EVE Search - The Problem With Entirely Removing Off-Grid Links

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The Problem With Entirely Removing Off-Grid Links

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2093	Posted - 2015.12.25 20:22:01 - [151] - Quote Bobman Smith wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Bobman Smith wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: [ He just forgot to mention the part where the booster is 1 click away from safety (docking or cloaking) and he forgot to disclose the odds of being able to land on grid and burn to the moving booster before it cloaks or warps to the object it's aligned to. I think what he meant to say is 1. scanning is easy 2. blowing up an off grid booster is very easy 3. landing on grid, burning to a moving booster and tackling it before it cloaks or warps to a pre-aligned object (station to dock for example) relies soley on the booster pilot being very very bad at eve. He clearly didn't omit some of the factual details on purpos. It was just an oversight on his part. He also forgot to mention that you need a ship bonused for scanning and high grade virtue implants in order to actually scan them, since they can get to the 'unprobable' level where only a perfect scan at min res with a perfect scanning pilot can get them, That I will agree is a problem. And a simple counter would be that each link adds to sig radius. They should get rid of the almost impossible means to scan down some of these OGB builds. Thank you for not understanding Eve at all. Let's make it even easier to kill on-grid links... Seriously, stop clinging to your terrible, alt-driven, off-grid advantage. What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more. At the end of the day, I see this as an argument between those that have paid for a OGS and those that wont pay for OGS. If you don't want to pay for a feature in game, your more then likely to opt out of it. But to convince CPP to nurf PAID accounts is kind of an uphill battle. Whether you like it or not, in a way OGS are paying for the game as there are lots of such accounts solely for OGS and more or less nothing else. Whatever that portion of CCPs revenue is, I doubt they want to risk losing it entirely. So rather then wining about OGS should be 100% nurfed, why not come up with or support the many other balances that can be done so OGS keep their account active and those that hate them get a little more of a means to counter them? I have six accounts. CCP has shown perfect willingness in the past to nerf game play, if they deem it bad for the rest of the experience. Now you are making the same losing argument that people made when they announced the change to input broadcasting last year. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1389	Posted - 2015.12.25 20:52:54 - [152] - Quote Bobman Smith wrote: What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more. You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links. That will change when off-grid links are removed. So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 4	Posted - 2015.12.25 21:37:41 - [153] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bobman Smith wrote: What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more. You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links. That will change when off-grid links are removed. So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links. i only ever used links on grid in pvp only time i ever employed them off grid is for high sec incursions since in that case on grid would be wasting a slot needed for proper DPS dealer. only advantage i ever saw to the t3 off grids was before they nerfed em and u had 5% bonus on them since they now boost less then commands and have for some time now commands on grid boost more and have ridiculous tanks. i may be a some what rare case but ever fleet we went up against had boosting commands on grid as well at least in my experience of thats a small fraction of null and low activity but the pattern to me was rarely seeing off grids.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2838	Posted - 2015.12.25 22:07:42 - [154] - Quote Shova'k wrote: i only ever used links on grid in pvp only time i ever employed them off grid is for high sec incursions since in that case on grid would be wasting a slot needed for proper DPS dealer. only advantage i ever saw to the t3 off grids was before they nerfed em and u had 5% bonus on them since they now boost less then commands and have for some time now commands on grid boost more and have ridiculous tanks. i may be a some what rare case but ever fleet we went up against had boosting commands on grid as well at least in my experience of thats a small fraction of null and low activity but the pattern to me was rarely seeing off grids. Incursion communities discussed this right back when CCP first started talking about removing OGB several years ago. Answer was to put the booster on grid. This was before they got decent DPS on them even. It's not a wasted slot in the slightest, incursion fleets were fine to adjust, so they are no an excuse to not remove OGB.
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 521	Posted - 2015.12.25 23:03:13 - [155] - Quote Rosal Milag wrote: To demand that all PvP pilots need to either have a scanning alt in fleet or that someone needs to sacrifice fitting or ship to fly a dedicated scanner just to deal with OGB is not a good argument. Putting the fleet further behind any opposition with links running. Then I guess I shouldn't also demand that PVP pilots fit tackle to keep their prey locked down? Because why sacrifice tank or damage application to keep a target locked down. Rosal Milag wrote: I'd like your answer to how easy it is to catch a nullified, t3, cloaking booster with combat probes. Seriously, the rest of us would love to know how you can easily deal with it. And no, dropping probes isn't going to 'scare' OGB away. If they are properly fit, you have to get within at least 1 AU with all 8 probes to have a pray at a warpable return. Set d-scan to 1.5 au range, spam refresh. Do I have 8 probes visible? If nope, keep spamming. If yes, cloak and warp to next safe. And forcing the OGB to warp or cloak causes the links to shut down. If a person is clicking Dscan on their OGB every 6 seconds, I doubt that it's just an alt they keep tabbed out. From there you can use dscan to ninjadrop the probes on the OGB, so if they do indeed miss a dscan, you can get a ping on them, and get rid of the probes. If you know the guy has a prop mod fit, you can always just fleet warp an insta locking ceptor on him. FT Diomedes wrote: Hairpins Blueprint wrote: You can probe and kill Links t3 with any thing that does dmg and it's really not that hard. Clearly this is not something you have ever done against a competent opponent. Agreed, but not everyone is competent SurrenderMonkey wrote: And, as an aside? Your understanding of burden of proof is utterly ***** backwards. By this idiot- logic, any pea-brained objection some moron could think of would suddenly become someone else's problem to investigate. YOU made the positive affirmation - it would cause too much server load - YOU support that positive affirmation (*** off is a suitable alternative and probably your best bet in this case, though). If you suggest that some gameplay change might suddenly cause a rift in the spacetime continuum and then prattle off some irrelevant horse ** about mass and e=mc^2 and something you once saw in an episode of Dr. Who, I don't have to run off and prove that a tweak to Eve Online isn't going to cause a black hole to form in the middle of Reykjavik. YOU have to prove that it WILL. You haven't actually supported your claim, and I'm assuming your desperate attempt to shift the burden onto me means you can't, in fact, quantify the load, so you can be ignored like any other quack making spurious claims. I guess IGÇÖll bite for this part. So if it was my problem to investigate the server load adding falloff (which this is funny because this is such a stupid little detail), donGÇÖt you think that would mean that every person that plays this game could just make a new thread on any idea, and then simply tell everyone that picks apart their proposal GÇ£Come back to me with hard numbers after you have investigated it, and until you do, my idea is a good ideaGÇ¥. So hereGÇÖs something quick I will throw together. Without Falloff If actualrange < boostingrange Then currentshieldresistshieldresistbooststrength End With* Falloff If Actualrange > boostingrange Then Else If Actualrange < boostingrange Then currentshieldresistshieldresistbooststrength Else shieldresistbooststrengthdistanceinfalloff*currentshieldresist End End So thatGÇÖs just throwing some if together quickly, but IGÇÖm sure this is where you will come pick that apart. So to save you the trouble, please optimize it otherwise CCP is 100% for sure going to use what I just wrote down. Now if you want actual server performance numbers, we would have to know how much falloff we would be giving these links, and then from there we would have to bring this onto Singularity and do some mass tests to see how much time the links spend in falloff with how the players utilize them. So since you want all this hard data, I will let you write the petition to CCP because you want the hard numbers. With this said, can we please move off the falloff topic that you even mentioned was a sarcastic responseGÇª Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 87	Posted - 2015.12.25 23:43:55 - [156] - Quote Quote: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. I have removed a post and those quoting it for the above reason. ISD Max Trix Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1389	Posted - 2015.12.26 01:48:56 - [157] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: Blah blah blah I don't understand basic logic. The argument you're trying/failing to make regarding burden of proof is a prime example of the kind of thinking that was famously eviscerated in, "There's a Dragon in My Garage." You've made an affirmative claim. Nobody has to actually accept that this claim has any credibility unless you can prove that it does. If I claimed that leaving OGB in place would result in mass extinction of Unicorns unless you could prove otherwise, it would be the same ridiculous brand of thinking. You made a claim, you support the claim. It is nobody else's problem to refute your unsupported, evidence-free claim. It wouldn't be your problem to investigate server load, if you hadn't stupidly made the affirmative claim that removing OGB would cause too much server load. Once you did that, you made it your problem. The TL;DR is that you said something, and I asked you to show your work, and like any other charlatan, you refuse to do so. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 521	Posted - 2015.12.26 02:02:16 - [158] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Hopelesshobo wrote: Blah blah blah I don't understand basic logic. The argument you're trying/failing to make regarding burden of proof is a prime example of the kind of thinking that was famously eviscerated in, "There's a Dragon in My Garage." You've made an affirmative claim. Nobody has to actually accept that this claim has any credibility unless you can prove that it does. If I claimed that leaving OGB in place would result in mass extinction of Unicorns unless you could prove otherwise, it would be the same ridiculous brand of thinking. You made a claim, you support the claim. It is nobody else's problem to refute your unsupported, evidence-free claim. It wouldn't be your problem to investigate server load, if you hadn't stupidly made the affirmative claim that removing OGB would cause too much server load. Once you did that, you made it your problem. The TL;DR is that you said something, and I asked you to show your work, and like any other charlatan, you refuse to do so. No, the part I said about increasing the server load had nothing to do with removing the OGB. It had everything to do with you suggesting to add falloff to the links. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1389	Posted - 2015.12.26 02:03:39 - [159] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Hopelesshobo wrote: Blah blah blah I don't understand basic logic. The argument you're trying/failing to make regarding burden of proof is a prime example of the kind of thinking that was famously eviscerated in, "There's a Dragon in My Garage." You've made an affirmative claim. Nobody has to actually accept that this claim has any credibility unless you can prove that it does. If I claimed that leaving OGB in place would result in mass extinction of Unicorns unless you could prove otherwise, it would be the same ridiculous brand of thinking. You made a claim, you support the claim. It is nobody else's problem to refute your unsupported, evidence-free claim. It wouldn't be your problem to investigate server load, if you hadn't stupidly made the affirmative claim that removing OGB would cause too much server load. Once you did that, you made it your problem. The TL;DR is that you said something, and I asked you to show your work, and like any other charlatan, you refuse to do so. No, the part I said about increasing the server load had nothing to do with removing the OGB. It had everything to do with you suggesting to add falloff to the links. You understand the range-limited AOE model they're planning on is subject to the same argument you're failing to make, yes? Probably involves significantly more operations, even. Quit muddying the waters with irrelevant nitpicking and show your ******* work. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 521	Posted - 2015.12.26 02:20:13 - [160] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: You understand the range-limited AOE model they're planning on is subject to the same argument you're failing to make, yes? Probably involves significantly more operations, even. Quit muddying the waters with irrelevant nitpicking and show your ***** work. The question still stands: What ***** point did you imagine you could possibly make without being able to quantify "server load"? You are actually trying to argue with 2 variables in your argument. range-limited AOE model aside (which would basically be required if you were dealing with falloff anyways because you have to have an optimal range first). Yes an AOE model would increase server load compared to what we have now because the server would need to do range checks with each cycle. However, the process it would have to go through to deal with also having to calculate falloff means an even greater load. I gave you the logic in a previous post on this page, so you work through it yourself to see, yes, it takes even more power. And I don't see any benefit from introducing falloff when they could just increase the optimal range and make it a simple boolean calculation. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.

Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.12.26 05:33:22 - [161] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: You understand the range-limited AOE model they're planning on is subject to the same argument you're failing to make, yes? Probably involves significantly more operations, even. Quit muddying the waters with irrelevant nitpicking and show your ***** work. The question still stands: What ***** point did you imagine you could possibly make without being able to quantify "server load"? You are actually trying to argue with 2 variables in your argument. range-limited AOE model aside (which would basically be required if you were dealing with falloff anyways because you have to have an optimal range first). Yes an AOE model would increase server load compared to what we have now because the server would need to do range checks with each cycle. However, the process it would have to go through to deal with also having to calculate falloff means an even greater load. I gave you the logic in a previous post on this page, so you work through it yourself to see, yes, it takes even more power. And I don't see any benefit from introducing falloff when they could just increase the optimal range and make it a simple boolean calculation. the range checks would have to be way more often then each cycle of the links would need a constant real time range check since some ships will leave/enter even leave and re-enter the ranges during the links cycle times meaning the boosts would either stay on them when they leave range until the next cycle range check or they would get no boost when entering range until next range check. so it would have to be a real time constant check that would be a pretty heavy load on the server.
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 521	Posted - 2015.12.26 08:06:15 - [162] - Quote Shova'k wrote: the range checks would have to be way more often then each cycle of the links would need a constant real time range check since some ships will leave/enter even leave and re-enter the ranges during the links cycle times meaning the boosts would either stay on them when they leave range until the next cycle range check or they would get no boost when entering range until next range check. so it would have to be a real time constant check that would be a pretty heavy load on the server. Technically that would be the most realistic option, however to reduce server load by 10 fold (from current cycle times), it would be easier to run the check at the beginning of each cycle. But if CCP were to run this check with every server tick, then that would be more of an excuse to not give boosts falloff. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 167	Posted - 2015.12.26 18:13:48 - [163] - Quote How about we leave the coding to the coders and focus on l33t PvPer tears about to lose their crutch? To be honest, I get why boosts come in handy; but having ALL boosts running from near-perfect safety is a bit too much. Extreme longpoints, speed and reduced sig radius are the main culprits in my experience, although I do respect pilots flying that way. There is considerable skill involved on their part; it'd just be nice to see a little less boosting going on to give people without alts (yes, some people attempt genuine small gang without links) at least a fighting chance. Kiters, you have my respect. I'm sure you'll be able to do that just fine with command destroyer links ON grid. Fly (w)reckless!
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 959	Posted - 2015.12.28 17:43:51 - [164] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bobman Smith wrote: What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more. You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links. That will change when off-grid links are removed. So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links. Are you really linking a 2 year old post? Still haven't seen a dev blog article yet, just the twitter feed people keep referring to as gospel. I'll believe this is coming when I see it for testing on SISI. Till then, I guess it will be another 2 years before they are brought on-grid.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1391	Posted - 2015.12.28 17:58:11 - [165] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: You understand the range-limited AOE model they're planning on is subject to the same argument you're failing to make, yes? Probably involves significantly more operations, even. Quit muddying the waters with irrelevant nitpicking and show your ***** work. The question still stands: What ***** point did you imagine you could possibly make without being able to quantify "server load"? You are actually trying to argue with 2 variables in your argument. range-limited AOE model aside (which would basically be required if you were dealing with falloff anyways because you have to have an optimal range first). Yes an AOE model would increase server load compared to what we have now because the server would need to do range checks with each cycle. However, the process it would have to go through to deal with also having to calculate falloff means an even greater load. I gave you the logic in a previous post on this page, so you work through it yourself to see, yes, it takes even more power. And I don't see any benefit from introducing falloff when they could just increase the optimal range and make it a simple boolean calculation. Waving your hands and rolling your face across the keyboard is not what it looks like when one shows their work. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1391	Posted - 2015.12.28 18:02:14 - [166] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bobman Smith wrote: What on grid links? I've never seen them before. But your right. Maybe that solution is a bit counterproductive. OGB should be scanable without perfect skills, and they should get weapons/suspect timers and the likes to whomever they are buffing to make them stick out more. You've never seen them because there's absolutely no good reason to use on grid links. That will change when off-grid links are removed. So there's really no need to contemplate "balancing" offgrid links. Are you really linking a 2 year old post? Still haven't seen a dev blog article yet, just the twitter feed people keep referring to as gospel. I'll believe this is coming when I see it for testing on SISI. Till then, I guess it will be another 2 years before they are brought on-grid. Find any comment by a dev, ever, suggesting that they would keep OGB in the absence of the technical hurdle that allowed it to survive this long. Just one. You seem to be stuck in the "denial" phase of grief. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2443	Posted - 2015.12.28 18:13:00 - [167] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Let's just say poorly for the supporter of those arguments. And it was also poorly balanced because it gave the same 5 fighters or bombers to all ships. It didn't scale at all. It would have been much better if CCP would have introduced a module that could have been fit to the ships that allowed fighters to be assisted. Then a frigate could have been limited to say 1, while a battleship could have had a full flight. . It was much easier and made much more sense to just tell everyone to just bring their damn carrier on grid like everyone* else involved in the fight. * The booster is obviously the the exception until they change this. At the end of the day, it should be made easy to undestand for everyone. You have an influence on the fight currently happening ---> you must be on grid.
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 524	Posted - 2015.12.28 21:10:38 - [168] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Waving your hands and rolling your face across the keyboard is not what it looks like when one shows their work. Lol, I guess that you don't understand how computers work then if you think that was rolling your face across the keyboard. That comment just proves that this entire time you don't know what you are talking about. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1394	Posted - 2015.12.28 21:36:46 - [169] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Waving your hands and rolling your face across the keyboard is not what it looks like when one shows their work. Lol, I guess that you don't understand how computers work then if you think that was rolling your face across the keyboard. That comment just proves that this entire time you don't know what you are talking about. Speaking of handwavey arguments, the part where I'm the ignorant one because you're incapable of showing your work is quite novel. There you go trying to shove off the burden of proof, again. You seem to think you're so well-informed, surely you can provide a relatively comprehensive estimate in Big O notation, yes? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 92	Posted - 2015.12.30 02:29:52 - [170] - Quote Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times. The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others. 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. I have removed some post and edited others for the above reasons. The post that where edited, where edited and not removed because they contributed to the discussion and where within the rules (with the exception of quoting the removed post.) ISD Max Trix Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2129	Posted - 2015.12.30 08:52:40 - [171] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: The Primary Target wrote: The problem with removing off-grid links entirely is that it will asymmetrically penalize small gang and solo pvpers. Quote: I know many are of the opinion the only truly solo pvp is without links So this thing you like to do where you're all, "Look, I know $word has a well-known, commonly accepted definition, but I choose to use this other definition that is actually in complete opposition with the commonly accepted definition, instead..." Is anyone ever impressed by that? Do you think one single person ever reads that, nods at your sage wisdom and says, "You know, at first I thought you were being ridiculous, but now that you've shown me that words can mean whatever is convenient at their time of use, I must admit, I am persuaded, sir!" And the patronizing acknowledgment that some people are of the opinion that the true meaning of the word is expressed by its actual definition. There is no actual definition there, because solo means a single person by the dictionary. If you have 2 chars you are still a single person. That means the whole definition shenaningans is invalid, we are talking about a virtual reality (a.k.a a agame) where the concepts do not mimic real world). "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2129	Posted - 2015.12.30 08:55:40 - [172] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: Seriously, with 7,800 km of grid space there is absolutely no reason to keep/allow off grid boosting. The booster could still be on grid and..... 1.) still require probes 2.) a cloaky to get close for warp in 3.) a really fast interceptor to provide a warp in. With the larger grids now.... 1.) a fleet could keep an eye on their booster and warp help to it at a moments notice. 2.) the booster...even as an alt would see most trouble coming its way and start burning for safety or warp to it his damn self to protect the booster. So what is the issue again? Why do we need OGB? Hell at this point i would not mind all boosting to be on grid....that includes orcas and rorqs. 7800 km grid means nothing, really probes will pin point you in exactly 10 seconds... Offgrid boost gone, great, but now They should possibly revisit some of the old nerfs they made to the boosts. I woudl say command ships bonuses should become a bit higher now, sicne they are much less mobile than for example the command destroyers and therefore MUCH more vulnerable. On my eyes, unless you increase Commadn ships bonus to something like 5% per level you are never going to see them, but only CD. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.12.30 21:08:27 - [173] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: 7800 km grid means nothing, really probes will pin point you in exactly 10 seconds... Offgrid boost gone, great, but now They should possibly revisit some of the old nerfs they made to the boosts. I woudl say command ships bonuses should become a bit higher now, sicne they are much less mobile than for example the command destroyers and therefore MUCH more vulnerable. On my eyes, unless you increase Commadn ships bonus to something like 5% per level you are never going to see them, but only CD. only the command ships that are lacking in the super tank department are much more vulnerable. the damnation for example is easy to get the EHP in the 300,000 to 500,000 range depending on fit/implants and if your boosting skills are maxed/mindlink ect.. used to get higher maxed with slaves but the nerfs to links and the damnation lost some power grid. pretty sure EOS gets a decent tank as well as the vulture the claymore/sleip varients have to rely more on active boosting so they can sadly be alpha'd off the field rather easy if u catch them at the right angle. still agree the command ships should have been bumped to 5% from the get go when they rebalanced tech 3's to not over shadow command ships. personally i never used a booster off grid in pvp ever cant ever see a reason to i can give the same boosts on grid as off grid (assuming im only doing 3 racial links) and some one else can provide the others since i can sit all the way in fleet command and rest can fill spots bellow, and im talking back when tech 3 still had 5% i still prefered a command on grid and so did the FC's of the fleets i was running with. personally only time i ever used boosts off grid was for PVE like incursions or wormhole sites.
Valacus Streets of Fire 109	Posted - 2015.12.31 03:49:20 - [174] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Max Deveron wrote: Seriously, with 7,800 km of grid space there is absolutely no reason to keep/allow off grid boosting. The booster could still be on grid and..... 1.) still require probes 2.) a cloaky to get close for warp in 3.) a really fast interceptor to provide a warp in. With the larger grids now.... 1.) a fleet could keep an eye on their booster and warp help to it at a moments notice. 2.) the booster...even as an alt would see most trouble coming its way and start burning for safety or warp to it his damn self to protect the booster. So what is the issue again? Why do we need OGB? Hell at this point i would not mind all boosting to be on grid....that includes orcas and rorqs. 7800 km grid means nothing, really probes will pin point you in exactly 10 seconds... Offgrid boost gone, great, but now They should possibly revisit some of the old nerfs they made to the boosts. I woudl say command ships bonuses should become a bit higher now, sicne they are much less mobile than for example the command destroyers and therefore MUCH more vulnerable. On my eyes, unless you increase Commadn ships bonus to something like 5% per level you are never going to see them, but only CD. Uh, no. It's your job to defend your own links. That's why they're being forced on grid. You have to defend them now, not just spam D-Scan until you see probes and click warp. You're going to have to pull your guns out and shoot at something, or jam something, or web something, or do anything other than cloak and find another safe.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.