| 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
|
|
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
704
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 12:46:52 -
[31] - 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.
This idea is not new, was posted like 1000 times and dismissed every time.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5600008#post5600008
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
206
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:30:21 -
[32] - Quote
The information warfare link could also be split up even further with a specific scripts for the specific E-wars. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
868
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:28:50 -
[33] - Quote
To my mind, achieving the result of making warfare links more fun and fair to use is easy:
1. Make a warfare link trigger a combat timer and inherit suspect timers from anyone affected.
2. Require the ship to be on grid.
Benefits are:
1. Removes the riskless force multiplier of an off-grid booster.
2. forces the squad booster to participate in combat.
3. Gives the other side a strategic choice (attack the booster, or attack someone else?)
4. Gives the boosting side some strategic choices (bring more DPS or bring more links?)
Drawbacks are:
1. Large fleets risk losing boosts due to alpha - counter is to field redundancy. Again, strategic choices.
2. A few low-sec and high-sec pirate corps will need to re-evaluate tactics vis-a-vis out-of-corp boosters in safe spots (in my mind an exploit anyway).
3. I'll need to risk my EOS on grid when I run c6 sleeper ops - this is really not an issue.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Nulli Secunda
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:31:24 -
[34] - Quote
I'm concerned these bonuses can be to strong, when stacked with other bonuses. We get up to 3 sets of bonuses on a fleet, using the Fleet/Wing/Squad commander positions. What if the fleet was in armor HACs, and the links were Passive Defense, Evasive Maneuvers, and Rapid Deployment. Now we have a ship that already has a great speed/sig ratio, and you toss in that you are getting it 9.7% bonus per level (over the roughly 6% now), add in that you are giving them a sig radius reduction of 9.7% (over the roughly 8% now) and 9.7% MWD/AB speed boost (over the 8% now) and you can get some extremely strong effects. This all adds into the fact that the leadership skills themselves add bonuses to a fleet (such ass Armored Warfare's 2% armor HP per level, and Skirmish Warfare's 2% agility per level).
I see what you are trying to do, but in several fleet doctrines we only need two or three bonuses, so in those case you are going to make the fleet extremely over powered, because the FC's are not choosing between one bonus and another. This will result in CCP needing to do some serious rebalancing across dozens or more ships, and ultimately be too time consuming when we have ships now that are in dire need to rebalancing, |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
868
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:36:06 -
[35] - Quote
By forcing the booster on grid, you achieve 2 things:
1. The booster can be primaried, eliminating the bonus for the entire fleet/squad
2. The boosting ship, being a command ship, is always going to be slow - so he can't use rapid deployment to the same effect as a HAC. Unless the HACs (and logi) stick around, he'll go down.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1174
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:22:22 -
[36] - Quote
Not a bad concept, but I would add in a few other items.
1) inactive links need to boost your sig radius (meaning your easier to lock and shoot while they are turned off)
2) Active links need to reduce your sensor strength by 80 to 90% (basically your sig returns to normal, but you are much easier to probe out). basically kills the eccm deal.
3) Active links penalize the velocity bonus of afterburner and microwarp drive modules (similar to what what a warp disruption field generator does). (no more 2 to 4kM speeding link boosters).
The rest is fine.
Yaay!!!!
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:44:21 -
[37] - Quote
joecuster wrote:Tfw poors/pubbies crying about links because they're too lazy to train for them.
ill I see aout links is QQ over not being able to scan them down in low and null so they kill it while having to kill someone else and how a booster should be on the grid in low and null and solves nothing for the hisec pvpers that stand on station kill whoever they want with their army of alts.
-1 for anything against links as even in our time voyager is past the solar system and we can still tell it what to do.
+1 for removing alts from the gate to force others toactually do things they speak out against
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
256
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:46:51 -
[38] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Not a bad concept, but I would add in a few other items.
1) inactive links need to boost your sig radius (meaning your easier to lock and shoot while they are turned off)
2) Active links need to reduce your sensor strength by 80 to 90% (basically your sig returns to normal, but you are much easier to probe out). basically kills the eccm deal.
3) Active links penalize the velocity bonus of afterburner and microwarp drive modules (similar to what what a warp disruption field generator does). (no more 2 to 4kM speeding link boosters).
The rest is fine.
why would an offline module make you easier to target? if it was online and doing this I would agree with this more as your emitting a signal that can be used to lock on to easier.
Velocity bonus I can agree to only if it stays an offgrid, if its going to turn into an on grid booster one day your going to want all the speed you can get as the interceptor chases you down
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Adacia Calla
Nubs.
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:01:59 -
[39] - 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:
[list]
Remove Command Processors
Command ships and strategic cruisers with the Warfare Processor subsystem can fit two links
Warfare links trigger a weapon timer.
Like I said on TS the other night, I think adding a Weapons Timer would solve 90% of them problem. It would force alts to spend a LOT more time warping around, therefore a lot less up-time on said links since they can't be enabled during warp. This would be a 'simple' fix (Probably wouldn't be code-wise) but it's far less of a headache than a entire rebalance on the link system for the time being.
Test signature....forum not applying settings :(
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1178
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:35:34 -
[40] - Quote
Agondray wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Not a bad concept, but I would add in a few other items.
1) inactive links need to boost your sig radius (meaning your easier to lock and shoot while they are turned off)
2) Active links need to reduce your sensor strength by 80 to 90% (basically your sig returns to normal, but you are much easier to probe out). basically kills the eccm deal.
3) Active links penalize the velocity bonus of afterburner and microwarp drive modules (similar to what what a warp disruption field generator does). (no more 2 to 4kM speeding link boosters).
The rest is fine. why would an offline module make you easier to target? if it was online and doing this I would agree with this more as your emitting a signal that can be used to lock on to easier. Velocity bonus I can agree to only if it stays an offgrid, if its going to turn into an on grid booster one day your going to want all the speed you can get as the interceptor chases you down
I've run into my share of cloaky interdiction nullified off grid t3 boosters. Trying to catch them on a gate sucks.
This is solely regarding off grid boosters. If they all turned into ongrid boosters all of the above can be tossed.
Yaay!!!!
|
|
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
207
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:53:58 -
[41] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Not a bad concept, but I would add in a few other items.
1) inactive links need to boost your sig radius (meaning your easier to lock and shoot while they are turned off)
2) Active links need to reduce your sensor strength by 80 to 90% (basically your sig returns to normal, but you are much easier to probe out). basically kills the eccm deal.
3) Active links penalize the velocity bonus of afterburner and microwarp drive modules (similar to what what a warp disruption field generator does). (no more 2 to 4kM speeding link boosters).
The rest is fine.
It's impossible to be unprobeable anymore and I don't like the idea of penalizing signature radius, sensor strength or speed as this would equally much punish on-grid links. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4203
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:59:49 -
[42] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:2. Require the ship to be on grid.
CCP has previously indicated that this is a deal breaker in terms of server performance. So I don't think it's in the cards, unfortunately.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
7125
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:14:46 -
[43] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:scripts that boost one bonus by 200% at the expense of the other two
if the expense is 100% boost at 25% off the other two, sure.
also, you use links a lot, surely you'd want the values to be higher.
Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
|
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:36:11 -
[44] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:2. Require the ship to be on grid. CCP has previously indicated that this is a deal breaker in terms of server performance. So I don't think it's in the cards, unfortunately.
CCP has previously been wrong, lied, and/or pulled excuses out of their a*ses.
Someone pointed out in a thread recently...
Watchlist shows HP bars when a fleet member is On-grid....
And Watchlist does NOT show HP bars when a fleet member is Off-grid...
So... the code is there, no excuses. |
Count Szadek
Relentless Terrorism
Already Disbanded
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:30:51 -
[45] - Quote
I honestly think there is no problem to Links themselves, however, I do feel there is no counter (as everything in eve should have a counter IMO). So I would instead suggest a counter. Perhaps something like this:
A Drop-able Unit That lays a field around it where ships inside become "unlinked". That way if you dont want to fight with links just bring one of these along, and counter them on the field. This effectively makes off - grid boosting still do-able, but at least it could be countered. And the fact that they are destroyable (y destroying the Unit) , linked fleets can adjust primary as needed.
Essentially it would Work sorta like Cyno Jammers except it would stop the bonus(es) in the field |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
Low-Class
7526
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:24:06 -
[46] - Quote
Links themselves are nice, very nice. I use them regularly.
Where they become imbalanced is when I'm boosting safely from the edge of a tower shield or safed up and decloaking at just the right time.
If ongrid boosting was all that you could do, it would be perfect, it would be balanced just right and you could maybe even at that point look at adding links to ships like destroyers and such. Links are a big SP investment and they should be worth it. Links should be fun to have, and lead to engaging roles, not to sitting in a safespot.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
207
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 15:08:24 -
[47] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Links themselves are nice, very nice. I use them regularly.
Where they become imbalanced is when I'm boosting safely from the edge of a tower shield or safed up and decloaking at just the right time.
If ongrid boosting was all that you could do, it would be perfect, it would be balanced just right and you could maybe even at that point look at adding links to ships like destroyers and such. Links are a big SP investment and they should be worth it. Links should be fun to have, and lead to engaging roles, not to sitting in a safespot.
You really think a 30% speed increase and 34% signature reduction is balanced? The entire fleet gets high grade Snakes and Halos for basically free. Let's not forget about the tanking links which are similar to Slaves and Crystals.
Off-grid links are only a problem because of their massive boost and near invulnerabilty at gates or stations. The nerf to link strength will fix the first and the weapon timer will fix the second. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
976
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 15:18:50 -
[48] - Quote
You (and CCP) are overthinking it.
You dont need to "force" links on grid via convoluted mechanisms.
You beacon the things like a cyno so any idiot can warp to them.
So no, you're not changing any code to "force" them on grid and if people want to run off grid they still can. But tell me.....who is going to? |
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 18:28:36 -
[49] - Quote
afkalt wrote:You (and CCP) are overthinking it.
You dont need to "force" links on grid via convoluted mechanisms.
You beacon the things like a cyno so any idiot can warp to them.
So no, you're not changing any code to "force" them on grid and if people want to run off grid they still can. But tell me.....who is going to?
Um mostly everyone still, because most off-grid links are used sitting on gates. So this would do nothing.
Make them only affect fleet members that are on-grid. It's so simple, just do it CCP. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
977
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 19:04:29 -
[50] - Quote
Sitting on a gate is stupiditiy itself, unless you're in high sec. |
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed
Agony Empire
4244
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 05:02:22 -
[51] - Quote
While I am not fully pleased with the numbers, I 100% agree that links need a MAJOR readjustment.
Frankly, they are way TOO POTENT, and CCP knows it. The last rebalancing pass they did on them was simply unacceptable, leaving them still way overpowered.
The only way to balance the field when fighting ships with links is to bring your own links, and that is simply pisspoor balancing!
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
240
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 05:54:13 -
[52] - Quote
I'd favour a solution, where ongrid boosts were more potent than offgrid boosts, however, offgrid boosting still worked.
ongrid boosts would be a little less powerful than today (yes, they are still too stronk). offgrid links would be only ~50% as effective as ongrid links.
Further adjustment would be needed ofc, like boosting ships being easily probed out and links not working near POS. The weapons timer thing would also be a neat way to expose boosting ships to danger. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1989
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 11:26:30 -
[53] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:
CCP has previously been wrong, lied, and/or pulled excuses out of their a*ses.
Someone pointed out in a thread recently...
Watchlist shows HP bars when a fleet member is On-grid....
And Watchlist does NOT show HP bars when a fleet member is Off-grid...
So... the code is there, no excuses.
Except Watchlist code is not the same as fleet boosting code.
And is highly limited in the number it can apply to.
Also watch list works over 5000km with Grid Fu creating a mega grid.
So.... when you are a CCP coder working on Fleet boost coding, I'll believe you if you claim the code exists. Till such a time, quit talking out of... well, the same orifice you accuse CCP of using in fact. |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun
The Periphery
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 02:19:07 -
[54] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Reina Xyaer wrote:
CCP has previously been wrong, lied, and/or pulled excuses out of their a*ses.
Someone pointed out in a thread recently...
Watchlist shows HP bars when a fleet member is On-grid....
And Watchlist does NOT show HP bars when a fleet member is Off-grid...
So... the code is there, no excuses.
Except Watchlist code is not the same as fleet boosting code. And is highly limited in the number it can apply to. Also watch list works over 5000km with Grid Fu creating a mega grid. So.... when you are a CCP coder working on Fleet boost coding, I'll believe you if you claim the code exists. Till such a time, quit talking out of... well, the same orifice you accuse CCP of using in fact.
The watchlist code would be perfect for this. Too bad there's a limit to how many you can have on your watchlist. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises
Ad-Astra
395
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 06:06:06 -
[55] - Quote
For everyone's information there's been an update on the back-end work for OGB changes :)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5677008#post5677008 |
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 07:06:31 -
[56] - Quote
Seems like it's going to improve congested systems too, big fights, tidi etc.  |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
539
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 09:02:43 -
[57] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Seems like it's going to improve congested systems too, big fights, tidi etc.
It won't hit big fights (once established) as much as congested systems, but it shouldGäó reduce the number of ships completely screwed over by server problems.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises
Ad-Astra
396
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 10:19:02 -
[58] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:FT Cold wrote:Seems like it's going to improve congested systems too, big fights, tidi etc. It won't hit big fights (once established) as much as congested systems, but it shouldGäó reduce the number of ships completely screwed over by server problems.
If I recall correctly from the Command Ship changes (and ensuing talk about OGBs) they want to bring the level a Node can operate on down to a single grid, which improves parallelization and lets them take a massive Null fight that might be all over a single system and split it among multiple servers. I suspect this is one part of the reason behind the Sov capture Node event's design.
This has the happy side-effect of letting them confine boosts to a single Grid instead of everywhere in the system. |
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
399
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 10:59:34 -
[59] - Quote
Why don't we just take the HIC Bubble and change it a bit so it becomes the Command Sphere? (Doesn't need a visual tbh, maybe just a flag that indicates you're getting bonuses)
Change warp-strength-modifier to current fleet boost modifiers, adjust range of the module to be more adequate, and maybe add a script for obscene range but only on 1 target. 100mn Boosters, yay! (At least they're ongrid).
And maybe, but just maybe, keep the 'Disallows Assistance' attribute.
Edit: Or drop the range scripted single target one on purpose, so there is actually NO 100mn faggotry on links, just manly brawling command ships. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
970
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 12:20:54 -
[60] - Quote
I really like the consoidation of links into fewer modules encouraging a combat fit CS, but those numbers are awfully weak. This would effectively cut down WL effectiveness to a tenth. THe boosts that'd give would be unnoticable, and no one would bother with links most of the time.
I mean: +600m disruptrange, +300m webrange, those things make a difference with two scramkiting frigates circling each other, but it's so weak a med neut on the CS might be better else. Armorresists before mindlink go up by 2.5%, yeah.
Seems like all this proposal does is eliminate the chance of multiple ongrid Boosters working together to field all desired links, to a single morale CS carrying all the links that would apply. In any fleet, everywhere. The best though: It wouldn't matter if you fly a CS or a CBC, nothing*1.15 is still nothing.
In my opinion, it would be cool if they were lowering link numbers towards the proposal for specialized links and then introduce T3 links that behave like those, significantly weaker but all-in-one and suitable to be fitted to boosting T3s in the smallest of gangs. |
|
|
LeFleur
EVE University
Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 19:35:55 -
[61] - Quote
I think the weapon timers idea is great, but have you consider also a suspect timer for out of corp boosts? If logistic ships get it while repairing out of corp, why not linking ships? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1139
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 21:35:12 -
[62] - Quote
LeFleur wrote:I think the weapon timers idea is great, but have you consider also a suspect timer for out of corp boosts? If logistic ships get it while repairing out of corp, why not linking ships?
an outright ban on out of war boosters is much preferred and logi should get the same treatment.
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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2102
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 22:11:43 -
[63] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
an outright ban on out of war boosters is much preferred and logi should get the same treatment.
So no possibility of good Samaritans saving someone not in corp in a fight?
Also no more NPSI roams since you can't have out of corp boosters if a single person in the fleet is out of corp.
Etc.
Suspect or the boosts stop depending on safety is a 'possibility' but also abusable very easily to suddenly kill boosts mid fight and the FC has no idea who in his fleet is in a war without checking all 250 members individually. |
LeFleur
EVE University
Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 14:50:22 -
[64] - Quote
Yeah, I don't agree with the banning, but in eve every action has a consequence, and out of corp boosting hasn't, and as such it's imbalanced. |
Nevil Kincade
Dissident Aggressors
Mordus Angels
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 01:13:26 -
[65] - Quote
The original post is a good first step. As no Change could make things worse about links than they are now.
I would prefer to see an Approach though were the links strength scale with the fragility of the boosting ship. Fast Tech III Destroyers come to mind which would Need to be prioritized in fights just like interdictors. So in order to Profit from strong links you would Need an active and skilled Pilot flying through the danger Zone without blowing up. Maybe Limit the link range to 50km and Limit the bonuses to the squad only.
Something like that, you get the Picture. |
Wilj0
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 03:25:10 -
[66] - Quote
Mechanical Infidel wrote: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.
I like his idea. Making the links a "buffing" module kind of like remote repping, or remote sensor boosting. You gotta be on grid, in range. You can even make them work like smartbombs with an affect pulsing to everyone within range or what not. |
Pestilen Ratte
Artimus Ratte
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 06:11:15 -
[67] - Quote
So, this issue just became real for my small corp. We are reasonably new players.
We enjoy Faction Warfare, but yesterday we faced a linked enemy and the outcome was so one sided that it is doubtful whether we will keep going with Eve Online. It was just ridiculous. I wont go into details, except to say that links made a tech 1 frigate invulnerable, and capable of destroying any number of unlinked tech 1 frigates in a novice plex.
To repeat, links made a tech 1 ship invulnerable to other tech one ships. Not "more powerful", not "more competitive". Invulnerable. The pilot was lol-ing in local. So we packed up and went home.
Which is what you are going to do, right? When faced with an invulnerable enemy. You can stick around and get laughed at, or you stop playing.
Does anybody here know which staff at CCP support the idea of off grid links? Specifically, does anybody know exactly which staff members are in favour of the concept?
Because they have to go. They are a cancer on the game. They represent all that is worst about the Even community.
No matter how you weigh the issue, any mechanic that creates incentives for new players to give up is a cancer on the game.
Any mechanic that allows players to laugh at other players because they are invulnerable is exactly this.
Ask yourself, would any sane person pay to watch a football match where one side cannot lose the ball? Would any sane person play such a game?
Of course not, it is self evident. Anyone who even suggests such a weird idea for a sporting contest is clearly stupid. And demonstrates degenerate values.
The BIG problem at CCP is that they have let a culture of stupid bullies emerge. Amongst their staff, one can witness relatively young men who are allowed to promote cowardly and openly idiotic mechanics because ....... well that is where I don't know.
Why does CCP tolerate the drunken half wits who have no honour and no respect for other human beings?
CCP need to cull their ranks, and get rid of the morons who support such stupid, stupid ideas such as off grid links. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1288
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 06:52:37 -
[68] - Quote
Pestilen,
While I do not like off-grid boosting any more than the next person... your defeatist attitude leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, fighting linked, implanted, boosted opponents can seem completely futile, but only if you let them dictate the terms of the fight. Chasing after him as he kites you is silly - you need to make him engage you somewhere you can hold him down and crush him. Never let your opponent dictate the terms of the engagement.
Bring your own counters to his style - a couple of frigate logistics ships can negate him completely. As long as you stick together.
Additionally, scanning down his link alt and killing it is about the most satisfying feeling on earth.
There's also the, "if you cannot beat them, join them" school of thought.
If you are genuinely new players, these may seem like very long term goals to train characters that can catch a dude like that. The character bazaar is always an option if your corp can scrap together some ISK from your hard-earned LP grinding and wants to improve their chances.
FInally, there is no ship like friendship.
I'd venture a guess that if you were to reach out to some more experienced players, you could find someone willing to assist you with either providing your own links or catching this dude's off-grid booster. One dead off-grid booster makes up for a ton of T1 frigates.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
96
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 15:45:04 -
[69] - 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. Disclaimer: I've got an alt with 12m SP in leadership and command ships 5.
I would like tho see that the boosting ship will also make the booster a suspect/criminal/limited engagement if the fleet does something that triggers some of those timers.
So e.g. if your boosted mate attacks someone you also get the limited engagement timer.
If you boost e.g. a Minmatar FW-Char which attacks a Amarr milita pilot and you aren-¦t in milita you loose your ship....
If you in the amarr milita and boost the enemy you will also get a standing hit ....
I mean boosting does a great impact on fight without any drawbacks.
+1
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
196
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 18:10:33 -
[70] - Quote
Pestilen Ratte wrote:So, this issue just became real for my small corp. We are reasonably new players.
We enjoy Faction Warfare, but yesterday we faced a linked enemy and the outcome was so one sided that it is doubtful whether we will keep going with Eve Online. It was just ridiculous. I wont go into details, except to say that links made a tech 1 frigate invulnerable, and capable of destroying any number of unlinked tech 1 frigates in a novice plex.
To repeat, links made a tech 1 ship invulnerable to other tech one ships. Not "more powerful", not "more competitive". Invulnerable. The pilot was lol-ing in local. So we packed up and went home.
Which is what you are going to do, right? When faced with an invulnerable enemy. You can stick around and get laughed at, or you stop playing.
Does anybody here know which staff at CCP support the idea of off grid links? Specifically, does anybody know exactly which staff members are in favour of the concept?
Because they have to go. They are a cancer on the game. They represent all that is worst about the Even community.
No matter how you weigh the issue, any mechanic that creates incentives for new players to give up is a cancer on the game.
Any mechanic that allows players to laugh at other players because they are invulnerable is exactly this.
Ask yourself, would any sane person pay to watch a football match where one side cannot lose the ball? Would any sane person play such a game?
Of course not, it is self evident. Anyone who even suggests such a weird idea for a sporting contest is clearly stupid. And demonstrates degenerate values.
The BIG problem at CCP is that they have let a culture of stupid bullies emerge. Amongst their staff, one can witness relatively young men who are allowed to promote cowardly and openly idiotic mechanics because ....... well that is where I don't know.
Why does CCP tolerate the drunken half wits who have no honour and no respect for other human beings?
CCP need to cull their ranks, and get rid of the morons who support such stupid, stupid ideas such as off grid links.
what ship was he in? were you only trying to 1v1 him? if not then you were doing it wrong as even frigs have logi now and have always had ewar available to them. knowing what ship hes in lets you bring the counter that will stop him
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |