Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Griznatch
Xicron Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 08:34:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: lots of words
All of your proposed solutions will completely break the t3 gang link idea and make the subsystems useless. The t3s have to have something to offer that exceeds the command ships otherwise the CS is always the better option. Forcing boosting on grid and requiring you to tank your t3 booster to the point of only running 1 link is absurd. You could get nearly as much benefit from a BC with 1 link for a tiny fraction of the cost. Your comment about adding more to the makeup of fleets and boosters sounds ok for fleets of a hundred ships but a making a 10 man gang split up into 5 squads and bring 6 CS/T3 boosters to get what they can have right now will just make everyone grumpy and cause more problems than it solves. If it takes a maxed prober with implants and sisters gear to scan down an "unprobable" booster then that's what you need to bring if you're that worried about taking out someone's fleet booster. If they're parked in a pos then being hard to probe doesnt really matter anymore. I've been on big fleet engagements where there were command ships on the field, which is as it should be, and cant be too uncommon or I wouldn't have seen it. Offgrid fleet boosts dont appear to me to be as great a scourge to the epic quest for good fights you make it out to be, and you can just as easily park a CS in a pos or safe spot as you can a t3 booster. As far as rewarding time spend vs money spent, I can buy a character that flys command ships just as easily as I can a t3. At this point anything you want can be had quickly so talking about what it takes to get it is beside the point.
If you take the extra bonus away from the t3s, what do you give it that keeps it relevant as a fleet booster? |
Jack Miton
Lapse Of Sanity Narwhals Ate My Duck
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 11:21:00 -
[32] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:[quote=Jack Miton]You dont really get T3s if youre asking this question. Really, the only reason I've ever been tempted to bring a CS over a T3 was when we actually needed an extra point.
er..ok...
what if youre jumping through a WH/gate? or are roaming?
bringing a paper boosting ship just isnt viable in a LOT of situations. |
Lili Lu
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 13:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
Breaking up your wall of text
Griznatch wrote: All of your proposed solutions will completely break the t3 gang link idea and make the subsystems useless.
No it won't. It would make the nullified unprobable T3 with 14 links impossible.
Griznatch wrote: The t3s have to have something to offer that exceeds the command ships otherwise the CS is always the better option. Whereas now the situation is reversed, T3s the better option. And without touching the current %s on-grid boosting would still leave T3 with a role, just not the same one.
Griznatch wrote: Forcing boosting on grid and requiring you to tank your t3 booster to the point of only running 1 link is absurd. You could get nearly as much benefit from a BC with 1 link for a tiny fraction of the cost. No, a BC does not have the same % boost.
Griznatch wrote: Your comment about adding more to the makeup of fleets and boosters sounds ok for fleets of a hundred ships but a making a 10 man gang split up into 5 squads and bring 6 CS/T3 boosters to get what they can have right now will just make everyone grumpy and cause more problems than it solves. If it takes a maxed prober with implants and sisters gear to scan down an "unprobable" booster then that's what you need to bring if you're that worried about taking out someone's fleet booster. If they're parked in a pos then being hard to probe doesnt really matter anymore. I've been on big fleet engagements where there were command ships on the field, which is as it should be, and cant be too uncommon or I wouldn't have seen it. Offgrid fleet boosts dont appear to me to be as great a scourge to the epic quest for good fights you make it out to be, and you can just as easily park a CS in a pos or safe spot as you can a t3 booster. As far as rewarding time spend vs money spent, I can buy a character that flys command ships just as easily as I can a t3. At this point anything you want can be had quickly so talking about what it takes to get it is beside the point.
If you take the extra bonus away from the t3s, what do you give it that keeps it relevant as a fleet booster?
Something about not wanting to think about fleet roles. buying characters . . . Sorry, I gave up trying to break up your wall of text |
Alsyth
Night Warder
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 14:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
Off grid boosting had always been an issue, locals with T3 or CSs (or both) at a POS have too much of an advantage. Why should it only become a problem with nullified cloaky unscannable T3s? Because they help roamers and not locals?
Getting rid of off-grid boosting would make fleet CS useful again, they are the only one able to bring many links on a battle while having a good tank. T3s on the other hand are more specialized and can bring a single more powerful link with them, but they tank a little less and are more expensive (armor rapier-loki with 50km point and webs is awesome). Both would have their use and they wouldn't compete each other too much.
Giving CSs the 5% bonus and T3s the 3% one would just make ganglinked T3s nearly useless, at a POS or on the field.
As for the other gangliked ships, Field CSs aren't used for their links anyway (NH can't fit them PG-wise, Astarte can't fit them slot-wise, Absolution PG-wise in most pvp fits, and Sleipnir is the only viable one), same for BCs (Myrm and Cane are the only one able to fit them without gimping their fit). Forcing on-grid boosting would perhaps make them used again when you either don't want to field a 200+M ISK ship (then you use a BC) or when you really need their dps. Same for capitals, they might use their hi-slots for boosts again if they can't have a remote boost or a good enough on grid booster. |
Griznatch
Xicron Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 16:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Breaking up your wall of text Griznatch wrote: All of your proposed solutions will completely break the t3 gang link idea and make the subsystems useless.
No it won't. It would make the nullified unprobable T3 with 14 links impossible. Griznatch wrote: The t3s have to have something to offer that exceeds the command ships otherwise the CS is always the better option. Whereas now the situation is reversed, T3s the better option. And without touching the current %s on-grid boosting would still leave T3 with a role, just not the same one. Griznatch wrote: Forcing boosting on grid and requiring you to tank your t3 booster to the point of only running 1 link is absurd. You could get nearly as much benefit from a BC with 1 link for a tiny fraction of the cost. No, a BC does not have the same % boost. Griznatch wrote: Your comment about adding more to the makeup of fleets and boosters sounds ok for fleets of a hundred ships but a making a 10 man gang split up into 5 squads and bring 6 CS/T3 boosters to get what they can have right now will just make everyone grumpy and cause more problems than it solves. If it takes a maxed prober with implants and sisters gear to scan down an "unprobable" booster then that's what you need to bring if you're that worried about taking out someone's fleet booster. If they're parked in a pos then being hard to probe doesnt really matter anymore. I've been on big fleet engagements where there were command ships on the field, which is as it should be, and cant be too uncommon or I wouldn't have seen it. Offgrid fleet boosts dont appear to me to be as great a scourge to the epic quest for good fights you make it out to be, and you can just as easily park a CS in a pos or safe spot as you can a t3 booster. As far as rewarding time spend vs money spent, I can buy a character that flys command ships just as easily as I can a t3. At this point anything you want can be had quickly so talking about what it takes to get it is beside the point.
If you take the extra bonus away from the t3s, what do you give it that keeps it relevant as a fleet booster? Something about not wanting to think about fleet roles. buying characters . . . Sorry, I gave up trying to break up your wall of text
Nullified unprobable t3s with 14 links is possible now? Who knew.
Off grid boosting is a seperate matter altogether so lets juat talk about t3 vs cs for a moment. Link me some fits and some numbers and show me how the t3s dominate the fleet boost scene. Without some actual data this is all a waste of time.
|
Alsyth
Night Warder
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 17:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Nullified unprobable t3s with 14 links is possible now? Who knew.
Off grid boosting is a seperate matter altogether so lets juat talk about t3 vs cs for a moment. Link me some fits and some numbers and show me how the t3s dominate the fleet boost scene. Without some actual data this is all a waste of time.
Typo, 4 links.
Legion and Loki dominate the fleetboost scene, Claymore and Damnation being second, Tengu and Vulture third. You can ignore Eos and Proteus, and Sleipnir, Myrmidon and Hurricane are probably more used than Vulture and Tengu (only on grid, ofc).
For pve (incursion), small/med gang pvp (on or offgrid), hi-sec wars, and offgrid POS boosts for locals at least.
Why? If you can't build the numbers yourself on EFT, the waste of time is your posting here.
Edit: besides, your "off/on grid is irrelevant to CS/T3 talk" shows how much you miss the point. |
Griznatch
Xicron Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 17:58:00 -
[37] - Quote
The title of the thread is what should ccp do about cs vs t3, not what ccp should do about offgrid boosters. All thats been said in this thread is "i feel this" and "i want this" and "i believe this", which amounts to one opinion vs another. If op wants anything changed, its gonna take more than a few "i think command ships should have a better"s to change minds. All I'm asking is for the op to pripovide some sort of data about the situation and some data about how thier proposed changes should work. Making drastic changes to game mechanicas based on opinions isnt gonna happen. Want a change? Prove that its needed. |
Alexandria Aesirial
Viziam Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 00:47:00 -
[38] - Quote
The current state of boosting is fine. Those who use alts to provide boosts will have a difficult time monitoring 2 accs at once and putting both in a tight situation. It's only blobbing when you lose, otherwise it's good fleet comp. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 00:52:00 -
[39] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:gang boosting being only doable on grid would solve these problems.
+1 this is the only thing that need to be done |
Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 02:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
It's funny that ppl refer to gangboosting "solo-ers" as game-breakers...
"Boosting their main to ridiculous levels"...com on...lol...
If you want to discuss about "fairness" and realism, instead of whining for "on-grid" boosting, solve non-stackable boosting first.
What I mean? Lets go trough this again (cause I've elaborated on it before):
Right now a single booster can uniformly boost any givnb size of fleet, as long as all the command positions are occupied by a toon with proper skills. You can have a booster CS or T3 boosting 2 players to say 15% better attributes per link, or the same ship can boost 200 players equally effective.
This "multitasking" ability is insanely unrealistic. If one T3 in a POS boosting a soloer is gamebreaking, what is a Titan or the same T3 boosting 50+ ships?
What is gamebreaking? Having 1-3 ships being 25% better, or having 100+ ships being 25% better?
Few are the chocking points in eve where the sov holder doesn't have boosters being online half + of the day - if not all day.
Am I suggesting that large gangs should have no bonuses? Off course not. But they should structure their fleets with way-way more boosters to receive even remotely the same bonuses = more boosters per ship.
For you silly blobbers and gankers, CCP gave the new Tier 3 BCs... Having 30% of your fleet as logis is the norm for quite a few alliances / corps, so RR should not be a problem. Now, if you want bonuses "on-grid", exactly because of the above you don't deserve nerfing small gangs even more.
Get a clue and help EVE-O survive. "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 02:49:00 -
[41] - Quote
I agree with Diomidis.
People should address real issues instead of bitching about non-existant problems, 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Liang Nuren
Perkone Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 03:09:00 -
[42] - Quote
Diomidis wrote:It's funny that ppl refer to gangboosting "solo-ers" as game-breakers...
"Boosting their main to ridiculous levels"...com on...lol...
If you want to discuss about "fairness" and realism, instead of whining for "on-grid" boosting, solve non-stackable boosting first.
What I mean? Lets go trough this again (cause I've elaborated on it before):
Right now a single booster can uniformly boost any givnb size of fleet, as long as all the command positions are occupied by a toon with proper skills. You can have a booster CS or T3 boosting 2 players to say 15% better attributes per link, or the same ship can boost 200 players equally effective.
This "multitasking" ability is insanely unrealistic. If one T3 in a POS boosting a soloer is gamebreaking, what is a Titan or the same T3 boosting 50+ ships?
What is gamebreaking? Having 1-3 ships being 25% better, or having 100+ ships being 25% better?
Few are the chocking points in eve where the sov holder doesn't have boosters being online half + of the day - if not all day.
Am I suggesting that large gangs should have no bonuses? Off course not. But they should structure their fleets with way-way more boosters to receive even remotely the same bonuses = more boosters per ship.
For you silly blobbers and gankers, CCP gave the new Tier 3 BCs... Having 30% of your fleet as logis is the norm for quite a few alliances / corps, so RR should not be a problem. Now, if you want bonuses "on-grid", exactly because of the above you don't deserve nerfing small gangs even more.
Get a clue and help EVE-O survive.
This is a really insightful post.
-Liang |
Desudes
Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 03:53:00 -
[43] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:I agree with Diomidis.
People should address real issues instead of bitching about non-existant problems,
Having been a part of balancing issue discussions in multiple games I can safely say: If they can't find the actual broken thing in the first place I daresay I don't want them anywhere near the discussion that covers how to fix it. With that said I shall give my advice:
OP or not, off-grid boosting is just silly. I am against any mechanic that has ships fulfilling their purpose with no player behind them (this is why I hate passive shield tanking & AFK missioning drone boats). I don't think it's to much to ask to require people fly the ship.
As for structured bonuses: sounds like a good idea. An interesting parallel is Bards in Everquest doing point blank AE buffs that hit anyone in range (usually 72 man raid, but unlimited targets within big radius). This was kept in balance by simply having only a few buffs able to hit everyone while their regular and much more powerful buffs targetted their group (5 other players max). I'm sure something could be worked out with squad and wing boosting limitations to this effect.
Command ships being able to boost more targets then T1 BCs & T3 cruisers is an idea to increase usefulness and balance their higher skill requirement.
Hell, structuring your raid properly for the fight was half the difficulty in PvE in early WoW raiding (the other half being dealing with the idiots that pervaded the game).
My 2isk Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu? |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
148
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:00:00 -
[44] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:People should address real issues instead of bitching about non-existant problems,
I have to disagree. A T3 can only have one link operational without gimping itself by using command processors to fit a full set - something which would greatly mess with its tank - whereas a CS can fit a full set without gimping itself. Additionally, T3's with the warfare sub, even without fitting CP's, have considerably less tank than resist-bonused fleet command ships, and are obtained for roughly twice the price.
While there might still be some people who prefer to bring a T3 on grid over a CS because they want a higher bonus and don't necessarily need all three links, I expect that number would drop noticeably as people realize how squishy and expensive they are in comparison to the command ships.
Edit: If anyone doubts this, just look at the Alliance Tournament. Strategic Cruisers are the same points value as Command Ships, yet we see a lot of people fielding Claymores, Damnations, and (I believe) a few Vultures. |
ValentinaDLM
Ubi Concordia Ibi Victoria
408
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:33:00 -
[45] - Quote
Honestly, I think things are fine the way they are, if you want 3 links on a t3 then certainly you have sacrificed their fit for anything they could do on grid, and they can still be probed down now.
There are counters, so the amount of whine here is a bit much, and this is what you get for the risk of SP loss, and spending more isk. |
Alsyth
Night Warder
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:33:00 -
[46] - Quote
ValentinaDLM wrote:Honestly, I think things are fine the way they are, if you want 3 links on a t3 then certainly you have sacrificed their fit for anything they could do on grid, and they can still be probed down now.
There are counters, so the amount of whine here is a bit much, and this is what you get for the risk of SP loss, and spending more isk.
Think as a roamer facing locals with a POS, or hi-sec pilots at war: your enemies haven't sacrificed anything, it's an alt anyway, no risk of being killed, no risk of SP loss, no need to fit it for anything else than boosts. 8 linked Claymore or two 4 linked T3s, doesn't matter.
Is it normal, balanced, whatever? Definitely not.
As for the 255-men fleet against the 5-men gang, Doesn't matter who get the best boost in my opinion, what matter is the drawback:
-with 255 pilots, you can have someone in a T3/CS/Capital on the field giving bonuses, the drawback in dps/whatever is fairly small compared to the advantages of the ganglinks, that's how it should work.
-with 3 pilots, if you want this kind of extremely powerful bonus, it's normal you have to tweak your setup to include a T3 or a CS, which means less dps/tank/whatever. Not normal you can have it just with an alt at a POS with noone piloting it. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:People should address real issues instead of bitching about non-existant problems, I have to disagree. A T3 can only have one link operational without gimping itself by using command processors to fit a full set - something which would greatly mess with its tank - whereas a CS can fit a full set without gimping itself. Additionally, T3's with the warfare sub, even without fitting CP's, have considerably less tank than resist-bonused fleet command ships, and are obtained for roughly twice the price. Remember the Falcons jamming you while sitting 200 km away? I don't see how grid-wide CS/t3 boosting from 200-500 km is less stupid than that.
Never forget those Falcons 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Cypher Decypher
Elite United Hard Moose Moose Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 23:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
Looking a this from CCP's point of view, I'm fairly certain they'll not opt for on-grid boosting because it will affect too many players' game style. Let's not forget that fleet boosters are used everywhere, from null & w space up to highsec missioning.
On-grid boosting would, paradoxically, nerf T3 production. POS-based & safed T3 boosters are used everywhere in w-space, and make a huge difference to Sleeper farming efficiency.
CCP have stated a commitment to continued *balancing* through Crucible and beyond. What I read from that is exactly what they've been doing - namely fine-tuning stuff that needed it. Game mechanics are more difficult and contentious items to fiddle with.
I certainly agree that something should be done - but the simplest options are usually the best. So I would expect that, if CCP choose anything at all, it will be a simple percentage tweak.
|
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 01:41:00 -
[49] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Roosterton wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:People should address real issues instead of bitching about non-existant problems, I have to disagree. A T3 can only have one link operational without gimping itself by using command processors to fit a full set - something which would greatly mess with its tank - whereas a CS can fit a full set without gimping itself. Additionally, T3's with the warfare sub, even without fitting CP's, have considerably less tank than resist-bonused fleet command ships, and are obtained for roughly twice the price. Remember the Falcons jamming you while sitting 200 km away? I don't see how grid-wide CS/t3 boosting from 200-500 km is less stupid than that. Never forget those Falcons
At least this would ensure they can't just sit at a POS and be completely safe. And an inty can cover 200km in ~40 seconds if need be.
Alternatively, make it distance-based, so within 100km or something. If this is technically possible. |
Desudes
Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 02:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Roosterton wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:People should address real issues instead of bitching about non-existant problems, I have to disagree. A T3 can only have one link operational without gimping itself by using command processors to fit a full set - something which would greatly mess with its tank - whereas a CS can fit a full set without gimping itself. Additionally, T3's with the warfare sub, even without fitting CP's, have considerably less tank than resist-bonused fleet command ships, and are obtained for roughly twice the price. Remember the Falcons jamming you while sitting 200 km away? I don't see how grid-wide CS/t3 boosting from 200-500 km is less stupid than that. Never forget those Falcons
I knew there was a reason for Rokh/Naga hitting up to 249km! The main point in grid-wide boosting, or any range limitation, is to make the player actually field the ship in order to make it useful.
I'd like to see ganglinks fitted similar to subsystems; you can slot them in and out without effecting your fitting. Rebalance CS stats if need be.
The current ganglink implementation is just silly, they are best used by a ship fitted for nothing but it while sitting at a POS. Does this honestly make sense to anybody? Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu? |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 11:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
And what exactly prevented those inties from covering these 200 km to get those Falcons? What prevented Rokhs from popping them?
Looks like you totally missed the point. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:And what exactly prevented those inties from covering these 200 km to get those Falcons? What prevented Rokhs from popping them?
Looks like you totally missed the point.
What? Huh?
You seem to be proving my point. As it is, they're offgrid, so nothing can touch them. If they're ongrid, they can be hit by inties/LR ships, or close range ones if they warp on an inty/covops.
Make more sense. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:25:00 -
[53] - Quote
Dude, the same was true for the Falcons, yet they got tuned down.
My point is: grid-wide boosting changes literally nothing for small-scale PvP where it's almost impossible to hit that far while at the same time large fleets gain close to nothing, too - I mean, come on, they already have an option to scan down the booster and kill it with limited forces as the battle just starts. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:31:00 -
[54] - Quote
Well, I'm pretty sure I was not into the whole command ships in POS thing boosting losers in systems they decid is theirs and camp 23/7.
Ofc i have used alts for whatever i need them for. its not hard for me to go and drop 10bill on a boosting character. Stil, i dont want to have to pay for 2 accounts to deal with these no-skilled losers who scout ecm boost there way to victory.
Anyway, fock t3 boosting alts and commandships. Remove them and logistics from game. |
Andrea Griffin
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:18:00 -
[55] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:What happens when you have a fleet reffin' a pos and you wanna spread your light tackle out on the gates to catch incoming hostiles, are you gonna set up a squad and command ship for each gate or do you just leave your light tackle without bonuses? Isn't that the whole point of having distinct squads within a fleet, each with a squad commander? It's not you guys who need to repair what has been broken, it's us. CCP Wrangler |
Julia Connor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
I can't wait for the T2 gang link mods. |
Desudes
Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 01:01:00 -
[57] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:And what exactly prevented those inties from covering these 200 km to get those Falcons? What prevented Rokhs from popping them?
Looks like you totally missed the point.
Railguns and Rokh doing ****-poor DPS. Say Hello to the Naga, 25% damage increase over the Rokh while at their release railguns are receiving a damage bonus (10% I think?) so therefore you will more likely see these ships in action.
Falcon's jam, CSs don't. If I was 200km off jamming people with a few other Falcon's I'd sure as hell jam anyone yellow/red boxing me from that far off first.
Inty's against Falcons OR CSs would not be a very great idea as they'd just run into a swarm of Warrior II's and missiles that otherwise sit idle, and die... I've watched a single Rook against multiple Inty's and AFs, it isn't pretty.
Fon Revedhort wrote:Dude, the same was true for the Falcons, yet they got tuned down.
My point is: grid-wide boosting changes literally nothing for small-scale PvP where it's almost impossible to hit that far while at the same time large fleets gain close to nothing, too - I mean, come on, they already have an option to scan down the booster and kill it with limited forces as the battle just starts.
As I mentioned before, there has not been a proper platform until the Naga to deal with extreme range annoyances. Rails could always be made to hit far enough, they just didn't do enough dmg to be worth bringing along; not the sacrifice is much, much less.
scan-down a boost before the battle starts? What about sitting at a POS, or safe spot warping, or just logging your booster alt off until the battle begins then logging him on- are people going to split off mid fight to go scan down a CS that is bouncing around safe spots?
You also miss the point of why the hell should fleets get bonuses from a ship that isn't being played?
And the fact that Falcons got tuned down is more reason to change ganglinks, not less. Imagine being jammed from a POS that's 15au away?
And of course...
Andrea Griffin wrote:Griznatch wrote:What happens when you have a fleet reffin' a pos and you wanna spread your light tackle out on the gates to catch incoming hostiles, are you gonna set up a squad and command ship for each gate or do you just leave your light tackle without bonuses? Isn't that the whole point of having distinct squads within a fleet, each with a squad commander?
Couldn't have said it better myself. Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu? |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 01:59:00 -
[58] - Quote
In the past I've been an advocate of bringing all boosting on-grid, but I'm starting to change my mind.
T3's in pure ganglink configuration require premades safes or time to set up anywhere other than their home system, and even then they can be probed out - especially if they're in a hurry and have set up in a hasty safe. I've run with them in gangs and we've been jumped before the links could be set up on multiple occasions.
As for links in POSes, I really don't see the issue with a home-field advantage for corps that have them. You can burn down the post to remove the home field advantage, fight somewhere else, or modify your combat plan with the knowledge that they'll have boosters.
On the other hand, I've advocated for on-grid boosting in order to make Field CS's and BC's utilized more in the leadership role, especially because with the T2 ganglinks coming off-grid links could become almost mandatory with their significant bonuses.
But with experience it's become pretty easy to spot this t3 ganglink alts, and you have plenty of time to react when they're getting set up - they're much like Falcons, when you notice their presence you're less likely to engage unless you are confident in your ability to counter them. That's the ultimate balance of EVE - you can roll with your ganglink alts and miss out on fights, or go in a more vulnerable seeming BC with slightly less effective links and get some fights that you wouldn't have otherwise.
EDIT: And I have scanned down t3 alts during a fight - the entire fight was actually a diversion we staged to get the alt decloaked and not paying attention to scan, and we very nearly got the t3 kill out of it - our diversionary force got a bit overzealous and forced them off the field which meant they cloaked up the alt just when we had it busted. I've still got that safe if they ever come back though :( |
Desudes
Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 02:27:00 -
[59] - Quote
Tamiya Sarossa wrote:EDIT: And I have scanned down t3 alts during a fight - the entire fight was actually a diversion we staged to get the alt decloaked and not paying attention to scan, and we very nearly got the t3 kill out of it - our diversionary force got a bit overzealous and forced them off the field which meant they cloaked up the alt just when we had it busted. I've still got that safe if they ever come back though :(
So today I vastly out-numbered my opponent and thus was able to combat unbalanced mechanics. Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu? |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 05:38:00 -
[60] - Quote
Desudes wrote:Tamiya Sarossa wrote:EDIT: And I have scanned down t3 alts during a fight - the entire fight was actually a diversion we staged to get the alt decloaked and not paying attention to scan, and we very nearly got the t3 kill out of it - our diversionary force got a bit overzealous and forced them off the field which meant they cloaked up the alt just when we had it busted. I've still got that safe if they ever come back though :( So today I vastly out-numbered my opponent and thus was able to combat unbalanced mechanics.
It was 4v4 - 5v5 if you count their alt and our scanning alt. Pretty even too - BS and three BC's versus their two tengus and two drakes, they had sentries. Phoon nueted down one of the tengus and it decided to deaggro and dock, the rest ran - which was about when I finally got the t3 probed down, sadly.
Saying mechanics are unbalanced doesn't make it so, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |