| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
194
   |
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:06:37 -
[1] - Quote
The goal is to make warfare links fun, skill intensive and balanced for fleets of any size in a way that's viable right now and doesn't require new technology:
- Remove Command Processors
- Command ships and strategic cruisers with the Warfare Processor subsystem can fit two links
- Warfare links trigger a weapon timer
- Replace all current warfare links with the following:
Skirmish Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to speed of fleet's afterburner and microwarpdrive modules
0.6% bonus to range of fleet's propulsion jamming modules
0.6% reduction to fleet's signature radius
Siege Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's shield resistances
0.6% reduction to capacitor usage of fleet's shield booster and shield transporters
0.6% reduction to cycle time of shield boosters and shield transporters
Armor Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's armor resistances
0.6% reduction to capacitor usage of fleet's armor repair and remote armor repair
0.6% reduction to cycle time of fleet's armor repair and remote armor repair
Information Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's lock range and sensor strength
0.6% bonus to range of fleet's electronic warfare modules
0.6% bonus to strength of fleet's electronic warfare modules
T2 warfare links get a 0.75% bonus instead 0.6%
Each of the warfare links have three scripts that boost one bonus by 200% at the expense of the other two.
After bonuses from perfect skills, command ships and mindlinks, T2 links provide a ~3.23% bonus unscripted or a ~9.7% bonus scripted.
While this doesn't remove off-grid boosting, being vulnerable off-grid due to the weapon timer, being able to fit tank and weapons with only two links, and having to be active to change scripts makes on-grid links optimal.
Disclaimer: I've got an alt with 12m SP in leadership and command ships 5. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Forged of Fire
893
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:11:41 -
[2] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:The goal is to make warfare links fun, skill intensive and balanced for fleets of any size in a way that's viable right now and doesn't require new technology:
- Remove Command Processors
- Command ships and strategic cruisers with the Warfare Processor subsystem can fit two links
- Warfare links trigger a weapon timer
- Replace all current warfare links with the following:
Skirmish Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to speed of fleet's afterburner and microwarpdrive modules
0.6% bonus to range of fleet's propulsion jamming modules
0.6% reduction to fleet's signature radius
Siege Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's shield resistances
0.6% reduction to capacitor usage of fleet's shield booster and shield transporters
0.6% reduction to cycle time of shield boosters and shield transporters
Armor Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's armor resistances
0.6% reduction to capacitor usage of fleet's armor repair and remote armor repair
0.6% reduction to cycle time of fleet's armor repair and remote armor repair
Information Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's lock range and sensor strength
0.6% bonus to range of fleet's electronic warfare modules
0.6% bonus to strength of fleet's electronic warfare modules
T2 warfare links get a 0.75% bonus instead 0.6%
Each of the warfare links have three scripts that boost one bonus by 200% at the expense of the other two.
After bonuses from perfect skills, command ships and mindlinks, T2 links provide a ~3.23% bonus unscripted or a ~9.7% bonus scripted. While this doesn't remove off-grid boosting, being vulnerable off-grid due to the weapon timer, being able to fit tank and weapons with only two links, and having to be active to change scripts makes on-grid links optimal.
Not too bad... Need to think about this some more. At first blush, you've freed up more slots for more ECCM on the offgrid variants. Not sure that would make a difference.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
435
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:13:01 -
[3] - Quote
So how does having to change scripts around force an off grid booster on grid? I could just run 2 additional boosters and gain my standard 6 boosts I normally run around with that are scripted differently from each other. Good job, you have just made it that much harder for a small organization to run around with boosts since for max boosts from 2 fields, you would need to run 3 separate boosters instead of just one. Not to mention that you need to turn a module off to script swap, so who in their right mind would turn off a module, just to swap a script around quickly in the middle of a fight?
FT Diomedes wrote:
Not too bad... Need to think about this some more. At first blush, you've freed up more slots for more ECCM on the offgrid variants. Not sure that would make a difference.
As it stands the minmitar command ships can fit 6 links and still get the needed sensor strength.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere
Warlords of the Deep
466
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:23:09 -
[4] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:So how does having to change scripts around force an off grid booster on grid? I could just run 2 additional boosters and gain my standard 6 boosts I normally run around with that are scripted differently from each other. Good job, you have just made it that much harder for a small organization to run around with boosts since for max boosts from 2 fields, you would need to run 3 separate boosters instead of just one. Not to mention that you need to turn a module off to script swap, so who in their right mind would turn off a module, just to swap a script around quickly in the middle of a fight? FT Diomedes wrote:
Not too bad... Need to think about this some more. At first blush, you've freed up more slots for more ECCM on the offgrid variants. Not sure that would make a difference.
As it stands the minmitar command ships can fit 6 links and still get the needed sensor strength.
The overall bonuses from the links would be much lower, even if you did happen to have 3 different CS/T3s to boost 6 links, they would still be about 40%~ as effective as they are now. Scripts would probably be the easiest to implement option for CCP, ideally a better system would be to have links which have different modes/stances (just like tactical destroyers) that could be swapped on a CD but instantly without them turning off.
I have a question I would like you to answer, why do you feel like you need to have links?
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:38:29 -
[5] - Quote
Remove command processors +1
I could live with current mechanics, otherwise. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1107
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:05:01 -
[6] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Remove command processors +1
I could live with current mechanics, otherwise.
i agree with command processor being removed but OGB needs deletion when they can technically do it.
on OP those tiny percentages along with big % off skills etc is far too complex and not very clear what the end figures would be,
we need too simplify links not the opposite.
- nerf the warfare specialist skills from 20% down to 5%
- remove command processors
then links overall amount via the imps+skills+mod+ ship bonuses it becomes somewhat easier too get the end figures and the overall strength of nerfs would be nicely reduced as they are OP atm, also reducing training time and the need too level up too 4 too get competitive amounts.
but i think overall links should be capped at maybe 20% ish,
would also like too see links being unusable in wars with neutral chars.
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.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
332
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:10:49 -
[7] - Quote
+1
I really like this proposal. Also, I write that as I am just finishing a link alt (whereas, making links on-grid only would disadvantage primarily the solo PVPer using links to help fight larger gangs, which is what I mostly use them for). Can't think of any significant negatives as of yet and this proposal would presumably be MUCH easier for CCP to code and implement than the mythical "making links on-grid" proposal, among others that having deep problems with the code.
|
Zedarh Amarizto
Vulgar Displays of Power
Absolute Defiance
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:11:35 -
[8] - Quote
change the base value of t1 links to 6% and t2 to 10% and then i will be happy :)
Or just keep them as it is
Note: Anything you say will be misquoted then used against you.
|
Vestion Stenier-Tian
Collapsed Out
Overload Everything
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:15:54 -
[9] - Quote
+1, a step in the right direction.
As a member of OE I should probably be against this, but as a solo PvPer, would love to see this implement. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2758
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:16:50 -
[10] - Quote
At one point they spoke of changing command processors to rigs, I would be ok with this still.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
931
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:25:13 -
[11] - Quote
all this does is force me to train and use an extra alt to be competitive
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
joecuster
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:49:23 -
[12] - Quote
Tfw poors/pubbies crying about links because they're too lazy to train for them. |
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:46:53 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:Warfare links trigger a weapon timer
That's what i'm sayin for ages...
Just like Logi, make links whatever they are, wherever they are have the same timers (the highest among the members if in a fleet) as the pilots get if they engage and links are up at that moment.
With this simple thing, we don't even care about offgrid links, cause as soon as they link an engage pilot, they are vulnerable.
At least, people will tend to get links with command ship more often to prevent easy blap instead of fragile T3s links.
Even though i'm not familiar with all the technical thinggies about links, i'm Plus_Oneing this. |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
703
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:53:49 -
[14] - Quote
In and on themselves theyre pretty balanced, they need a redesign of the game mechanic, or preferred just getting removed. Nerfing them into the ground wont solve the issue.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
435
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:55:01 -
[15] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:
The overall bonuses from the links would be much lower, even if you did happen to have 3 different CS/T3s to boost 6 links, they would still be about 40%~ as effective as they are now. Scripts would probably be the easiest to implement option for CCP, ideally a better system would be to have links which have different modes/stances (just like tactical destroyers) that could be swapped on a CD but instantly without them turning off.
It doesn't matter how minor or major the boosts are, boosts are still boosts. If someone wants to maximize the performance of their ship, they will do it whether it takes 1 booster or 3. If you want to simply nerf boosts by 40%, then nerf boosts by 40% and stop trying to change things for the sake of change. This won't bring off grid boosters on grid, because why increase the risk of your boosting if the boosts still work off grid? In fact it would probably makes off grid boosting even more safe because it opens up more fitting on their ships which would make them harder to hunt down and kill then it already is now.
Scripts might be the easiest, but just because it's the easiest solution doesn't make it the right solution.
Suitonia wrote:
I have a question I would like you to answer, why do you feel like you need to have links?
Do you feel a need to not have a ship performing to it's maximum the game will allow?
joecuster wrote:Tfw poors/pubbies crying about links because they're too lazy to train for them.
Not to mention it will simply increase the barrier to entry for having perfect boosts.
Lastly, I am not trying to say that boosts couldn't be in a better place, but I believe that this will not improve boosts, which is why I am defending the current system until someone comes up with a better solution.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Mechanical Infidel
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:24:53 -
[16] - Quote
Wouldn't it be better just to make links targeted buffs. You could just use scripts to make it the link itself swap projected modes, (examples; Self Aoe Buff, Targeted Aoe Buff, Single Target Buff) and make it FoF buffs so they don't have to rewrite legacy code to achieve it. Not sure it would melt the servers compared to smartbombs and bombs but they could make module/buff duration last longer to offset it.
This way command ship performance and decisions can easily swing battles and fleet positioning will become vitally important. Obviously it would require rebalancing a lot of command ship stats and modules and am to not sure if CCP are close to their current solution. |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:37:10 -
[17] - Quote
We certainly need a more mobile form of skirmish links.
If we didn't have the current system, with the legacy fleet code holding us back, I'd favor even a T2 destroyer with fitting bonuses. However, in terms of role analysis, an exploration frigate would be a better option since it has to be on grid with other ships in order to use its other abilities.
What I really don't like is these ultra-specialized ships having all these abilities in addition to staying out of the fight. It would be much better if links were a common module, giving tiny bonuses and maxing out at 10 users in the same squad. They might simply take the place of a salvager or offline remote repairer on most fits.
Ideally, they would be easier to squeeze onto the more generalist T1 hulls rather than specialist T2 hulls, but PG/CPU mechanics are all out of whack thanks to oversize tanks and propulsion even being a possibility. Maybe all the cruisers should get +50PG, and then add 50 PG as a fit requirement for both 10MN ABs & MWDs. Either that, or scale out the tank buffer mods and nerf MAPCs, but I digress.
Perhaps gang link fitting bonuses could be role linked. A griffin might only be able to fit a lightweight version of an info warfare link, while a condor could only fit a lightweight skirmish link.
Seige and armor links seem to suggest statary roles though, which would almost suggest that the bonuses should be conferred by larger ships to smaller escorts. It would be interesting if frigates could only get defensive bonuses from support destroyers, or they in turn only from cruisers.
There is also a blob vs solo dynamic for links. Off grid links support a whole fleet, but they also provide an equivalent bonus to a single pilot. If we adopted the mass form of links, the blob would naturally benefit more. I think the best compromise is limiting standard bonuses to a single squad, and restrict statary wing or fleet boosting to bonused ships, like command ships or capitals. Squad level restriction tends to frame things more in reference to small squads, which is a reasonable compromise.
With the new structures in the offing, it would seem that there is also room to play around with defensive system bonuses linked to sov. Perhaps these could be channeled through link modules in some fashion. This would ensure that the ability could be attacked directly, while still focusing attackers on the periphery of alliance suzerainties. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
Amarrian Commandos
1410
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:55:57 -
[18] - Quote
While im not crazy about the weapon timer overall, these changes (precise % amounts debatable) this would see more link boats used in a fight by a player not just a minimized/mostly ignored alt.
I think that its fairly obvious that a 33% boost to something so critical like ship speed, in a game where 5% per lvl for 5 levels takes up to a month (or several bil on snake implants - and completely ******** with both) is considered too much even by users of link alts themselves. We can argue what a reasonable, actual specific amount should be forever, 33% is certainly obscene.
Cosmic signature detected. . . .
http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg
I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
703
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:19:11 -
[19] - Quote
Argueing with skill time and accessability in general is going to get us nowhere, thats why we have the Supercarrier and Titan problem.
Also snake sets are becoming cheaper as we speak, with mid grades already being cheaper than some of the more advanced boosting setups.
I think the strength itself is balanced by the fact that you dedicate a whole character (theoretically a second person) to do that job, certain links are already on the verge of barely useful (Im looking at you sensor strength link).
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:47:01 -
[20] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Argueing with skill time and accessability in general is going to get us nowhere, thats why we have the Supercarrier and Titan problem.
Also snake sets are becoming cheaper as we speak, with mid grades already being cheaper than some of the more advanced boosting setups.
I think the strength itself is balanced by the fact that you dedicate a whole character (theoretically a second person) to do that job, certain links are already on the verge of barely useful (Im looking at you sensor strength link).
The sensor integrity link (sensor strength and lock range) is one of my most used links. That extra lock range is amazing for kiting and sensor strength never hurts. |
|
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
703
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:54:50 -
[21] - Quote
I should have put it in different words: I rarely take it above a combination of tanking and skirmish links on my t3.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
435
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:55:43 -
[22] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:
I think that its fairly obvious that a 33% boost to something so critical like ship speed, in a game where 5% per lvl for 5 levels takes up to a month (or several bil on snake implants - and completely ******** with both) is considered too much even by users of link alts themselves. We can argue what a reasonable, actual specific amount should be forever, 33% is certainly obscene.
One thing I would like to point out specifically here is that you are comparing getting 1 skill to level 5 to getting an entire ship and several skills to level 5.
To use your example specifically, there are 2 skills that affect ship speed. You have Acceleration control and Navigation, both give a 5% bonus per level, and they are a total of a 5x multiplier. So you have a 50% increase in speed for your personal skills (Not including implants).
From there to get to the fabled 30.19% boost in speed while under a prop mod, you have to train an alt up for Command Ships, Warfare Link Specialist, and Skirmish Warfare Specialist all to 5 which those 3 skills themselves are a 19x multiplier (Not including the implant training or any of the other prerequisite skills).
So you cannot argue time as a balancing factor because there is already a much higher bonus for a much shorter training time by using your personal skills vs solely relying on boosts.
With that said, to help preserve any delicate balancing that has happened in the past, any nerf that we see to boosts in the overall amount should be done with a corresponding buff to all the ships/modules as a result.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
sten mattson
Virtus Crusade
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:52:23 -
[23] - Quote
Quote:Warfare links trigger a weapon timer
i think a straight weaponstimer is just a death warrant for on grid links, wich means if you wanna retreat through a gate, you are forced to deactivate links or loose your link ship.
maybe have it inherit combat timers of fleet members, same as reps?
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!
|
Christine Peeveepeeski
Low Sec Concepts
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:27:14 -
[24] - Quote
I am 95% on board with this. Could be polished with the issues that 'no lifers' will still just have all the links but more alts and the weapon timer on gate is a death sentence. Although arguably the same can be said for any ship that engages modules on a gate.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3211
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:47:22 -
[25] - Quote
i really think making links useful on-grid is the right way of fixing the issue (as you can also see on my forum sig).
A player, playing the game should be better in the game as an alt client, running in the background where you only switch to, when you hear a shield warning sound.
so i really like the proposal, i would even go a step further and add the ability for players to overheat links additionally to scripts. This will almost guarantee that a player is better at "linking" than an alt - which is once again a vital precondition before bringing link ships on grid.
my main concern is however that all links orbiting force fields would suddenly become brick tanked (since you gain a lot of fitting space + slot space). However, those links would be far less effective than they are now AND worse than player controlled links due to added gameplay complexity.
but hey, forcefields will go away anyway earlier or later (read the structure blog) and its also easily fixable (+100km minimum activation range to warfare links at pos towers).
so +1 from me
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4163
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 03:03:32 -
[26] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:GÇó Remove Command Processors
GÇó Command ships and strategic cruisers with the Warfare Processor subsystem can fit two links
If Command Processors are going to be eliminated (and attributes for Warfare Links combined), I think Strategic Cruisers should be restricted to one, Command Ships to two, Carriers to three and Suppercarriers and Titans to four. This will further capitals roles as flagships.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:GÇó Warfare links trigger a weapon timer
Excellent suggestion.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:Replace all current warfare links with the following:
The only suggestion I have here is to change one of the attributes of the Skirmish Warfare Links:
GÇó 0.6% bonus to fleet inertia replaces 0.6% reduction to fleet's signature radius
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions
Poopstain Removal Team
595
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 08:08:04 -
[27] - Quote
Bubbles is the answer!
We all know a hictor can fit a bubble for the use in nullsec or w-space, so why not make links have larger 'link-bubble' of let's say its 150 or 200km (range is debatable and just an example)?
Would fix the ongrid thing and all of a sudden you see more command ships that are not the sleignir on gates being hugged by their fleet buddies.
signature
|
horis hurbunker
Careless Airways
Clearly Confused.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:00:36 -
[28] - Quote
If the problem is off grid boosters in pvp, then should we make the answer a way to make them a target for pvp? I think we all like incursions with boosters and 10/10 ded sites with them too. So if you want to make them killable why not make them more like cynos? with some thing that makes them more vulnerable maybe something like a massive (titan sized) sig bloom and make the cycle time 5 mins (like siege) meaning that yes you would have to have a combat scanner in fleet but it would take just seconds to get a scan on boosters; which makes sence if you're broadcasting something 200+ ships in system you would think it would be easy to find and if either you got transferred aggression or a weapons timer then you could not use log out/log in tricks.
Also I like the idea of scripts and moving all 3 links into 1 mod for each race and then changing it so you only command ships can use 2 at once (because they need to be unique) and then lower the base for the mod but increasing the ship bonuses for t3 and command ships or even giving different ships bonuses to different parts of links( so nighthawks are better for shield resist and vultures are better at cap usage) making which command ship you used much more involved then which can fit 6 links or be the best brink tanked |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 12:06:29 -
[29] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Bubbles is the answer!
We all know a hictor can fit a bubble for the use in nullsec or w-space, so why not make links have larger 'link-bubble' of let's say its 150 or 200km (range is debatable and just an example)?
Would fix the ongrid thing and all of a sudden you see more command ships that are not the sleignir on gates being hugged by their fleet buddies.
CCP have said they'd like to remove off-grid boosting, but currently don't have the technology. Yesterday I saw three Claymores and a Cyclone boosting for the 28 people in local. A bunch of solo and small gang PVPers are quitting the game because links are becoming a minimum requirement to PVP. Sure, a few of the people in this thread will most likely say "stop being lazy and get your own link alt", but for many that's not an option for various reasons. I'd prefer to keep those people playing so I have more people to shoot at, which is why I want a fix that can be deployed right now instead of some new mechanic that will take time to figure out. |
Boci
Ubiquitous Hurt
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 12:18:41 -
[30] - Quote
I have never, ever used a link alt, and I have never provided off grid boosts. The only Leadership skill I have NOT trained is the 2nd level of mining, and I have been highly vocal any chance I could get to promote ON GRID boosting as the only way to fly.
I like the idea of a single module having all 3 boosts for a given category. A large reason Eos has always been my favorite command is the simple fact that it could give a full compliment of boosts while being in the middle of the brawl AND still applying almost appropriate for its hull size damage.
Havent done any math to decide what I would like to see on a boost percent just yet.
The other idea I had was flag sharing. If a player picks up suspect/criminal flags for helping a suspect/criminal, etc. then boosting them should do the same. The code already exists to identify who is boosting whom, maybe it would be a simple matter to be able to pass the information back to flag the links.
Now that I think about it...if something like this went live, with how strong pure combat fit commands can be, I could almost see the alt[n turn the other direction. People in fleet with themselves just so their command gets the link bonus :p
disclaimer: i LOVE command ships, i LOVE providing on grid links, and if my wallet could afford it, I'd fly commands in combat every freaking day.
http://www.twitch.tv/bociwen - Newbie Friendly Q&A, Terrible Solo PvP
@BociSammiches
UHURT's Link Guy
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |