| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6024
   |
Posted - 2016.06.11 13:19:58 -
[1] - Quote
First off, I want to give the disclaimer that CCP haven't asked me to do this. So no promises on when or if anything would be delivered. That out of the way:
CCP will (probably) be working on boosts from links in the short to medium term future. This will likely include moving them to being on grid only effects, working much like how the debuffs from super capitals work. AOE burst, putting a durationed stat change on the ships. (not tied to the AOE after the intiial burst). With the added caveat of being in the same fleet.
As such, I'd like people to discuss what else could be done with them. Do you have Links which you want to see changed in effect? Are the resist changing boosts too strong? What kind of duration or range from the boosting ship is appropriate? Should different types of links have different ranges or durations?
Just that kind of discussion, so we (the CSM) can get a feel for what you think, to arm us for when we talk to CCP about it. I mean, I have my opinions on this, but it's good to have that spread a little wider.
(Also available at https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4nld0k/on_grid_boosters_discussion_topic/ if you want to have threaded discussions)
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2043
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 13:32:56 -
[2] - Quote
I'm going to say it, and it's going to be impopular, and CCP Fozzie has already publicly spoken against it...
But I think that in addition to the AOE thingie, Off grid links should remain a thing for Squad Boosters. This way they are HEAVILY limited in the number of people affected (From 255 to 10, or maybe go down to 5 or something). So that small organized groups have a way to punch above their weight and create the surprise in some way. Would be healthy for "solo with links" PvPers as well.
If you're affraid that every squad booster is going to turn into an off grid booster (which is silly but understandable) then limit it to one per fleet or something. The lack of ability to being able to broadcast primary and the like should be more than enough of a deterrent.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
James Zimmer
Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel
46
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 14:34:05 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for the thread!
Right now, link strategy is basically safe up and turn on all the things. While any change to get links on grid would be welcome, I would prefer if it turns into something more than anchor up and turn on all the things.
The first thing I would like is more meaningful choice with what your links do. For example, rather than an omni resistance bonus, maybe you can configure your resist bonus to resist 1 or 2 damage types, so you have to change your bonuses on the fly to adapt to new situations. Another example would be rep links. Maybe there should be an option for rep amount, an option for rep speed and an option for cap use, not all three at the same time.
I would also like to see more variety in link type, so there are more meaningful choices about which ones you take and which ones you leave behind. Do you take your turret application link, your navigation link, or your navigation disruption link (webs, scrams, disrupts)? Without an inordinate amount of links, and the rather costly implants to make them good, you'll have to make trade offs. Of course someone will try to abuse it with a T3C or command ship doctrine with literally every link possible, so maybe put a hard limit on how many links can influence a single ship.
Finally, and I'm less committed to this one, maybe add a spatial dimension to it. Maybe the link AOE is smaller, but it can be targeted to be centered on different ships, so when you're linking your tackle captor that's zooming towards a target with extra speed, a longer range disrupter and more buffer tank, the rest of your fleet has to live without links. However, that may get too complicated in application, and it may favor anchor/F1 fleets over more active skirmish fleets too much.
Of course, with all of this, you'd have to make sure that only one link can influence an attribute at any given time, so you can't cheat the system by having one ship buff EM and thermal resists, while the other one buffs kinetic and explosive. |
Act-Mack PVT
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
2
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 15:41:21 -
[4] - Quote
Are they special? Why is the CSM representing such a change when most people on the CSM are not fleet commanders and mostly industrialists and wormhole crabs. They shouldn't be allowed to represent something that is such a ridiculus idea that makes links utterly useless for anyone running a fleet of less than a 100 people. This hurts newbros and smaller alliances all around new eden. |
Finarfin
Guru-Gaming.com
36
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 15:47:36 -
[5] - Quote
I use links heavily. At least 90% of the fights (WH PvP) I take are with my trusty link Tengu hiding somewhere in system and I hate the mechanics with a burning passion. However, the bonus is just too good to pass on.
Links in their current form offer no interesting gameplay and should have been removed years ago. I wouldn't mind their disappearance.
Moving links on-grid isn't really a great solution. I assume they would work like a fantasy MMO shout buff, e.g. every 30secs (module cycle time) an AoE check is done and everyone in range gets a temporary buff. I have concerns about the performance of this mechanic in large fleet fights and I really isn't adding much exciting gameplay. All it does is switching the primary from logi to link ships. Depending on the range of the new links they also might be impossible to keep them alive (logis have low sig and long rep range).
I much rather would see a vast extension of the current combat booster (i.e. drugs) system and move the application of link bonuses into this mechanic. Give drugs a gfx effect, add more variety (e.g. large bonuses with defined non-random drawbacks, bonuses to other attributes like warp speed) and maybe even do some exotic stuff like having them drugged-up ships interact with each other (e.g. if the entire squad is drugged gives another 5%).
If you really want to incite a proper riot let repeated booster use slow down SP accumulation. (this is a joke!) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6025
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 16:35:24 -
[6] - Quote
Act-Mack PVT wrote:Are they special? Why is the CSM representing such a change when most people on the CSM are not fleet commanders and mostly industrialists and wormhole crabs. They shouldn't be allowed to represent something that is such a ridiculus idea that makes links utterly useless for anyone running a fleet of less than a 100 people. This hurts newbros and smaller alliances all around new eden.
I assume your complaint is centered around it being on grid? It's something which has been talked about for years, but had technical limitations. Those are far less of a concern now.
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
3491
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 17:57:53 -
[7] - Quote
The balance between an AOE constant check vs 'anywhere in system' will have some bearing on the workablility of any change.
With grid size changes on grid means something different than it used to.
I am in favour of reining in the range to something that makes a player put all his cards on the table and not 'solo (with boosts)' HOW this is achieved and achievable is yet to be seen. Speaking of seen I LOVE the idea of having a visual cue that boosts are being applied, both from the standpoint of knowing I am getting them and being able to see that the other guys is not as solo as he looks.
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Ix Method
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
500
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 18:19:51 -
[8] - Quote
Altrue wrote:This way they are HEAVILY limited in the number of people affected (From 255 to 10, or maybe go down to 5 or something). So that small organized groups have a way to punch above their weight and create the surprise in some way. Would be healthy for "solo with links" PvPers as well.
The problem with this argument is it pretends a gang of 10/20/30 can't be as game-ruiningly oppressive as a 250 man fleet.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2044
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 18:49:56 -
[9] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Altrue wrote:This way they are HEAVILY limited in the number of people affected (From 255 to 10, or maybe go down to 5 or something). So that small organized groups have a way to punch above their weight and create the surprise in some way. Would be healthy for "solo with links" PvPers as well. The problem with this argument is it pretends a gang of 10/20/30 can't be as game-ruiningly oppressive as a 250 man fleet.
That's right, although this argument is limited to the gang of 10, as per the suggestion of limiting it to one squad booster per fleet. Therefore excluding 20 and 30 people gangs.
I think that, while there is definitely a possibility to be opressive at 10, it is more easily counterable, and more importantly, it doesn't have the alpha required to blow most ships in one shot.
This is by far the biggest opressive factor of large fleet fights, since it makes it mandatory to lose ships. Which in turns suddenly forces you to bring way more people because there WILL be attrition on your side... So yeah, while potentially opressive, I believe that letting 10-man gangs (or 5 man if you're so inclined) have their Off Grid Links is doable precisely because they don't have that alpha potential.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
Oddsodz
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
180
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 19:24:43 -
[10] - Quote
Ok, Here comes a wall of text.
First off. Let me get this out of the way. LINKs in their current form are broken as ****. The "Pay2WIN" with 99.9% safety system that we have right now for "off grid boosting" needs to be removed right now. No ifs no butts. Anybody that feels that they should stay is any from can go and eat the sait that I have for off grid boosting.
Ok rant done. Now lets move on to the point of "on grid - in combat" links.
ON GRID boosting can be done. In fact I can prove this by pointing out that as of this post. I am the #3 all time Bifrost pilot for kills.
https://zkillboard.com/ship/37480/topalltime/
And every time I go out in that ship. I have a link fitted to my ship. I have made a name for myself in HORDE for flying it like nobody else. Anybody that tells you flying links on grid and in combat is not possible are just plain wrong. Want more proof? Go watch some of my youtube videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMv7P4Sztd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip3_277vUkg (the end of this is great)
I have also in the passed flown Proteases on grid in combat with links running. As well as claymores and Eos's. It is very doable.
Now with the up coming AOE style of temporary buffing your fleet members on it's way. I can not wait for it. It will reward pilots that fly their ships. None of this f1 stuff. The idea of having to fly into your fleet. Or even picking what part of the fleet to prioritise for buffs be it the DPS of your fleet or your small tackle or you logi wing is just great. It will reward pilots who take up that role and they will be highly sort after.
As for how the bonus of links are changed. I would be just fine if they was left as they are. But I will not have a hissy fit if they are changed up in some way.
My only worry is that the DEV's make a mistake and leave some sort of "off grid boosting" still possible. One example is that I hope does not happen is that a ship that just had a LINKs buff applied to it then warps off to a fight and can still have its buff and leave the LINK's to cloak up and be safe.
Scenario 1
I am in faction war space in my Fed navy comet. I see on D-Scan that there is another Fed navy comet in a Novice combet plex. Now I have been in system for a few minutes and know 100% that he/she has not left the site for any reason. So I know he/she has no LINKs buff applied to him/her. But I happen to have an alt with me in a Link fit Legion with all the cool LINKs. Now I have a clear advantage with 0 risk to LINKs alt.
This must not be allowed to happen. Or we will just have the same "Pay2Win" system that we have now but just in another form. I would make a plea to the DEVs that any form of warping or jumping from one system to another system must remove any Buffs that LINK's give.
I can not stress this enough. Any form of off grid buffing must not be possible.
Now I know a few here want to keep some form of off grid buffing just so they can play outnumbered. They seem to think it is right that they can pay for an alt (be it with ISK/PLEX or Subs) and then just beat all the things in the super kitey or super repping ships. I say you can eat my salt and remember that this is a multiplayer game first. If you want LINK's buff to your ships. Get friends that can fly them with you. PVP with LINKs must be about LINK choices and pilot flight skills. Not "Pay2Win" bullshit.
Thank you for reading.
Oddsodz |
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2800
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 19:57:16 -
[11] - Quote
Act-Mack PVT wrote:Are they special? Why is the CSM representing such a change when most people on the CSM are not fleet commanders and mostly industrialists and wormhole crabs. They shouldn't be allowed to represent something that is such a ridiculus idea that makes links utterly useless for anyone running a fleet of less than a 100 people. This hurts newbros and smaller alliances all around new eden.
... because your small fleet cant run with a BC a T3 or a command dessi
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
2869
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 20:41:47 -
[12] - Quote
It needs to be very clear which ships have received the buff and when it expires. It would be interesting if non-fleet members could also see.
Are there going to be AoE debuffs? That could provide a way for small gangs to hit above their weight without making the buffs OP.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Professor Push
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
12
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 21:01:50 -
[13] - Quote
As someone who trained a booster for over 1 year, and rarely uses it. I cannot see keeping a booster if he is going to provide a D&D/Pathfinder Bard buff. Simply because it's not an interesting role for a second account. And certainly not interesting enough for a main. That being said, as it is now - an off-grid booster is certainly not interesting, but requires little to no work - and there is the incentive.
CCP generates a small amount extra revenue because someone wants to pass boosts. This is fine by me.
Being in Brave I would say a vast majority of people come to fight us using off-grid boosts. This usually leads many newbies dead in the wake of "kitey bullshit." The remedy is to scan down boosts and kill the boosting ship. That, ironically, does make things interesting.
Without an off grid, they stand a good chance of being blobbed.
Hence we run into the old n1+ problem of DPS and numbers CCP was trying to move against with Fozzie Sov.
Simply seeing that a ship was under the effects of boosts, would change game play dramatically. This could be done by a glow, object, or icon.
I think a much needed change would be to see the changes a boost provides directly, without mouse overs or opening the fitting window.
Please focus on fleet mechanics, and boost/grid link effects overview and you have solved 90% of off-grid boosting issues.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2801
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 21:28:02 -
[14] - Quote
Zappity wrote:It needs to be very clear which ships have received the buff and when it expires. It would be interesting if non-fleet members could also see.
Are there going to be AoE debuffs? That could provide a way for small gangs to hit above their weight without making the buffs OP.
how it would just be used against them as well
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
2869
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 21:53:25 -
[15] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Zappity wrote:It needs to be very clear which ships have received the buff and when it expires. It would be interesting if non-fleet members could also see.
Are there going to be AoE debuffs? That could provide a way for small gangs to hit above their weight without making the buffs OP.
how it would just be used against them as well
It could be used against them, just as OGB can currently be used against them. It would provide another way to compete with a larger but less organised group.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2801
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 21:59:11 -
[16] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Zappity wrote:It needs to be very clear which ships have received the buff and when it expires. It would be interesting if non-fleet members could also see.
Are there going to be AoE debuffs? That could provide a way for small gangs to hit above their weight without making the buffs OP.
how it would just be used against them as well It could be used against them, just as OGB can currently be used against them. It would provide another way to compete with a larger but less organised group.
and another way that a larger group could gimp a smaller one
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lelob
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
236
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 22:31:35 -
[17] - Quote
Links are fine the way they are currently. |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2912
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 22:32:26 -
[18] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Ix Method wrote:Altrue wrote:This way they are HEAVILY limited in the number of people affected (From 255 to 10, or maybe go down to 5 or something). So that small organized groups have a way to punch above their weight and create the surprise in some way. Would be healthy for "solo with links" PvPers as well. The problem with this argument is it pretends a gang of 10/20/30 can't be as game-ruiningly oppressive as a 250 man fleet. That's right, although this argument is limited to the gang of 10, as per the suggestion of limiting it to one squad booster per fleet. Therefore excluding 20 and 30 people gangs. I think that, while there is definitely a possibility to be opressive at 10, it is more easily counterable, and more importantly, it doesn't have the alpha required to blow most ships in one shot. This is by far the biggest opressive factor of large fleet fights, since it makes it mandatory to lose ships. Which in turns suddenly forces you to bring way more people because there WILL be attrition on your side... So yeah, while potentially opressive, I believe that letting 10-man gangs (or 5 man if you're so inclined) have their Off Grid Links is doable precisely because they don't have that alpha potential.
It's simple, if you want to gain benefit from a ship during a fight, bring that ship on grid during that fight. No ifs, but or any other exceptions. You either bring it on grid or you don't. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3301
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 23:11:48 -
[19] - Quote
As someone who trained an alt just for boosting, it'd be really great if fleet boosts were flat out removed. Buffs just because a particular ship is present has never been a good mechanic. Worse than that is we are encouraged to fit a ship that is just for boosts and then delegating the job to an alt because the ship is otherwise useless. The 'solo plus boosts' play style is a cancer to the game.
If we must have aoe boosts, I'm imagining something that bursts from the ship itself to 40 - 50km. It makes sense to me that the boosting ship should be with its fleet, not projecting from afar. It also means the booster can focus more on fighting than directing boosts.
One other thing i suggest is limiting the boosts a ship can fit to one and then limit the boosts that can be affecting a ship to one. This discourages fitting ships for max boosts and discourages taking multiple boost ships just to get a myriad of boosts. It encourages squads to take the one boost that benefits them the most based on their tactics (a meaningful choice) and allows the booster to take part in fighting rather than be an alt. Normal refitting would apply but if necessary, multiple boosts could be rolled into one and/or scripts could affect boosts.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2801
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 23:13:01 -
[20] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Links are fine the way they are currently.
yeah why should i have to risk putting a ship on field and whats wrong with relegating an entire role to nothing but alts
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
|
Ion Nizer
Guardians of the Gate
I Aim To Misbehave
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.12 02:56:50 -
[21] - Quote
First off, I have a booster alt and would rather see combat links removed than made into some on grid aoe thing that will only promote more blobbs.
Anyway, to the point. I've seen mention of making links into something you need to target and apply to ships.
This I like, as it makes links into something like logistics which is fun to fly.
But more importantly... it would make neutral links go suspect, just like neutral logi. I like this even more.
If you are reworking links, look at how logi currently functions and take what works from that and go from there. Even if you keep it an aoe effect, it should transfer suspect/criminal flags from any fleet member you affect, just like sensor boosting or repping.
EDIT:
Had another thought while going to sleep last night. Change fleet boosting so links work from anyone in the fleet. That way you could have a single link on several ships in the fleet. Make them work like other utility modules like points and sensor boosters. Just another option to add to a fit. Limiting links made sense when they worked across an entire system and gave huge boosts. If those change, why not let the AOE effect ignore fleet positions?
Currently nobody wants to fly a booster ship. Making them on grid doesn't help any. I love flying logi, DPS is fun, ECM is fun, but flying a brick tank links ship that's going to be an alpha target sounds terrible.
Also... off grid links are being removed. Fine. But... this is direct to CCP... please start your discussion from there. Start thinking about a game with no boosting, and decide "Should we add this boosting mechanic? What will it add? Will people WANT to get out of their DPS ship to fly links?"
If it doesn't add any engaging gameplay, maybe it's not worth adding. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6027
|
Posted - 2016.06.12 18:16:48 -
[22] - Quote
tbh, I'd expect the boosting positions to go away. It's a level of 'complexity' that adds nothing to the game, if it's all range based. (except, possibly, the skill based boost, rather than the module based)
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Asveron Durr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.06.12 23:10:51 -
[23] - Quote
Honestly "off" Grid boosting needs to be rid of.
What I am wondering is why not just make a command ship the only type that can use warefare links, when turned on they create like a bubble effect outward from the ship.
Range...maybe 15km in every direction for a 30km sized bubble, any fleet ships in the bubble get the boosts....that way command ships stay mobile, are in the fight.....
and well i guess that way leadership positions do not need to apply and the meta might change to entire fleets of command ships.....oh and a SB could place a bomb inside that bubble...command ship being the bullseye.
but anyways...... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6027
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 00:04:18 -
[24] - Quote
Asveron Durr wrote:Honestly "off" Grid boosting needs to be rid of.
What I am wondering is why not just make a command ship the only type that can use warefare links, when turned on they create like a bubble effect outward from the ship.
Range...maybe 15km in every direction for a 30km sized bubble, any fleet ships in the bubble get the boosts....that way command ships stay mobile, are in the fight.....
and well i guess that way leadership positions do not need to apply and the meta might change to entire fleets of command ships.....oh and a SB could place a bomb inside that bubble...command ship being the bullseye.
but anyways......
Right now, the concept is probably (things may change, but this is what's been mentioned publicly) boost ships will cycle their booster every so often, and every fleet ship within a specific range of it will get the boost for a specifc period of time. Won't depend on the booster staying in range for that duration (as that's a range check, which is somewhat expensive to do repeatedly.)
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Servo Libertas
Federal Dynamics
13
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 03:51:27 -
[25] - Quote
As someone else mentioned, I think that targeted boosts would be much more interesting/rewarding for that role. Booster alts need to be a thing of the past; combat boosting needs to be a fun, active role. This would also be easier to implement I would think (I can't say what all balancing changes would need to happen). If that isn't the answer, I would rather that they get rid of combat boosting altogether. Sure the AoE boost idea would bring more risk to booster alts, but the role would still mostly left to alts (THAT is the problem). |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2587
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 04:47:02 -
[26] - Quote
I agree that off-grid boosting needs to go away.
To answer Steve's questions, I don't have a problem with the existing links. I think the Information Warfare links could use the most work.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security
The OSS
1431
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 13:54:25 -
[27] - Quote
#1: This necessitates a complete and total rework of both T3 defensive subsystems and command ships.
#2: Being relegated to a "buff bot" is crap and I don't like it nor know anyone who does. None of this targeted garbage please.
Finally and most importantly we come to #3: Under no circumstances let the overall decisions be disproportionately influenced by "solo/small gang/FW" voices and the reason I say that is this will radically affect mid scale fights and above, whereas the aforementioned group can and will simply roll into falcons and carry on roflstomping people as before regardless. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises
Ad-Astra
432
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 14:39:58 -
[28] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:#1: This necessitates a complete and total rework of both T3 defensive subsystems and command ships.
Why would this be the case? Command Ships as they currently stand have already been reworked once and are a fairly viable ship type in their own right. Plus it would be *far* easier to balance the rework around what already exists than to rework both links and Command Ships *and* T3s all at once. (T3s still need their big balance pass but unless CCP are scheduling that at the same time as this links change I see to need to rebalance one to suit the other specifically) |
Rawmeat Mary
Hunter Killers.
Complaints Department
123
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 15:41:31 -
[29] - Quote
Servo Libertas wrote:As someone else mentioned, I think that targeted boosts would be much more interesting/rewarding for that role. Booster alts need to be a thing of the past; combat boosting needs to be a fun, active role. This would also be easier to implement I would think (I can't say what all balancing changes would need to happen). If that isn't the answer, I would rather that they get rid of combat boosting altogether. Sure the AoE boost idea would bring more risk to booster alts, but the role would still mostly left to alts (THAT is the problem).
By that reasoning, CCP should remove multiboxing.
'If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins onto their clothing.
And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.'
Yeah, we're like that.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security
The OSS
1431
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 15:47:16 -
[30] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:#1: This necessitates a complete and total rework of both T3 defensive subsystems and command ships. Why would this be the case? Command Ships as they currently stand have already been reworked once and are a fairly viable ship type in their own right. Plus it would be *far* easier to balance the rework around what already exists than to rework both links and Command Ships *and* T3s all at once. (T3s still need their big balance pass but unless CCP are scheduling that at the same time as this links change I see to need to rebalance one to suit the other specifically)
Because barring a damnation they're far too easy to be blapped off field. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |