| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
494
   |
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:05:25 -
[31] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:This doesn't add anything over simply removing off-grid boosting. It's harder to implement and doesn't actually add any depth of gameplay beyond "you either bring a BC to negate OGBs or your opponent keeps getting boost for free" Chance Ravinne wrote:There are counters to OGB in some situations but not all. The mechanic is unintuitive and forces you to drag combat scan alts around. The OP solution is interesting but could it be more elegant? How about simply removing off-grid boosting, as originally talked about by CCP, and force boosters on-grid. If you can't keep them alive but the enemy can then you're already losing. Simple, elegant, no need for a mess of "bring this ship and push button to hard counter this bush button for 10% boost mechanic"
The last prototype they had for on grid boosting was an absolute mess as far as server load. If I recall the comments right, CCP Fozzie said they hit 10% tidi with 10 people in the fight. What is being looked for here seems to be a method to suture the gaping problems with the current mechanics until an elegant solution can be found or created for the mechanic as a whole. It really seems to be a case of "The best is the enemy of the good." on this topic.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:11:50 -
[32] - Quote
Perhaps move all of the Skirmish/Armour/Shield/etc bonuses onto a deploytable structure, that will provide OGB just the same, but would be easily probable/immobile.
Deployment of said sexy structure should require the same skills as current links.
Probably a concept for the new structure system. 
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1008
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:18:34 -
[33] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Or you bring the links on grid and that new role for being on grid to counter link is given in reverse to the booster who has to be on grid to give boosts. Not nerfing something just because people are used to it and don't want it nerfed is stupid.
Long standing features (unless immediately game breaking and absolutely can't be dealt with any other way) should always be approached with caution - especially things like fleet command which required multiple high rank level V skills to be fully effective.
Also balancing a game shouldn't be about rushing to nerf/remove something as the first port of call... in many cases you then just unbalance something else (feature Y) that is actually in a fairly good place but with feature X removed entirely or made ineffective becomes a problem.
Personally I'd have liked to see link use become more tactical - amongst other things with a few more variations of mindlinks a bit like boosters where the least effective ones have no penalties and the most powerful ones have some kind of trade off - especially penalties to the person doing the boosting. (There is probably potential there as well to make off grid PVP boosting ineffective or unattractive while not impacting on areas unrelated to PVP i.e. just as an example a mindlink that while giving good bonuses came at a significant trade off to sensor strength). |
MicDeath Titan
Titans Guild
98
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:07:17 -
[34] - Quote
I'm surprised CCP hasn't tied boosts to Grid_ID. The server load is already accounted for and optimized. |
Anhenka
Infinite Point
Nulli Secunda
1360
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:09:16 -
[35] - Quote
MicDeath Titan wrote:I'm surprised CCP hasn't tied boosts to Grid_ID. The server load is already accounted for and optimized.
I'd give 1,000,000:1 odds that it's not anywhere near that simple.
Unless you happen to be a former CCP developer? |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
77
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 06:17:20 -
[36] - Quote
CCP have stated that it's all in the legacy code, and they don't have the people on hand to change it.
What they can do is make it simply not worthwhile to not have boosters on grid. The easiest way to do it is to simply have warfare links or command processors reduce sensor strength.
Another thing that can be done is to give POS and stations some kind of warfare link activation exclusion radius, like 100km. However, POS are on the way out, so it might be a wasted effort.
If you can hide them or tuck them out of the way, you might as well have the ship in the fight.
Deep down, I like the idea of gang links. I think they should be an option for ships of every size. I like the idea of them affecting one, and only one squad. I like the idea of that 10 man squad being able to mix and match the kinds of effects they want for the kind of role they intend to exert. I like the idea of minor skirmish links with a fraction of the familiar effect mounted on interceptors, or more diverse smaller squads fitting a broader array of less-stacked buffs. These modules should be as easy to fit as a salvager. This gives the soloist just a smidge of advantage over a gang-fit ship that has been separated from its allies.
I also like the idea of mixed fleets, with larger ships being tanky and supplying fire support with lighter hulls supplying the tactical superiority. For these ships, I like the idea of heavier ships conferring defensive bonuses to their tenders. The concept of sensor integrity naturally lends itself to the idea of a fleet. In the RP sense, you might rely on a shared sensor net up to the point that you are completely jammed out. This makes a lot of sense for ships that are on the field together. |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
321
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 07:40:33 -
[37] - Quote
maybe make it targetted instead of bubble? Should save alot on the server side?
That should allow it to fit in a utility high and allow you to turn off the boosts right before your f1 monkeys paste the guys with their 1400s |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |