobs.
I dont get what do you want to say?! |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 21:56:00 -
[938] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:How do Navy Mindlinks work on strategic cruisers? The patch notes say they boost two links based on the command ship bonus but strategic cruisers have three bonuses.
Each Navy Mindlink boosts the 2 links associated with that race's command ship by the same amount as a T2 Mind-Link. For a T3 Cruiser this works the same as if you had a mind-link boosting only one stat. You get 2 types of links boosted and one that is not.
Harry Juana wrote:For mining they are not, in null sec you just make a little more than mining in hi sec while the risks are much bigger, certainly post Odyssee. Addng on-grid mining boosts will only furhter unbalance this.
I'm not talking about mining in Null vs mining in High Sec, I'm talking about mining with boosts vs mining without them. While your Rorqual is tucked away in its POS boosting you're getting +95.7% (post patch) to ore yield, along with 42.2% to capacitor use and laser range. The last two are nice but that ~100% bonus is a huge boost, it doubles the income of everyone in the boosting fleet.
If you don't consider that a big reward then I don't quite know what your definition of "big reward" is...
Harry Juana wrote:You sould not have taken that literally but more as an example of current situation. I am surely no solo player, you can not be in null sec
I stand corrected.
Harry Juana wrote:I am part of a large null sec group, we do hunt these gangs with a passion. But do you have any idea what it takes to trap these gangs? Or even their cynos? With hit and run (read bridge in and out) tactics these gangs are long gone before we can even form up a fleet to counter them. And even if we do they just cloak up and bridge out. And where will I hire protection and how will I pay them while we are constantly at war with pvp pliots deployed? This shows that the risks of mining in null sec are already big enough without having to add more risks.
I think you aren't thinking big enough here. They are talking about re-balancing two entire ships when they move links on grid. Since these ships are directly tied to rock mining and therefore the economy I find it hard to believe that they won't be looking at balancing the cost of what you are risking along with the rewards.
This may mean lowering the cost of the Rorqual and/or the Orca, it may mean increasing the benefits of having them on-grid, and it may mean giving them new abilities and functionality to make them more attractive to have on-grid.
I don't think you'd be complaining so loudly if they, say, halved the cost, gave it a bigger cargo capacity, let it mount an local-grid only Cyno-Jammer, let it bonus Siege Links, and increased the mining boost amount.
You just seem to have so little faith in CCP that you think they are going to completely ignore your concerns and those of every other minor, shove the Roqual on-grid without a second glance, and then run off laughing like maniacs because they screwed over the base-line profession that keeps their game running.... all after they said they're going to re-balance these ships before pushing them on-grid. |
Red Thought
Forever Winter
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 03:36:00 -
[939] - Quote
CCP I really wish you would stop messing with this games balance so much. I understand that boosts are perhaps a bit overpowered, maybe. However, with these new changes and proposed changes in the future my second account will loose much of its value to me. I have spent 2 years, and 360$ funding game time on that account. It's only two purposes are to off grid boost and scout. I will never use this toon as an on grid booster, as i don't want to manage two on grid toons at once. My main never bother training boosting because i had an alt account. When making such drastic changes perhaps you should offer players that pay money for this game a refund on skill points when making such drastic changes. Or perhaps all my leaderships skills on my alt account could be added to my main accounts toon, so that i could actually on grid boost. Now i am faced with the choice of forgeting about boosting or training it on this toon........ I have almost 70 mil sp now and really don't want to spend another 15 mil on leadership yet again, when i have so much left that I want to train for. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 10:57:00 -
[940] - Quote
Red Thought wrote:CCP I really wish you would stop messing with this games balance so much. I understand that boosts are perhaps a bit overpowered, maybe. However, with these new changes and proposed changes in the future my second account will loose much of its value to me. I have spent 2 years, and 360$ funding game time on that account. It's only two purposes are to off grid boost and scout. I will never use this toon as an on grid booster, as i don't want to manage two on grid toons at once. My main never bother training boosting because i had an alt account. When making such drastic changes perhaps you should offer players that pay money for this game a refund on skill points when making such drastic changes. Or perhaps all my leaderships skills on my alt account could be added to my main accounts toon, so that i could actually on grid boost. Now i am faced with the choice of forgeting about boosting or training it on this toon........ I have almost 70 mil sp now and really don't want to spend another 15 mil on leadership yet again, when i have so much left that I want to train for.
I suggest either selling your OGB toon while it's still worth a fair amount of money or training it toward combat skills. Either way the intent behind this is over a year old at this point, if not older.
There is no requirement, anywhere, that CCP refund you for something you have gotten use out of because they decide that it is imbalanced. If you were to buy all the skill-books the day before the change went into effect you might have a leg to stand on for getting a refund on the cost of those books but as things stand this complaint and associated requests are patently ridiculous.
You still have your account, he still has his skills, the fact that you choose not to make use of them is entirely your prerogative. |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
420
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 19:57:00 -
[941] - Quote
I removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Ponder Stuff
Deadly Intent.
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:37:00 -
[942] - Quote
These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.
That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.
No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.
Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:41:00 -
[943] - Quote
Ponder Stuff wrote:These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.
That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.
No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.
Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out.
Just wanted to ask Ponder, what it is about the fleet boosting change that has had such a pivotal effect on the game for you?
This is not a challenge, it's just that your response is an extreme one that makes me wonder if there's an angle I have missed?
Are you able to say exactly which changes break your small gang doctrine and why?
I ask because I am interested.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:49:00 -
[944] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Ponder Stuff wrote:These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.
That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.
No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.
Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out. Just wanted to ask Ponder, what it is about the fleet boosting change that has had such a pivotal effect on the game for you? This is not a challenge, it's just that your response is an extreme one that makes me wonder if there's an angle I have missed? Are you able to say exactly which changes break your small gang doctrine and why? I ask because I am interested.
Probably because he can no longer run them unattended from the safety of his tower.
Low sec elite solo PvP for many = you're the only one on the KM, but you've got siege/armor + loki links the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones -á--áCommander Ted |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:52:00 -
[945] - Quote
suid0 wrote: Probably because he can no longer run them unattended from the safety of his tower.
Low sec elite solo PvP for many = you're the only one on the KM, but you've got siege/armor + loki links
Well of course, this was my first thought as well. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wondered if there was something in the numbers I had missed...
You never know, if he explains it to us he might realize that he does not lose so much after all...
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 15:30:00 -
[946] - Quote
Ponder Stuff wrote:These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.
That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.
No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.
Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out.
And for the record, yes im mad bro.
I really do hope you understand that precisely the scenario you seem to be describing, of a "solo player" with one or more boosting ships supporting him from off-grid where they are in almost no danger, or inside a POS where they are in literally no danger, is a large part of *why* links are moving on-grid.
This is hardly a change meant entirely for 0.0 fleet fights, this is a long standing complaint in engagements everywhere from Jita, to Hek, to Amamake to 6VDT. |
yasumitu
Electric Sheep Machinery Caladrius Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:24:00 -
[947] - Quote
oh my god ... please return long long training time and money...
good Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100. Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:
Worst why nerf Skirmish Warfare link... my tackler Arazu and Proteus THE Unemployed
eve online is great, but there is a strange nerf a fantasy sometimes |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:13:00 -
[948] - Quote
yasumitu wrote:oh my god ... please return long long training time and money... good Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100. Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems: Worst why nerf Skirmish Warfare link... my tackler Arazu and Proteus THE Unemployed eve online is great, but there is a strange nerf a fantasy sometimes
So, there's this funny thing that happens sometimes where something is so good it's a bit over-powered. Then the nerf bat lands on it and everything is happier.
Seriously though, Interdiction Maneuvers was way too powerful. *cough* 21km webs *cough* |
Naja Ashei
Deadly Intent.
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:22:00 -
[949] - Quote
suid0 wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Ponder Stuff wrote:These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.
That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.
No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.
Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out. Just wanted to ask Ponder, what it is about the fleet boosting change that has had such a pivotal effect on the game for you? This is not a challenge, it's just that your response is an extreme one that makes me wonder if there's an angle I have missed? Are you able to say exactly which changes break your small gang doctrine and why? I ask because I am interested. Probably because he can no longer run them unattended from the safety of his tower. Low sec elite solo PvP for many = you're the only one on the KM, but you've got siege/armor + loki links
First of all, we dont use links in a POS, and its still a risk for the people who dont, simply because they can be scanned down. But with this links nerf small-gang pilots wont be able to go against the odds in the way they can now. Its the only thing I actually enjoy in the damn game. Not to mention as ponder is saying this has just about made my links alts useless, guess ill just start running around with a falcon and logi alt now. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
358
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 20:16:00 -
[950] - Quote
The odds you go up against just had their links nerfed exactly the same amount you did. Unless you are claiming they don't have links, in which case it's not really the odds you are claiming anyway. So relatively speaking you should have exactly the same ratio you do now against someone. |
|
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
411
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 20:52:00 -
[951] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus. Fozzie, can we get at least some sort of usefulness to the Info mindlink? It's one of the least used because locking range is only useful to combat damps. Compare this to the other links, flat armor %, flat agility % flat shield HP. These are all huge advantages to pay off skilling up to MindLinks. Yet, for us Information people we get locking range? When was the last time that was ever useful? In comparison to Armor HP? Come on, throw us a bone here.
