Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FT Cold
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:20:49 -
[151] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Links on KM would help.
Look me up on zkillboard.com. It's a forum rule to not post killmails on forums other than C&P. I harass boosters from time to time, but usually just provide warp-ins, when I saw this thread I decided to grab a few solo kills today to show that it can be done. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
34698
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:46:50 -
[152] - Quote
Budda Kuha wrote:Ok, forgive me but at this point I'm not really sure if you just don't get links or if you're trolling. No need to forgive. Yes, partly trolling because it's pretty easy.
Aside from that, different perspectives can all be true. There is no single one truth that rules them all. My points weren't wrong in the same way yours aren't.
So no need to try again. You see it only from one side. I also understand that side, but push a different view which is equally as valid, because a broader perspective on these things is always good.
Quote:1. Tank to dps ratio: The smaller the gang the higher is the potential tanking boost relative to accumulated dps. That's simple math speaking for itself. Except that this is one point I would disagree. Not that your position is wrong, but that is looks at the issue from only 1 perspective.
Links allow smaller gangs to take on larger gangs that they otherwise wouldn't consider. Each ship in the fleet gains equal benefit from the links, but by taking on a larger fleet, the incoming DPS is greater, not less. That's also simple math.
I understand your perspective, but in this whole discussion you haven't acknowledged even once, the possibility that links actually benefit small gangs, only that they hurt them. It's not the full picture, because it's skewed to a single view.
I'm not against changing links at all. I personally think there are plenty of opportunities to increase the gameplay options around them. Just not simply by bringing them on grid though. That wouldn't have a measurable effect for many situations and certainly wouldn't do anything to affect them in highsec pvp.
My previous post outlined some other options and I am sure that there are many more and much better ones that hopefully are eventually implemented.
Quote:It's late, I'm a bit drunk and I'm also lacking a bit in the english department to explain the whole thing more eloquently but nevertheless i really hope the general idea got through this time. Your general idea has been put several times. It's still no more correct than mine. They are both equally valid positions and views.
Links are not the big, dirty menace destroying pvp and keeping new players from joining the game (I actually laughed at that one). They are a force multiplier like many force multipliers including ewar, logisitics and N+1 (or N+many).
The counter argument against them is usually not to come cry in the forum asking CCP to deal with the issue.
Most players/fleets either run them as well, counter them by killing them or forcing them to warp, dock or jump; or just totally ignore them and have fun anyway.
But coming and crying in the forum and asking for CCP to change them, when CCP have already stated that they would like to at some point is no different to anyone else coming to the forum and crying for CCP to fix something they can already manage themselves.
Just go manage the issue yourself until it's rebalanced or take useful suggestions to F&I for consideration down the road. That would be far more constructive than moaning in GD.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:59:46 -
[153] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Budda Kuha wrote:Dealing with it like getting a booster alt or stop flying solo? No. There are other ways to deal with it. I also deal with it other ways as I don't use my links character all the time. Quote:You need to understand that the vast majority of the critics of ogb are not notorious whiners. Yes I know this already. I fit into that category. It's only the ones that contribute to threads like this and ask CCP to take responsibility to manage their own limitations that are the whiners. Quote:They see ogb as the bad mechanic it is and that reality won't change no matter how often you claim the problem is non existant -disregarding the arguments and concerns of your fellow eve players. CCP have already said they would like to change the mechanic when they can, doesn't make the current situation a problem. You already have tools at your disposal to deal with it. But you refuse to, other than to cry for CCP to handle it. Quote:I hope that CCP will be less ignorant in that regard and finally give us something before brain in a box is ready. Make them turn up on KB's. Something little. Just a little concession that non-link users concerns are relevant to CCP as they should be since these are the concerns of paying customers which basically have been ignored for years. It's not ignorance, it's impotence. Everyone is a paying customer and that's all, a customer. That doesn't entitle you to any special rights more than anyone else. If you don't like the product, then don't pay.
Well said, you get a +1 from me.
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 04:14:08 -
[154] - Quote
I'd like to see fleet boosting become a more common component of most fleeted ships, especially as battlecruisers aren't really suited to keep up with the kinds of fleets they are supposed to support, particularly with skirmish and info warfare links.
Command ships could keep their bonuses and multi-link support to maintain their uniqueness in the subcap realm.
I'd really like to see support frigates be able able to sport info or skirmish links, on grid, and only applying stacking limited bonuses to other frigate sized hulls in the same squad. Armor and shield warfare link bonuses should be limited (outside of command ships) to applying to ships of a smaller hull size. This would allow large ships to confer a defensive bonus on their escorts, and promote the use of mixed class fleets.
People are upset about the weakness of battleships to bombs, but either their squishiness is diminished or their damage application rate goes up if they rely on smaller support ships to handle roles like scrambling and webbing targets. Small ship fleets don't have a whole lot of reason to rely on fire support from heavier ships in the current meta.
One thing I would really like to see is transport focused hulls (haulers, DSTs, etc) be able to sport links specifically to support their escorts. Extended fleet hangar access range would also increase their utility tremendously. I think that is a totally reasonable proposition even for freighters. Allowing the pilot of the industrial ship being supported to directly shove ammo into the hangars of escort ships would be amazing, and certainly more interesting than twiddling one's thumbs or hoping something comes close enough to web. Stripping the remote capacitor transporter module from logi ships would be an interesting change, but I digress.
These basic versions of offensive links should have fitting requirements in the range of a salvager (info) or a small smartbomb (skirmish). If they have small cumulative effects not dependent upon fleet booster role, the stacking rules should reflect the limit of bonusing only 10 other ships. Possibly, we have no need for changing the fitting requirements of the existing defensive links, limiting them to the current cruiser sized module, and perhaps including a battleship sized variant of seige or armored links. The new fleet support roles of capitals suggests a role in buffing the defenses of battleships,or junior capital ships.
By the same token of limiting links, wing and fleet bonuses should be limited to on-grid effects, and links probably shouldn't propagate across multiple squads. Command ships might be a reasonable exception, but not across multiple wings. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1948
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 10:48:14 -
[155] - Quote
Warp/Agilty fit a T3 and it can keep up with AF's happily. Sure it doesn't have 300k EHP but it also doesn't need them when in a Frigate gang. |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
442
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 11:17:42 -
[156] - Quote
stop talking nonsense/BS
Just ask ccp to to remove off grid boosting of the game for good ASAP.
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 11:52:17 -
[157] - Quote
Oh God. For the hundredth time. CCP have said it can't be done until the code has been rewritten. It is a massive project and they don't want to give ETAs for it. Right now it would melt the servers, and even 10 people in system would be in TiDi.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Kallen Kozukie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:04:08 -
[158] - Quote
It used to be the case you could set your links up in your comfy pos. They took that away at least. Which is a change i agreed with. Removing OGB though seems a bit excessive as its probably only the "have nots" as it were complaining about it, no one is forcing you to run a second account for a booster pilot, and even if you did, its not like the ships are ever truly safe anyway, can always be probed down, caught at gates, accidently left uncloaked somewhere, point is there is risk there.
If its a huge issue, why not either A: train into command ships and provide your own links, or B: recruit someone else to do it. Then your gang can have your own shiny links which are better than a t3 booster.
I would argue that links make a lot of things possible that were not before, ive lost count of the number of times my group has engaged a numericly superior opponent and won just from the advantages links give you. These same fights would have been suicide otherwise, and even finding a fight is hard unless an opponent gang feels they have some form of percieved advantage, such as numbers, tank or dps superiority, the same groups wouldnt have stuck around if we had a similar size gang, contrary to popular belief, no one wants fair fights in EVE, they just want fights they can win. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
3731
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:54:59 -
[159] - Quote
I'm not a fan of off-grid boosts for two reasons:
1. The mechanic is uninteresting. It's a simple flat +% to stats with no direct choices/drawbacks, except the effort to dual-box the booster (see point 2). Fitting ships is an art, implants you have to choose and can only change once every 20h or so, etc.
2. Nobody really 'flies' link ships because it would be boring as hell
I'd have no issue with links being completely removed. For now, I'm training a link alt too though I'll probably use her sparringly because :effort:
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University Amarr Empire
117
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 15:51:27 -
[160] - Quote
Altrue wrote:The end of Off grid boosting will make EVE PvP a bit worse. What do you think? That EVE Players engage in fights they think the ennemi can win?? EVE Players engage when they think they will win. Off Grid Boosting allows that extra unexpected edge to defeat your opponents in a seemingly unbalanced engagement. Removing it would seriously impair solo PvP. Besides, both sides can do Off Grid Boosting. There is literally nothing more balanced than that. A perfectly symetrical mecanic. Go ahead and bring your booster on-grid! Now exposed to a multitude of new threats, you have to dedicate a human player to play it instead of using an alt... Except that boosters are flying bricks, there is literally nothing more boring to fly Good job, you've just made EVE PVP worse and you've created an extremely boring role, mandatory in every serious fleet. Really, what a brilliant idea.
Actually this is the strongest argument for removing links and boosts from the game entirely. You are right, nobody wants to fly as the link ship. So all it ends up being is someone pays CCP extra money in the form of a subscription in order to have an edge in the fight, or even the odds. It's like that scene in South Park where one of the cripple kids takes steroids and he rationalizes "well everyone else does it, this just gets me on the same playing field".
If everyone has to do it, then what's the advantage? The advantage of shelling out extra money or grinding for extra isk/plex every month to maintain a level playing field? This doesn't sound like the full depth of playing of choices. This is like clone cost upgrades, there is no real choice being made here.
So, CCP made this "Pay for advantage" system where someone has the responsibility of shelling out extra cash for an alt to sit there and idle. And what...if the guy who has the alt leaves your corp, who gets that responsibility now? Do you draw straws? Who in your corp should burden this responsibility? Should every person have one, just in case someone else leaves and takes their booster alt with them? Should every CCP customer be pressured into maintaining a second account to use for boosts?
People beat around the bush, but this is the essence of the problem right here. If it's not a real player in that ship making choices and participating in the game, then it's nothing more than a way for CCP to sell more plex.
Make it a fleet role that is feasible and fun to be a part of, like logi, and most problems go away. People complain about not having a booster alt DO have every opportunity to have one, but the reason they're complaining is that it doesn't add gameplay value when they do. They just shell out extra money to even a playing field.
You could force links to be issued via friendly locks like logi, and reduce the chance of those ships being primaried by scaling back their boosts so the advantage they bring isn't overwhelming. Then it becomes a choice as to whether or not to primary them, because they aren't your biggest problem anymore. It becomes a choice as to whether or not to bring a link ship or another type, because the help is marginal. Suddenly these things become real choices and not just a default "yes". But that's just a quick and fleeting idea, not to be taken seriously. My main point is that CCP made links in a way that's bad for the game because it boils down to fleecing customers for a few extra bucks to even up the odds against richer (isk-wise, who can afford to plex a second account) opponents.
That all said, if CCP doesn't remove links, I really won't care either. They haven't been used against me, and I suspect if I find myself in a PvP position, someone will inevitably bring them for my side, so whatever, it evens out. My annoyance is with it not being a fleet role and just a paid advantage, not that it may or may not provide a lopsided advantage in any past or future fight. I like that. I think the concept is great, I just want a real human at the keyboard.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
|
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
23878
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 16:02:22 -
[161] - Quote
Put OGBs in killmails. We'll be able to correlate OGB alts with their mains and make smarter decisions about probing down the OGB and killing them before engaging the main.
Let the players solve this problem instead of changing the mechanic.
Sleep all day. Party all night. Never grow old. Never die. -óߦªß¦ç-ó
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 16:25:58 -
[162] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:For all of the people who believe that boosters are 100% safe, you can check out my KB.
They're 100% safe if you aren't completely ********. Combat probes on dscan is kindof hard to miss.
|
Brutus Utama
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 16:44:34 -
[163] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:i have seen this in many small games: you can pay real money for next level or some stuff you can but lazy to get with ingame means.
Why not make it in Eve? Let's say i want to kill this particular pilot/ship. I just too lazy to do it. I select it in overview, press button 'pay for kill' and BOOM! Money paid, killmail is ready and pilot goes to cloning facility.