Make it at least a choice to trade off. No one, and I mean no one, is going to use a Imperial navy mindlink that gives 15% to locking range and 15% Armor HP, against Federation Navy link that gives 15% Agility and 15% Armor HP.
Give us REAL choices, not the illusion of choice.
Suggested change -
Change the Information Warfare Mindlink (and Navy Mindlinks), to be: 15% to Locking range, Sensor strength, and Scan Resolution.
At least then it is something to consider in exchange for 15% Agility, which is frankly a non-choice. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 23:11:00 -
[952] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus. Fozzie, can we get at least some sort of usefulness to the Info mindlink? It's one of the least used because locking range is only useful to combat damps. Compare this to the other links, flat armor %, flat agility, % flat shield HP. These are all huge advantages to pay off skilling up to MindLinks. Yet, for us Information people we get locking range? When was the last time that was ever useful? In comparison to Armor HP? Come on, throw us a bone here. Make it at least a choice to trade off. No one, and I mean no one, is going to use a Imperial Bavy Mindlink that gives 15% to locking range and 15% Armor HP, against Federation Navy link that gives 15% Agility and 15% Armor HP. Likewise, No one is going to opt for a Cal navy link of a Republic Fleet link when you trade 15% agility for 15% lock range. Give us REAL choices, not the illusion of choice. Suggested change - Change the Information Warfare Mindlink (and Navy Mindlinks), to be: 15% to Locking range, Sensor strength, and Scan Resolution. At least then it is something to consider in exchange for 15% Agility, which is frankly a non-choice. At least with these changes, the Info link is as powerful as the others, as it should be.
I agree. I was disappointed to see the information warfare link bonuses returned to uselessness.
Perhaps it's because I do all my work in small fleets, but to me sensor strength and lock time are paramount and worth investing in. Lock range? Don't need it. Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 11:30:00 -
[953] - 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?
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 13:11:00 -
[954] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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?
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. |
Kuklinski
Broken Wheel Mercantile and Trading Company Illusion of Solitude
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 14:53:00 -
[955] - Quote
[quote=Nevyn Auscent]The odds you go up against just had their links nerfed exactly the same amount you did. Unless you are claiming they don't have links, in which case it's not really the odds you are claiming anyway. So relatively speaking you should have exactly the same ratio you do now against someone.[/quote
I think you missing the real point of what Naja Ashei was saying-he talking about being small gang and "going up against the Odds"-like outnumbered/outclassed-decent Link bonuses encourage fights between mismatched gangs or pushing a dual/multi-boxer to have a go significantly outnumbered.
I do think the links could have been left well alone-off the top of my head i'd maybe say remove T3s ability to run links(i get the impression that decently skilling a T3 isnt that skill-intensive for the bonus you get? ) and i really have no problem with bringing Boosters on-grid-i think that might be a decent enough counter to them that sit in POS' or loiter somewhere cloaked in a deep(ish) safe until an engagement starts etc....a well-skilled Command Ship flying boosting Char. takes ages to skill for(sometimes i get the feeling that folks think it some kind of train overnight-win thing) . I notice a few posts from guys that i can identify with-they not using boosts to go around deliberately OP and dropping masses of ships on solo stuff or hoodwinking someone in 1v1s...i would think that there a heap of players that use boosts for the flying outnumbered or multi-boxing against gangs etc.....its complex,tricky,shall i?/shan't i? against-the-odds stuff....great fun to do.....so why are you(CCP) wanting to mess with that ?
Im totally prepared to wait to see just how badly the nerf is going to affect things-Interdiction getting hammered is a biggie-and maybe the Mindlink halving...all in conjunction with the CS changes(more "lets make everything the same" stuff it seems)....if it does end up all gimped and you think the Chars. wasted then simple-just unsub that Char....and be sure to fill in the Survey when you un-sub when it asks for the specific reason why
This is a long thread but the last few pages the "regular" supporters of the nerf-and this noticeable in the CS changes thread too-the more posts they submit as counters to any dissent it becomes more and more apparent that they basing their replies and counters on eft-warrioring and PvE stuff like Incursions-i dont REALLY get the impression that they have that much idea beyond what they can analyse from CCPs stuff/other thread comments and the paper stats etc from stuff like EFT/whats the other one?--pyft or somethin?
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 15:33:00 -
[956] - Quote
Kuklinski wrote:I think you missing the real point of what Naja Ashei was saying-he talking about being small gang and "going up against the Odds"-like outnumbered/outclassed-decent Link bonuses encourage fights between mismatched gangs or pushing a dual/multi-boxer to have a go significantly outnumbered.
Except that you can never assume that you have links and the other guy doesn't. Over-powered is over-powered whether it has the potential to magically let your 10 man gang trash a 20 man gang. If it lets you do that and all other things are equal then that's a pretty good indicator of OP-ness.
Kuklinski wrote:I do think the links could have been left well alone-off the top of my head i'd maybe say remove T3s ability to run links(i get the impression that decently skilling a T3 isnt that skill-intensive for the bonus you get? ) and i really have no problem with bringing Boosters on-grid-i think that might be a decent enough counter to them that sit in POS' or loiter somewhere cloaked in a deep(ish) safe until an engagement starts etc....a well-skilled Command Ship flying boosting Char. takes ages to skill for(sometimes i get the feeling that folks think it some kind of train overnight-win thing) . I notice a few posts from guys that i can identify with-they not using boosts to go around deliberately OP and dropping masses of ships on solo stuff or hoodwinking someone in 1v1s...i would think that there a heap of players that use boosts for the flying outnumbered or multi-boxing against gangs etc.....its complex,tricky,shall i?/shan't i? against-the-odds stuff....great fun to do.....so why are you(CCP) wanting to mess with that ?
First off, T3s are not particularly less skill intensive than a Command Ship. You have to train leadership skills regardless along with racial Cruiser to 5. The difference between Command Ships and T3s is that one needs Battlecruiser to 5 and the other needs T3 subsystem skills along with the base hull skill. If you have the relevant system to 5 then you just need Command Ships 4 to be boosting 2% better than a T3. Overall it comes out to a similar skill train because Leadership skills still make up the bulk of it. 2 weeks one way or the other just doesn't matter compared to 6 months of leadership and another 2 months of the same ship skills for either one.
They want to mess with it because it probably shouldn't be just that easy. If you want those bonuses then risk something by having them on-grid with you. If they're really that good it shouldn't be that much of an issue.
As to the link nerfs? They nerfed the most powerful and "mandatory" links to bring them into line with others. What's the problem with that?
Kuklinski wrote:Im totally prepared to wait to see just how badly the nerf is going to affect things-Interdiction getting hammered is a biggie-and maybe the Mindlink halving...all in conjunction with the CS changes(more "lets make everything the same" stuff it seems)....if it does end up all gimped and you think the Chars. wasted then simple-just unsub that Char....and be sure to fill in the Survey when you un-sub when it asks for the specific reason why
Meh? People whine about "I'mma Unsub over X!!!" all the time. If literally the only point of that character was OGBs then that just proves to CCP the scope of the problem.
Kuklinski wrote:This is a long thread but the last few pages the "regular" supporters of the nerf-and this noticeable in the CS changes thread too-the more posts they submit as counters to any dissent it becomes more and more apparent that they basing their replies and counters on eft-warrioring and PvE stuff like Incursions-i dont REALLY get the impression that they have that much idea beyond what they can analyse from CCPs stuff/other thread comments and the paper stats etc from stuff like EFT/whats the other one?--pyft or somethin?
If you can refute my arguments then by all means do so, but single "real life" examples don't prove why a systemic problem isn't still systemic and a problem. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 15:36:00 -
[957] - 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. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 16:00:00 -
[958] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: 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.
This is hardly true. There are definitely large fleets that benefit from Skirmish and small gangs that benefit from Info links. This makes for more meaningful tradeoffs and a much more fine-grain distinction that the old "can boost/can't boost" binary.
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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.
I believe the intent is to create trade-offs in what you skill for and allow a pilot to use their Command Ship's racial setup without being restricted by weapons systems. Getting into this leads to why not armor/shield for every race or why not weapons AND skirmish/info and that ends up with every race needing six+ different command ship hulls.
Personally I prefer the weapons trade-off to weird and unintuitive link mixing.
You are welcome to advocate for a different preference but CCP gets to make the final decision there.
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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.
I don't see that as the case having been playing around with the tanks of various Command Ships.
I'm going to defer to Fozzie's explanation of their intentions though since it's a pretty good solution. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
300
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 01:44:00 -
[959] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: I believe the intent is to create trade-offs in what you skill for and allow a pilot to use their Command Ship's racial setup without being restricted by weapons systems. Getting into this leads to why not armor/shield for every race or why not weapons AND skirmish/info and that ends up with every race needing six+ different command ship hulls.
Personally I prefer the weapons trade-off to weird and unintuitive link mixing.
You are welcome to advocate for a different preference but CCP gets to make the final decision there.
The community was quite vociferous about its preference for a skirmish and fleet version of command ship for each race in the early part of this thread.
The dev team was silent in the face of this pressure and went ahead anyway to create the current situation.
It's one of the few decisions made by the devs in the odyessy 1.1 patch that I do not agree with. The weapons choice argument is moot - you don't choose a command ship for its weapons, you choose it for its boosts and survivability. In the case of an on-grid small gang, you also ideally want it to be able to keep up.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Kuklinski
Broken Wheel Mercantile and Trading Company Illusion of Solitude
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 08:34:00 -
[960] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: same old same old
.
..its true though isnt it?Your kind of just a "theory crafter"/regurgitator of graph stats and stuff youve cherry-picked from others posts and blogs etc?
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
109
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 08:51:00 -
[961] - Quote
Oh I am definitely a theory-crafter. I enjoy it immensely. I also have a pretty broad range of experience, both my own and those I've picked up from others along the way. I do not cherry pick though, if I am supporting a point it's because I feel it is correct or that at the very least no better alternative exists.
If you can't refute my arguments though I would prefer you not resort to personal attacks. If you can then please do so and don't resort to personal attacks. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
302
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 09:29:00 -
[962] - Quote
I am not of course saying that the weapons on a command ship are completely useless. I am saying that I am agnostic as to whether I fit missiles or lasers. And I would happily forego that choice for the ability to fly an amarr command ship in a skirmish gang.
In the case of the EOS/Astarte, again I am agnostic. I have perfect drone and hybrid gunnery skills. I really have no incentive to choose one hull or the other, since to me they are essentially the same.
That's a shame, because sometimes I want buffer tank with logis and sometimes I'm ok with local tank.
At the moment, both gallente hulls lend themselves to self tank, and both amarr hulls lend themselves (in varying degree) to logistics.
Thus it seems to me that 50% of the command ship hulls represent a real-world loss of opportunity.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
106
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 12:34:00 -
[963] - Quote
Naja Ashei wrote: First of all, we dont use links in a POS, and its still a risk for the people who dont, simply because they can be scanned down. But with this links nerf small-gang pilots wont be able to go against the odds in the way they can now. Its the only thing I actually enjoy in the damn game. Not to mention as ponder is saying this has just about made my links alts useless, guess ill just start running around with a falcon and logi alt now.
As I understand it, most links weren't nerfed that much, at least if used from command ships. For those using T3s for boosting, well they're supposed to be versatile, not best-in-role.
|
SkupojHren
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:34:00 -
[964] - 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%
ccp,you lied.its lower than 25.9%
its 24.75% |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
135
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:35:00 -
[965] - Quote
SkupojHren wrote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
ccp,you lied.its lower than 25.9%
its 24.75%
Sounds like you're missing a skill to 5 somewhere. |
SkupojHren
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:38:00 -
[966] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:SkupojHren wrote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
ccp,you lied.its lower than 25.9%
its 24.75% Sounds like you're missing a skill to 5 somewhere.
nope.max skills.also double checked in eft and ingame |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
135
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 21:58:00 -
[967] - Quote
SkupojHren wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:SkupojHren wrote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
ccp,you lied.its lower than 25.9%
its 24.75% Sounds like you're missing a skill to 5 somewhere. nope.max skills.also double checked in eft and ingame
I just ran the numbers and the only way I see to get this is if you're boosting with a T3 Cruiser instead of a Command Ship. Those max numbers are for the Command Ships not the T3s. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 12:31:00 -
[968] - Quote
The warfare link and command ship changes will be good for eve. Not because of the changes in numbers, but because they will give people the idea of putting command ships in their squads and then going looking for a fight.
What they will find is that arguing over a few percent here and there is pointless since within reason, better commanded fleets generally beat poorly commanded ones, regardless of the ships' modules and bonuses.
Having your fleet focus its firepower in a disciplined way while maintaining correct ranges and transversals is a lot more powerful than any gang link bonus.
There are 2 main tools that facilitate this: good communications and practice, with the latter being the important one.
So, in the words of Mr Elvis Presley,
"A little less talk, a little more action baby!"
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
493
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 12:39:00 -
[969] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:SkupojHren wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:SkupojHren wrote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
ccp,you lied.its lower than 25.9%
its 24.75% Sounds like you're missing a skill to 5 somewhere. nope.max skills.also double checked in eft and ingame I just ran the numbers and the only way I see to get this is if you're boosting with a T3 Cruiser instead of a Command Ship. Those max numbers are for the Command Ships not the T3s.
that's a little sad that the CS only adds an extra 1.15% over a T3 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. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
153
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 21:32:00 -
[970] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:that's a little sad that the CS only adds an extra 1.15% over a T3
Technically it's another 5% to the bonus at max skills, but it's also a lot harder to fit and field since it can only run one link by default.
I'm betting this may get some changes either when they play around with Command Coprocessors or when they run T3s through the spin cycle on their rebalance pass. |
|
Jaangel
Cloak and Badgers
27
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 10:55:00 -
[971] - Quote
All of the recent and proposed changes to link's make it harder for small gangs to compete with large blobs.
I'm not saying that a 10 man gang should be able to take on a destroy a large 100 man fleet.
BUT
They should be able to disrupt and get a few kills from them using hit and run attacks kiting and ranged attacks.
The changes to links will mean the large blob will be able to support better bonuses(which makes sense kind of) than the small gang. but if the large gang didnt have the links they would barley notice. On the other hand the small gang is now crippled by the fact the large gang has them.
CCP has a current ethos that it wants large headline grabbing fights, while what i want is people to shoot at without having to fly with 90 people i dont like....
I think smaller fast link ships(T3's) should give a larger bonus but only to a limited amount of people say 10-20 while the larger command ships should give a lower bonus but to a lot more people.
If all the current changes go thorugh as currently stated small gangs are going to have to run away from alot more fights they could have previously given a go! You already have to be quiet selective! |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
205
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 11:16:00 -
[972] - Quote
Jaangel wrote:All of the recent and proposed changes to link's make it harder for small gangs to compete with large blobs.
I'm not saying that a 10 man gang should be able to take on a destroy a large 100 man fleet.
BUT
They should be able to disrupt and get a few kills from them using hit and run attacks kiting and ranged attacks.
The changes to links will mean the large blob will be able to support better bonuses(which makes sense kind of) than the small gang. but if the large gang didnt have the links they would barley notice. On the other hand the small gang is now crippled by the fact the large gang has them.
CCP has a current ethos that it wants large headline grabbing fights, while what i want is people to shoot at without having to fly with 90 people i dont like....
I think smaller fast link ships(T3's) should give a larger bonus but only to a limited amount of people say 10-20 while the larger command ships should give a lower bonus but to a lot more people.
If all the current changes go thorugh as currently stated small gangs are going to have to run away from alot more fights they could have previously given a go! You already have to be quiet selective!
This whole line of logic has never made sense to me. It always seems to assume a big blob with poor fleet comp, no discipline, and poor boosts vs a highly skilled small gang with awesome boosts and great discipline. In that instance the reason you're able to pick off a few kills is through skill, fleet comp, and discipline, not through fleet boosts.
If it was just the fleet boosts then the large fleet with the boosts should just rip you a new one...
For more coherent and eloquent thinking on the matter that I 100% agree with, I direct you to one of the CSM's blogs, in this case Jester's Trek by Ripard Teg. The big on links is halfway down the post and he explains why this whole thing was problematic and his thoughts on the whole "small bonused gang" thing. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
503
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 16:38:00 -
[973] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Harvey James wrote:that's a little sad that the CS only adds an extra 1.15% over a T3 Technically it's another 5% to the bonus at max skills, but it's also a lot harder to fit and field since it can only run one link by default. I'm betting this may get some changes either when they play around with Command Coprocessors or when they run T3s through the spin cycle on their rebalance pass.
well 1.15% to the links themselves is what the 5% comes too.. its too little really just being able to fit upto 3 without Command co processors doesn't seem enough to me .
On a sidenote its still a rather steep cliff to skill for links .... with lv4 skills and T1 links on an T1 bc you still can only gain about 50% of the full potential of a T2 link max potential ... imps, CS lv5 skills etc....
Navy Mindlinks = 400mil or 40-50mil for T2 mindlink to focus on one area e.g. skirmish CS = 300mil which still only adds upto 1.5% to a link Training skills lv5 = 6 months maybe depending on imps , remaps etc..
It's all still too much time and isk to get 30% bonus too fleet and if you lose the CS and get podded your losing a good 500mil..
how about making it so a T1 bc with T1 links lv4 skills and perhaps a new cheap T1 mindlink could do 75% -80% for a fraction of the price say 100mil so we don't have too spend at least 6 months and 500mil to get anywhere near the full potential out of links? 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. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
208
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 04:34:00 -
[974] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:well 1.15% to the links themselves is what the 5% comes too.. its too little really just being able to fit upto 3 without Command co processors doesn't seem enough to me .
On a sidenote its still a rather steep cliff to skill for links .... with lv4 skills and T1 links on an T1 bc you still can only gain about 50% of the full potential of a T2 link max potential ... imps, CS lv5 skills etc....
Navy Mindlinks = 400mil or 40-50mil for T2 mindlink to focus on one area e.g. skirmish CS = 300mil which still only adds upto 1.5% to a link Training skills lv5 = 6 months maybe depending on imps , remaps etc..
It's all still too much time and isk to get 30% bonus too fleet and if you lose the CS and get podded your losing a good 500mil..
how about making it so a T1 bc with T1 links lv4 skills and perhaps a new cheap T1 mindlink could do 75% -80% for a fraction of the price say 100mil so we don't have too spend at least 6 months and 500mil to get anywhere near the full potential out of links?
Just in-case the previous post was ambiguous I meant that T3s are significantly harder to fit with large numbers of links, not Command Ships, and I'm not just talking about the 3 links vs 1 link aspect. Just in general they're easier to fit and still have things like a tank.
With a T1 BC you can still buy a T1 mindlink, which doesn't actually have any difference from the bonus on a Navy Mindlink beyond that it only bonuses 1 type of link, so you can already close that gap to 75% effectiveness. Plus it's far less than six months to bonus one link with high skills from a Battlecruiser, and the gap between that T1 Battlecruiser with 4s and a full Command Ship with 5s is significantly lower than it was before the changes, the change to Warfare Link Specialist alone was huge (100% bonus per level )
I would also argue that Command Ships and high level skills need to offer a significant benefit or no one is going to bother to train them, but that the benefit should not be so significant that these bonuses are considered a requirement for an effective fleet. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
505
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 16:22:00 -
[975] - Quote
well considering that my char has lv4 skill on skirmish warfare specialist and warfare specialist i can still only get 14.1 % on skirmish link - Rapid deployment..
max 30% with T2 link imps , CS i have 14.1% with T1 link on T1 bc no imps
now toss it onto my CS lv5 i still only get 16.2 %
16.2/30
is what 55% out of 100% and this has taken many months on my now nearly 3 year char which has only had one 6 month break and has always had good attributes and learning implants... still a big cliff in my eyes and these stats back that up 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. |
Ong
Born-2-Kill Against ALL Authorities
92
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 21:14:00 -
[976] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:For more coherent and eloquent thinking on the matter that I 100% agree with, I direct you to one of the CSM's blogs, in this case Jester's Trek by Ripard Teg. The big on links is halfway down the post and he explains why this whole thing was problematic and his thoughts on the whole "small bonused gang" thing.
From his blog:
Ripard Teg wrote:
So I quietly watched the F&I thread about the links and mind-links and waited for it to explode into a threadnaught, which didn't really happen. CCP Fozzie dev-blogged about it, still no threadnaught. Here's a little secret: the CSM's influence is cut by about half to two-thirds when there's no player revolution behind it.
Its kinda hard to get involved in a thread thats posted in Features & Ideas Discussion by the Dev N a z i that is Fozzy, when Rise posts an idea there is back and forth and several changes based on his ideas of what it should be and player feedback, ie a discussion. When Fozzy posts something its pretty much ~deal with it~
IMO links should be equal for T3 and commands, both should work offgrid but T3 only be able to boost 1 squad while commands can do fleets.
But we all know this discussion is pointless as Fozzy has already made his mind up and will be working on his next idea. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
364
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 21:16:00 -
[977] - Quote
Ong wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:For more coherent and eloquent thinking on the matter that I 100% agree with, I direct you to one of the CSM's blogs, in this case Jester's Trek by Ripard Teg. The big on links is halfway down the post and he explains why this whole thing was problematic and his thoughts on the whole "small bonused gang" thing. From his blog: Ripard Teg wrote:
So I quietly watched the F&I thread about the links and mind-links and waited for it to explode into a threadnaught, which didn't really happen. CCP Fozzie dev-blogged about it, still no threadnaught. Here's a little secret: the CSM's influence is cut by about half to two-thirds when there's no player revolution behind it.
Its kinda hard to get involved in a thread thats posted in Features & Ideas Discussion by the Dev N a z i that is Fozzy, when Rise posts an idea there is back and forth and several changes based on his ideas of what it should be and player feedback, ie a discussion. When Fozzy posts something its pretty much ~deal with it~ IMO links should be equal for T3 and commands, both should work offgrid but T3 only be able to boost 1 squad while commands can do fleets. But we all know this discussion is pointless as Fozzy has already made his mind up and will be working on his next idea.
Many of us happen to disagree with you.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.18 16:32:00 -
[978] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:well considering that my char has lv4 skill on skirmish warfare specialist and warfare specialist i can still only get 14.1 % on skirmish link - Rapid deployment..
max 30% with T2 link imps , CS i have 14.1% with T1 link on T1 bc no imps
now toss it onto my CS lv5 i still only get 16.2 %
16.2/30
is what 55% out of 100% and this has taken many months on my now nearly 3 year char which has only had one 6 month break and has always had good attributes and learning implants... still a big cliff in my eyes and these stats back that up
Your biggest problem there is no implant, that has always been and still is a pretty big part of the command bonus. In this case a flat 25% of the final result, so not having that is part of your problem. With it you should get up over 20% with just your current skills.
The difference between level 4 skills on a T1 BC and level 5s on a Command Ship is pretty large, but the difference between 5s on a Command Ship and 5s on a Battlecruiser isn't that big. Overall this ends up being a much more gradual progression up the skill tree for link bonuses than the massive cliff from things like the old Warfare Link Specialization skill.
The point here was to make T1 boosting more viable and make the progression more linear and less of a cliff at the end. Not to make it so you don't need to bother with level 5 skills eventually.
For reference, some numbers (for the Interdiction Maneuvers Link):
- Max bonus, T2 link, all 5s: 34.5%
- T2 Link, no Command Ship: 30%
- T2 Link, other skills at 4: 29.4
- T1 Link, all 5s: 27.6%
- T1 Link, all 4s, Command Ship: 21.95%
- T1 Link, all 4s, T1 BC: 19.6%
- T1 Link, all 4s, T1 BC, no Mindlink: 15.68%
|
Peter Cephas
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 01:53:00 -
[979] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quote:The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Not balanced at all: skirmish - 4 bonuses (all races) siege - 2 bonuses armored and information - 3 bonuses. Swap skirmish bonus on Proteus with siege (there are shield fit gallente ships) to balance things out. I was wondering who else would catch this! Balance, balance, balance. Admiral Douros wrote:Armor and web nerfs are going to hit wormhole groups pretty hard. Capital escalations are already fairly difficult -- nerfing armor resistances and rep amounts is going to make them even harder, and going with a Damnation for max armor boosts means that a Loki is only going to be able to web to ~40km (maybe less, I haven't run the numbers yet).
Have you considered maybe giving a bonus to warfare links in wormholes? It seems like these changes were designed without wspace in mind, and I'm a big fan of them for kspace PVP and PVE, but I think some attention needs to be paid to wspace implications. I rarely agree with a goon (it's a matter of principle), but this guy is spot on.
Cap escalations is not that hard, even with the new boosts. And dont use a loki the, use 2x rapiers with TP and webs and you got the range.
And yes, you can armortank a loki to survive c5 and c6. |
|
|
|
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] |