Stupid you say? Why? This is Eve: nothing needs to be fair game. You want to be 'competitive'? Just use whatever you can to get upper hand. You are paying for second account with booster to get 'solo' kills? Ok. You pay real money for special button to get the same kill? Ok too.
WORST IDEA EVER....
Anyway onto my thoughts.... using a link ship is a risk too that ship + pod probably isnt cheap and it has about as much tank as a well tanked frig.... yes they give an advantage but everyone is able to use that advantage.... but its also a disadvantage to have that ship in system if someone is able to tackle it it cant really defend it self and then thats alot of isk down the drain....
so by removing off grid boosts you also want every miner to have an orca on grid with him? because that would be ridiculous... |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
124
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 16:45:45 -
[164] - Quote
I can guarantee if OGB wasn't in the game, and CCP tried to add it in now, eh ere would be a riot.
Imagine if CCP announced a new ship type that provided additional OGBs that stacked with existing ones. You think the Eve community would take kindly to it?
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
3733
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 16:47:17 -
[165] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I can guarantee if OGB wasn't in the game, and CCP tried to add it in now, eh ere would be a riot.
Imagine if CCP announced a new ship type that provided additional OGBs that stacked with existing ones. You think the Eve community would take kindly to it? No need to imagine, mate.
They will be called SuperFozzieCapitals.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
943
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 17:01:49 -
[166] - Quote
OGB is akin to docbuffs in SWG were... they were required for participation.
Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.
I invented Tiericide
|
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 17:30:03 -
[167] - Quote
Anyone here if this thing call combat probes. I'm pretty sure there can scan down your problem OGB'ers. If they have to warp off then all the sudden they can't boost anymore.
Am I correct here?
Either way I don't care, I never run in to issues of these types. Either way Eve is fine, stop you bi**hin and adapt or die. |
Budda Kuha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 18:35:43 -
[168] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: Aside from that, different perspectives can all be true. There is no single one truth that rules them all. My points weren't wrong in the same way yours aren't.
So no need to try again. You see it only from one side. I also understand that side, but push a different view which is equally as valid, because a broader perspective on these things is always good.
Links allow smaller gangs to take on larger gangs that they otherwise wouldn't consider. Each ship in the fleet gains equal benefit from the links, but by taking on a larger fleet, the incoming DPS is greater, not less. That's also simple math.
I understand your perspective, but in this whole discussion you haven't acknowledged even once, the possibility that links actually benefit small gangs, only that they hurt them. It's not the full picture, because it's skewed to a single view.
No. I'm sorry but imo that's realtivistic hooey based on flawed logic. Ogb is a zero sum game, If everybody has them noone benefits ( although admittedly that's kind of a simplification aswell). Small gangs only benefit if the larger gang doesn't have them. For reasons mentioned in my earlier post larger gangs will tendentially a) be more likely to have them b) have command ship links instead of inferior t3 links when in their own space c) be more likely able to intercept enemy boosting. On top of that full skirmish links make short work of the most viable tactics when facing a superior force. Thus the concept of links in general favors larger gangs over smaller gangs and is especially harmful to guerilla warfare.
The misconception that links favor small gang pvp is imo based on a spurious correllation. Small scale pvp is for numerous reasons tendentially done by more well established "leet pvpers" who are more likely to have a link alt. As soon as almost everybody has them it will become more apparant how ogb truly shapes the pvp landscape.
I'll give you an example: After my eve break i roamed the same systems i used to. The only difference is that the locals have become almost completely stationary when they have a command ship in system. On numerous occasions they didn't even chase my kiting frig out of their ogb sphere when they literally had everything (hyena, ecm) at the gate to make short work of it.
|
Budda Kuha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 18:42:20 -
[169] - Quote
Just my two isk on the "Ogb's are fine since everybody can have them, adapt or die" Argument:
Casuals and solo players are still the majority of the eve playerbase as far as i know. These players just might not have the time/money/willingnes to make a very complex game more dificult/expensive/time intensive to play. They want to log in and have some pvp action without being penalized any further (they will still have less practice. less isk and less friends) for not being a fulltime evenerd who runs multiple accounts. They want to login, roam freely and have some fun and they don't want to carry around a ridiculous booster to play the game at the same level as others. How do I know? Call it human intuition.
Who wants to carry that booster around or be bound to that station hugging claymore like a dog at his kennel anyway? People like their stat boost but the mechanic itself is hideous and terrible and when the stat boost gets diminished because ogb is a zero sum game and because the victims of ogb-leetnes will either withdraw from pvp/eve in general or start running boosters themselves all that remains will be the uglyness of that mechanic.
|
Budda Kuha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 18:47:30 -
[170] - Quote
double post. nvm |
|
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Feign Disorder
159
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 18:49:25 -
[171] - Quote
Budda Kuha wrote:Just my two isk on the "Ogb's are fine since everybody can have them, adapt or die" Argument:
Casuals and solo players are still the majority of the eve playerbase as far as i know. These players just might not have the time/money/willingnes to make a very complex game more dificult/expensive/time intensive to play. They want to log in and have some pvp action without being penalized any further (they will still have less practice. less isk and less friends) for not being a fulltime evenerd who runs multiple accounts. They want to login, roam freely and have some fun and they don't want to carry around a ridiculous booster to play the game at the same level as others. How do I know? Call it human intuition.
Who wants to carry that booster around or be bound to that station hugging claymore like a dog at his kennel anyway? People like their stat boost but the mechanic itself is hideous and terrible and when the stat boost gets diminished because ogb is a zero sum game and because the victims of ogb-leetnes will either withdraw from pvp/eve in general or start running boosters themselves all that remains will be the uglyness of that mechanic.
Some people might call you delusional, i am calling a ******. You are taking your notions and thoughts and applying it for a group of people, when you are not one. OGB are not invincible, you can scan them with ease. So your argument holds no value, really it does not. |
Kallen Kozukie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 18:50:43 -
[172] - Quote
Budda Kuha wrote:Just my two isk on the "Ogb's are fine since everybody can have them, adapt or die" Argument:
Casuals and solo players are still the majority of the eve playerbase as far as i know. These players just might not have the time/money/willingnes to make a very complex game more dificult/expensive/time intensive to play. They want to log in and have some pvp action without being penalized any further (they will still have less practice. less isk and less friends) for not being a fulltime evenerd who runs multiple accounts. They want to login, roam freely and have some fun and they don't want to carry around a ridiculous booster to play the game at the same level as others. How do I know? Call it human intuition.
Who wants to carry that booster around or be bound to that station hugging claymore like a dog at his kennel anyway? People like their stat boost but the mechanic itself is hideous and terrible and when the stat boost gets diminished because ogb is a zero sum game and because the victims of ogb-leetnes will either withdraw from pvp/eve in general or start running boosters themselves all that remains will be the uglyness of that mechanic.
I dont see how anyone elses unwillingness is anyone elses problem but thier own, the option is there to use them, or even field a few choice links in a combat capable command ship. The option not to use them is there as well. Ship choice and fittings still play a major role even if both gangs have identical links.
so again, what is the issue here. because all i see here is "I cant/dont want to have a 2nd account for boosting"
Well thats fantastic, for you, however it does not mean the rest of us need to not have a booster, because you choose not to.
As stated earlier, small gangs have a hard time finding fights unless they are either outnumbered or outgunned, usually both. Links help close that gap, and retain the ability to find a fight if hidden well.
|
Budda Kuha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 19:02:07 -
[173] - Quote
Kallen Kozukie wrote:Budda Kuha wrote:Just my two isk on the "Ogb's are fine since everybody can have them, adapt or die" Argument:
Casuals and solo players are still the majority of the eve playerbase as far as i know. These players just might not have the time/money/willingnes to make a very complex game more dificult/expensive/time intensive to play. They want to log in and have some pvp action without being penalized any further (they will still have less practice. less isk and less friends) for not being a fulltime evenerd who runs multiple accounts. They want to login, roam freely and have some fun and they don't want to carry around a ridiculous booster to play the game at the same level as others. How do I know? Call it human intuition.
Who wants to carry that booster around or be bound to that station hugging claymore like a dog at his kennel anyway? People like their stat boost but the mechanic itself is hideous and terrible and when the stat boost gets diminished because ogb is a zero sum game and because the victims of ogb-leetnes will either withdraw from pvp/eve in general or start running boosters themselves all that remains will be the uglyness of that mechanic.
I dont see how anyone elses unwillingness is anyone elses problem but thier own, the option is there to use them, or even field a few choice links in a combat capable command ship. The option not to use them is there as well. Ship choice and fittings still play a major role even if both gangs have identical links. so again, what is the issue here. because all i see here is "I cant/dont want to have a 2nd account for boosting" Well thats fantastic, for you, however it does not mean the rest of us need to not have a booster, because you choose not to. As stated earlier, small gangs have a hard time finding fights unless they are either outnumbered or outgunned, usually both. Links help close that gap, and retain the ability to find a fight if hidden well.
You can see it that way but wouldn't it be actually better to get rid of a bad mechanic which does very little to enhance gameplay but hurts accessability by a whole lot? Eve is a complex game and that's what great about it but links add very little to that complexity but increase the barrier to actually play it for casuals by a whole lot. imo that's just not a good idea. You can turn this whole thing into a discourse about free will but at the end of the day 40k players are better than 25k. Wouldn't you agree?
The notion that links help small gangs is imo a total misconception as i tried to argue earlier. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Feign Disorder
159
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 19:05:24 -
[174] - Quote
Budda Kuha wrote:Kallen Kozukie wrote:Budda Kuha wrote:Just my two isk on the "Ogb's are fine since everybody can have them, adapt or die" Argument:
Casuals and solo players are still the majority of the eve playerbase as far as i know. These players just might not have the time/money/willingnes to make a very complex game more dificult/expensive/time intensive to play. They want to log in and have some pvp action without being penalized any further (they will still have less practice. less isk and less friends) for not being a fulltime evenerd who runs multiple accounts. They want to login, roam freely and have some fun and they don't want to carry around a ridiculous booster to play the game at the same level as others. How do I know? Call it human intuition.
Who wants to carry that booster around or be bound to that station hugging claymore like a dog at his kennel anyway? People like their stat boost but the mechanic itself is hideous and terrible and when the stat boost gets diminished because ogb is a zero sum game and because the victims of ogb-leetnes will either withdraw from pvp/eve in general or start running boosters themselves all that remains will be the uglyness of that mechanic.
I dont see how anyone elses unwillingness is anyone elses problem but thier own, the option is there to use them, or even field a few choice links in a combat capable command ship. The option not to use them is there as well. Ship choice and fittings still play a major role even if both gangs have identical links. so again, what is the issue here. because all i see here is "I cant/dont want to have a 2nd account for boosting" Well thats fantastic, for you, however it does not mean the rest of us need to not have a booster, because you choose not to. As stated earlier, small gangs have a hard time finding fights unless they are either outnumbered or outgunned, usually both. Links help close that gap, and retain the ability to find a fight if hidden well. You can see it that way but wouldn't it be actually better to get rid of a bad mechanic which does very little to enhance gameplay but hurts accessability by a whole lot? Eve is a complex game and that's what great about it but links add very little to that complexity but increase the barrier to actually play it for casuals by a whole lot. imo that's just not a good idea. You can turn this whole thing into a discourse about free will but at the end of the day 40k players are better than 25k. Wouldn't you agree? The notion that links help small gangs is imo a total misconception as i tried to argue earlier. You are just a f'en troll and this thead should be never posted again.
|
Kallen Kozukie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 19:11:03 -
[175] - Quote
The change to boosting inside a pos was enough imo, it used to be the case you could sit in your cereal box fortress and boost all day, now THAT was broken, now at least the ships are out on the field, where they can be blapped.
You say that it dosn't add anything to the game, the vast majority of us disagree with you. It is completely counterable in fact if you are watchful and know how to probe.
The extra speed, range etc are essential for some types of gameplay, now just because you dont feel it fits in your vision of the sandbox, does not make it ok to demonize them for your lack of willingness to use them.
To turn your own argument against you, 25k players is indeed less than 40k, but of those 25k how many do you think are rolling around looking for solo pvp gudfights.
I promise you the answer is less than you think.
i encounter gangs all the time that do not have links, at all, some dont even know what combat probes even are. some use them religiously. But the operative word in all of it is gang, IE: more than one person. Eve is not a single player game, despite how many carebears and soloists wish it to be so, even without links, that 40 man gate camp is still going to wreck your face regardless. |
Budda Kuha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
31
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 19:38:00 -
[176] - Quote
Kallen Kozukie wrote:The change to boosting inside a pos was enough imo, it used to be the case you could sit in your cereal box fortress and boost all day, now THAT was broken, now at least the ships are out on the field, where they can be blapped.
You say that it dosn't add anything to the game, the vast majority of us disagree with you. It is completely counterable in fact if you are watchful and know how to probe.
The extra speed, range etc are essential for some types of gameplay, now just because you dont feel it fits in your vision of the sandbox, does not make it ok to demonize them for your lack of willingness to use them.
To turn your own argument against you, 25k players is indeed less than 40k, but of those 25k how many do you think are rolling around looking for solo pvp gudfights.
I promise you the answer is less than you think.
i encounter gangs all the time that do not have links, at all, some dont even know what combat probes even are. some use them religiously. But the operative word in all of it is gang, IE: more than one person. Eve is not a single player game, despite how many carebears and soloists wish it to be so, even without links, that 40 man gate camp is still going to wreck your face regardless.
They are not completely counterable. For small gangs they are not counterable at all for the most time. Think about it. Even if one of the three pilots of a hypothetical 3-ship small gang is willing to play the role of flying a bonused probing hull instead of a combat ship (oh joy!) he will be comepletely out of luck in lowsec (boosters hug stations and gates) and in nullsec the booster will just warp when he sees combat probes at 1au. or it will be well defended sitting at station or next to a pos. Furthermore having to run a dedicated prober and thus decreasing the gangs combat strenghts will work as a massive indirect debuff This has really all been dicsussed before.
The argument that links are essential for anything is misleading imo. Myself being quite a bad pilot i'm still able to fight 1vsmany most of the time and have a lot of fun doing it. It's not that hard really. You can still fit a kiting gang that will work just fine but within the fitting boundaries of balanced hulls! Why do you think CCP balances stuff at all?The only situation where you really need links is when the enemy has them. The idea of needings links imo comes from the fact that players got used to bluntly doing things in pvp they shouldn't be able to do in the first place.
|
FT Cold
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 19:56:44 -
[177] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:FT Cold wrote:For all of the people who believe that boosters are 100% safe, you can check out my KB. They're 100% safe if you aren't completely ********. Combat probes on dscan is kindof hard to miss.
If they're forced to cloak or warp off then the links are down. OP success. Otherwise, if they don't press dscan for 20 seconds, I get a shiny killmail. |
Lloyd Roses
901
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 20:14:17 -
[178] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote: Put OGBs in killmails. We'll be able to correlate OGB alts with their mains and make smarter decisions about probing down the OGB and killing them before engaging the main.
Let the players solve this problem instead of changing the mechanic.
Put logistics in there aswell and you got a deal!
I GÖÑ Sleipnir
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
34729
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 20:50:54 -
[179] - Quote
maCH'EttE wrote:Budda Kuha wrote:You can see it that way but wouldn't it be actually better to get rid of a bad mechanic which does very little to enhance gameplay but hurts accessability by a whole lot? Eve is a complex game and that's what great about it but links add very little to that complexity but increase the barrier to actually play it for casuals by a whole lot. imo that's just not a good idea. You can turn this whole thing into a discourse about free will but at the end of the day 40k players are better than 25k. Wouldn't you agree?
The notion that links help small gangs is imo a total misconception as i tried to argue earlier. You are just a f'en troll and this thead should be never posted again. Not empty quoting.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Faenir Antollare
University of Caille Gallente Federation
366
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 20:53:20 -
[180] - Quote
So many words, yet now just two still suffice.. combat probes.
RiP BooBoo
26/7/1971 - 23/7/2014
My Lady My Love My Life My Wife
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |