EVE Search - On grid boosters

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

On grid boosters - Discussion Topic

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Frostys Virpio Yet another corpdot. 2916	Posted - 2016.06.14 17:19:23 - [31] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: 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. Delete command processor and hard-limit the number of links each ship can run. Then they will all magically have the fitting to fit their links and a tank. Weapon might be a bit problematic but just like recons, their presence is not for their offensive firepower.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 432	Posted - 2016.06.14 18:01:36 - [32] - Quote Rawmeat Mary wrote: By that reasoning, CCP should remove multiboxing. That's pretty much a thing that's already happened in most meaningful contexts (no more input broadcasting) and for the remaining ones you're being overly broad and hyperbolic. A change that makes boosting with alts significantly less viable does not mean that all multi-boxing is now dead and worthless. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Because barring a damnation they're far too easy to be blapped off field. If I get a big enough fleet I can easily blap a Damnation. There is no magic point at which Command Ships will stop being massive targets unless they are either so tanky they barely need tank mods for non-massive-fleet-uses or they're so near to worthless no one brings any. The idea that they need more HP may be valid, but that's hardly into "total rework" territory, and the further up you push the bar to effectively kill a Command Ship the harder it becomes for a smaller force to remove the Command Ships belonging to a larger one, which would further enforce "N+1 wins" and generally, I feel, cause more problems than it solved.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 432	Posted - 2016.06.14 18:22:33 - [33] - Quote For the purposes of this post I'm going to refer to someone using links as a Command Player, since the Booster role is apparently going away and I want to avoid conflating terms. Some thoughts/concerns, in no particular order: Everything about the current boost modules should be looked at, especially fittings, cap use, and cycle time. As things stand, with OGBs, it makes a fair amount of sense for links to be fitting prohibitive because dropping tank for more links is about the closest the whole system comes to a meaningful trade-off, but with the links moving on grid that seems like a trade almost no one will want to make. The duration of links should be long enough that a Command Player can activate links, a fleet can warp a moderate distance, and the boosts still be active when the fleet lands on grid. What a "moderate distance" means is something for CCP to determine, and will obviously vary some with warp speed, but I would say that the base distance should revolve around the 3 AU/s base speed many T1 ships use. Links should respect Suspect/Criminal/Station Timer mechanics. More on this below, because this got a bit big for a bullet point... The question of whether or not these new AOE links will affect the Command Ship itself should be answered, as should whether or not they affect the ship when it is not in a fleet. In effect can I now mount a high-slot tank module on solo ships? In my opinion the bonuses on the links themselves shouldn't be changed, at least on the first iteration. I foresee a lot of calls for the links to be buffed to make up for bringing them on grid but I don't think this is really necessary. The links being off-grid is a broken state of affairs as it's basically all bonus and very very little risk in most cases. Buffing links in response to fixing this broken state of affairs both helps defeat the point of the change and moves the baseline making it harder to determine the actual effect of bringing Links on-grid compared to before. Suspect/Criminal/Station Timer thoughts and mechanics: If you activate links you should get a gate/station timer and any criminal flags possessed by someone affected should be passed to the activating player. This both solves one of the few remaining consequence-free methods of remote assistance (in high and low-sec) and increases risk to Command Linkers by preventing them from playing station games with Warfare Links. That said, this still leaves a few holes in the mechanics which would need to be plugged. To avoid griefing or avoiding penalty mechanics I would suggest that someone who commits an aggressive act against another player lose Link Bonuses passed by someone who is not currently aggressable by that person/a criminal. Basically you have to activate your links after (if only just) someone else starts shooting that freighter/rookie ship/carrier trying to jump into High Sec. To prevent griefing in public fleets Link Bonuses respect the safety in who they pass to, so someone with a green safety can still activate their Warfare Links but can't give Link Bonuses to someone who is currently in a state that would violate the green safety, the Links affect everyone else normally. Otherwise you're going to have people joining things like Incursion Fleets, waiting until the links are about to activate, and going suspect or criminal to either A: prevent the Command Linker from activating his links or B. get him killed, either by Concord or by the ganker's friends. Some may say that Link-griefing should be allowed but this harkens back to the days when anyone in fleet could shoot anyone else in a fleet and this was pretty much only used for griefing and limited the utility of fleets and pushed players away from working together casually. This is both bad for the game generally and actually makes it harder for a dedicated or experienced troll/griefer/saboteur to ingratiate himself to a group by discouraging casual and temporary cooperation that might transition into a more long lasting relationship. Thanks for making this thread FuzzySteve, I look forward to seeing what CCP comes up with here! :)
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1431	Posted - 2016.06.14 18:26:54 - [34] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: 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. Delete command processor and hard-limit the number of links each ship can run. Then they will all magically have the fitting to fit their links and a tank. Weapon might be a bit problematic but just like recons, their presence is not for their offensive firepower. Nothing can matched a damnation though. Nothing subcapital, anyway. Vulture is close but still short.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3427	Posted - 2016.06.14 22:22:32 - [35] - Quote Ion Nizer wrote: 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. 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. Yeah, making links into a targeted module is a much more interesting approach than the buff bubble, by turning fleet bonuses into an active role akin to remote-rep logistics you create a much more engaging gameplay style and much more room for individual pilot decisions and input to make the difference. Here's how the version of fleet bonuses works in my head: ========= 1: Ganglinks are an active module and require a target lock to apply. 2: To use a ganglink the linking ship must lock and activate the module on a member of their fleet in any command position. 3: Once activated as above, the link bonus provided by that module applies to the targeted fleet member and any fleet member below them in the chain of command. 4: The higher up the chain of command the targeted fleet member is, the more diluted the ganglink effect becomes. ========= So if I'm in a ganglink ship in a full fleet of 256, I can target the FC, activate my link module(s), and (assuming their Leadership skills are up to it) all fleet members including myself will receive a small bonus from my ganglink. Or, I can target one of the Wing commanders, which would mean that the Wing Commander and all pilots in that wing receive a more powerful ganglink effect. Or, I can use my link on one of the Squad leaders. The ganglink will only affect the 10 members of the squad, but the effect of the ganglink on those 10 will be much more powerful than spreading it out across the whole fleet. Alternatively I guess we could have a boring AoE bubble which doesn't give any of those interesting gameplay choices, encourages the whole fleet to huddle together in a big stupid blob, and can be performed completely passively by the FC's alt character just like today. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
Jessie McPewpew U2EZ 16	Posted - 2016.06.15 02:11:45 - [36] - Quote Making links a targetted module is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You might as well bring another dps or logi/support. Offgrid links work because it's a boring arse role to play unless you are a fleet commander, and then, you are only begging to be primaried by flying one in a fleet while obviously boosting. If CCP wants to make links fun to fly then give them new slots on commandships, battlecruisers, T3s, Command destroyers where only links can be fitted and the ship can still use the majority of its resources in fitting a tank and guns. The reason why offgrid boosting worked was because it was hella boring so it was convenient to relegate it to an alt. With commandships giving a decent amount of boost while still being highly useful as dps ships, you wouldn't need to tell pilots before they fly said ships into combat willingly.
Frostys Virpio Yet another corpdot. 2921	Posted - 2016.06.15 04:03:46 - [37] - Quote Jessie McPewpew wrote: If CCP wants to make links fun to fly then give them new slots on commandships, battlecruisers, T3s, Command destroyers where only links can be fitted and the ship can still use the majority of its resources in fitting a tank and guns. The reason why offgrid boosting worked was because it was hella boring so it was convenient to relegate it to an alt. With commandships giving a decent amount of boost while still being highly useful as dps ships, you wouldn't need to tell pilots before they fly said ships into combat willingly. You can already do this by yourself by not trying to jury rig more than 3 link on a command ship. Most if not all of them will be left with most of their slots open for tank and the same for dps. The stupidity of 6 links command boat doesn't have to still be a thing once we get links on grid. You could hard-cap the link in 3 "class" where command ship bring 3, T3 cruisers and destroyer bring 2 and command destroyer bring 1. The funniest thing about this is you could then make then all give equivalent boost value since ship would probably flat out make sense to bring in different scenario instead of it being T3 or bust for a large majority of setups.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2139	Posted - 2016.06.15 06:57:27 - [38] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: 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. Delete command processor and hard-limit the number of links each ship can run. Then they will all magically have the fitting to fit their links and a tank. Weapon might be a bit problematic but just like recons, their presence is not for their offensive firepower. I'm OK w/ someone bringing a 6 link shitfit command ship on grid. If someone wants to put all co-processors, command processors and links on any ship on grid w/ me - sweet. I believe in choice and consequence. Bring a 2 link damnation w/ a massive tank or a 6 link paper damnation - their call and their consequences. I think the anger (whatever) against off grid boosting was that there was this incredibly pvp powerful ship with a totally horrible pvp fit (super squishy) that could linger in safety. Bringing them on grid makes them viable targets. Leave it up to the pilot to make the call for max boosts or max tank. Will ewar do anything to the aoe boosts? Can I damp down their effective range? Can I jam the booster? I understand how and why they don't affect smart bombs (energy pulse weapons) as it is the ship just kind of puking out damage over a short range. Boosts on the other hand kind of imply lending computing power via links with other ships. Jamming a linked ship would (possibly) break the links with other ships. Finally, I would think bringing them on grid and seeing what happens would make for completely informed balance tweaks. Right now we would be guessing and assuming a lot based on how radical moving to aoe is. Having a tweaker in hand and at the ready for patch day would be smart, but I'm voting for let the emergent play happen and then fix what aoe breaks.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 435	Posted - 2016.06.15 13:56:31 - [39] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Ion Nizer wrote: 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. 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. Yeah, making links into a targeted module is a much more interesting approach than the buff bubble, by turning fleet bonuses into an active role akin to remote-rep logistics you create a much more engaging gameplay style and much more room for individual pilot decisions and input to make the difference. Here's how the version of fleet bonuses works in my head: ========= 1: Ganglinks are an active module and require a target lock to apply. 2: To use a ganglink the linking ship must lock and activate the module on a member of their fleet in any command position. 3: Once activated as above, the link bonus provided by that module applies to the targeted fleet member and any fleet member below them in the chain of command. 4: The higher up the chain of command the targeted fleet member is, the more diluted the ganglink effect becomes. ========= So if I'm in a ganglink ship in a full fleet of 256, I can target the FC, activate my link module(s), and (assuming their Leadership skills are up to it) all fleet members including myself will receive a small bonus from my ganglink. Or, I can target one of the Wing commanders, which would mean that the Wing Commander and all pilots in that wing receive a more powerful ganglink effect. Or, I can use my link on one of the Squad leaders. The ganglink will only affect the 10 members of the squad, but the effect of the ganglink on those 10 will be much more powerful than spreading it out across the whole fleet. Alternatively I guess we could have a boring AoE bubble which doesn't give any of those interesting gameplay choices, encourages the whole fleet to huddle together in a big stupid blob, and can be performed completely passively by the FC's alt character just like today. This isn't really particularly interesting though, it just increases the number of Command Ships you need to bring on field to be effective. Other than that it's just "lock up your assigned leadership person and broadcast if you get targeted". That and you've just made ECM hard-counter another ship-type. The end result of this, for any large fleet, would be bring 26/52 Command Ships and have 1 for the FC and one for each squad. That's not a particularly interesting choice or engaging gameplay, it's just another numbers and SP check. If you really want to limit the impact of Command Links then make the AOE smaller than 255km and force people to actually stay near the Command Ship if they want to get boosts, but even that isn't really a good solution, because it penalizes larger hulls, never mind what it does to capital ships. This whole targeted links idea seems like a bad push to relegate Links to solo and very small gang warfare, which would massively change the survivability of ships at every other level of the game, especially the Command Ships themselves. Making them a targeted module would be equivalent to nerfing them into oblivion.
MiB Zed Men In Blap 0	Posted - 2016.06.16 18:14:27 - [40] - Quote off grid links are broken and bringing them on grid wont make it better ether. to make this short and sweet if you move links on grid every fc in the book is going to primary the link ship as soon as they can. if i can kill 1 ship that makes your entire fleet less useful i would have to be stupid to not try to head shot it. there isnt a good option with links you ether make them too focused or too weak to be useful or your going to make them the first ship to hit the battle reports. links in any form are just a tax put on a fleet to allow them to punch above there weight class what works for small gangs in links wont work in blobs what works in blobs wont work in small gangs one group is going to be upset about the changes. sometimes the only winning move is not to play

Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 444	Posted - 2016.06.21 18:34:19 - [41] - Quote Steve, any news or new information? Heck, do you think this thread has been useful at all so far? Any plans to do more threads like this for future features head of any CCP announcement?
Morgan North Dark-Rising 151	Posted - 2016.06.21 22:10:47 - [42] - Quote I am of the opinion, that OGB adds nothing to the game. It ruins my immersion when a space ship is able to fly faster because some other ship has a button on. I know this is a game, but, its the main problem I have with boosting. Extra resistances, when off grid, make no sense either, while on grid, they make sense in the same way shield/armor/whatever repair does as in there's a steady stream of particles/energy flung at the target, even if they are being dispersed around a particular vessel (AoE). Frankly, I don't even know the full extent of possible bonuses, because I never bothered to train link alts, but things like velocity, acceleration and manoeuvrability being affected should not be boosted. Sensor locking speed is fine representing additional sensors available, signature reduction is fine (a weak ECM), but stuff like speed/agility should be well off the realm of electronic buffing. My two cents really.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 444	Posted - 2016.06.22 19:41:20 - [43] - Quote Morgan North wrote: I am of the opinion, that OGB adds nothing to the game. It ruins my immersion when a space ship is able to fly faster because some other ship has a button on. I know this is a game, but, its the main problem I have with boosting. Extra resistances, when off grid, make no sense either, while on grid, they make sense in the same way shield/armor/whatever repair does as in there's a steady stream of particles/energy flung at the target, even if they are being dispersed around a particular vessel (AoE). Frankly, I don't even know the full extent of possible bonuses, because I never bothered to train link alts, but things like velocity, acceleration and manoeuvrability being affected should not be boosted. Sensor locking speed is fine representing additional sensors available, signature reduction is fine (a weak ECM), but stuff like speed/agility should be well off the realm of electronic buffing. My two cents really. "Makes sense" isn't really something that comes into play here. This is Science Fiction so it's always possible to come up with some way something might be doable, even if it's just the external view point allowing for optimization of existing systems.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 16446	Posted - 2016.06.22 20:31:14 - [44] - Quote Sense, in f&i!! GET EM LADS! Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6041	Posted - 2016.06.22 23:28:04 - [45] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Steve, any news or new information? Heck, do you think this thread has been useful at all so far? Any plans to do more threads like this for future features head of any CCP announcement? Nothing new to share yet. They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it. But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start) Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1264	Posted - 2016.06.23 00:58:59 - [46] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Nothing new to share yet. They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it. But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start) We have been saying the same thing, we rather wait a little more and get something solid than have something that doesn't quite do it. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 19	Posted - 2016.06.23 01:47:17 - [47] - Quote So far my experience with links is - broken AF. Not only the bonuses but how they are applied, some1 sitting 100 au away at station or at safespot in an almost unscannable, claoky, nullified t3 providing constant boosts to everyone? Wat. So after thinking long and hard i came up with this: 1. Links should be on grid, all time, or at least most of it- this would open a profession currently occupied by alts 2. The ships should be tanky while having links fitted and running, low sig, good resist profile, base speed, minimal to none dps. Command destroyers need a buff in that regard, atm thay can fit 1 module, if that. Useful only for the mjd. Command ships- more buffor, able to fit more links without gimping the fit etc. 3. Duration seems like good idea to differentiate between hulls, smaller ship would have to stay with the group to provide buff constantly (but also be more mobile and avoid getting caught while on grid with the gang) Command ship could "link up" and warp off to a safe oldschool style, but it would warp slow giving enemy chance to catch it and after a while it would need to reunite with fleet somehow, giving opposite team another chance to point it. Or stay on field with the kitey cancer roam and be the slowest, potentialy catch-able high value target for enemy. gang link t3's should behave like something in between- weaker bonus to link strength and lower tank than command ship, but more agile.
Cade Windstalker Center For Postdoctoral Studies 446	Posted - 2016.06.23 02:02:17 - [48] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Nothing new to share yet. They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it. But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start) Not surprised by any of this. Game Development is like an iceberg, you only ever really see the tip of the process. (and no one really questions that until there's a horrible wreck...) More wondering if the thread has been useful to you and/or the other CSMs in getting your own internal discussion going, coming up with potential concerns, or just generally producing "huh, I never thought of that" moments. If it's doing any of that then I feel like the playerbase is doing its job as far as engaging with the CSM and providing feedback and fodder for discussions goes.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6045	Posted - 2016.06.23 12:06:38 - [49] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: Nothing new to share yet. They haven't (as far as we've been told. Or not, in this case) started working on it. But it's often the case they'll kick it around internally, before bringing a close to finished concept to us. (That's not to say things don't change. They do. But it helps for them to have a concept, before discussions really start) Not surprised by any of this. Game Development is like an iceberg, you only ever really see the tip of the process. (and no one really questions that until there's a horrible wreck...) More wondering if the thread has been useful to you and/or the other CSMs in getting your own internal discussion going, coming up with potential concerns, or just generally producing "huh, I never thought of that" moments. If it's doing any of that then I feel like the playerbase is doing its job as far as engaging with the CSM and providing feedback and fodder for discussions goes. I've been reading it, yes. The points will be raised (except for the 'don't change anything' one. because they will be changed.) Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cade Windstalker 448	Posted - 2016.06.23 14:12:54 - [50] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: I've been reading it, yes. The points will be raised (except for the 'don't change anything' one. because they will be changed.) I lol'd. Love you Steve, keep being an awesome and super engaged CSM :)

Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1179	Posted - 2016.06.23 14:16:51 - [51] - Quote removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone.
Cade Windstalker 448	Posted - 2016.06.23 15:12:13 - [52] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone. Oh noes, now you'll only have your Skill Points, Combat Boosters, and Fitting to make yourself invisibly harder to kill?
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2165	Posted - 2016.06.23 15:31:20 - [53] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone. Yippppeeeeee (good riddance)
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1180	Posted - 2016.06.23 16:02:54 - [54] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Oh noes, now you'll only have your Skill Points, Combat Boosters, and Fitting to make yourself invisibly harder to kill? boosters are of limited value, fitting upgrades which would meaningfully matter consts tons of ISK and thus are only for rich people. Links however offer possibilities for regular players.
Cade Windstalker 448	Posted - 2016.06.23 17:26:43 - [55] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Oh noes, now you'll only have your Skill Points, Combat Boosters, and Fitting to make yourself invisibly harder to kill? boosters are of limited value, fitting upgrades which would meaningfully matter consts tons of ISK and thus are only for rich people. Links however offer possibilities for regular players. A boosting character takes anywhere from six months to a year to train just to be able to fly the ship and boost to a good degree, and it requires a second account (something the average player probably can't afford with just PLEX). A well fitted boosting ship, and the implants to go with it, costs at least half a billion ISK and can run much higher. All of that hardly makes a Command Boosting alt "something for poor people" here... Besides all of this though, just the fact that you consider Boosts to be so powerful says that they should be on-grid and under direct risk of getting shot rather than off-grid, hidden, and quite safe (you know, in comparison).
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1082	Posted - 2016.06.23 21:05:53 - [56] - Quote If they come on grid limited boosting range. Under no circumstances is to boosts stay active if ship is not present on grid...ship dies boosts dies ship warp off boosts dies Add battleship size booster or rework marauders to fit that role, size/class of a boosting ship could be used to determine how many ppl and how strong certain boosts are. Marauders supposed to be redone few years ago into more PVP oriented roles not even greater PVE carebaremobiles with niche afterthought PVP every once in a blue moon action....not sure what happened there but whatevs. Made some opinions here other than that il just wait for this disaster to unfold. Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
Cade Windstalker 449	Posted - 2016.06.23 21:11:14 - [57] - Quote Mina Sebiestar wrote: If they come on grid limited boosting range. Under no circumstances is to boosts stay active if ship is not present on grid...ship dies boosts dies ship warp off boosts dies This may turn into more of a server performance issue than a game balance one. While I agree in theory I feel that some kind of short-duration effect (call it 10-30 seconds) may be more practical from a server performance standpoint while keeping the overall effect on combat the same. Mina Sebiestar wrote: Add battleship size booster or rework marauders to fit that role size/class of a boosting ship could be used to determine how many ppl and how strong certain boosts are. Marauders supposed to be redone few years ago into more PVP oriented roles not even greater PVE carebaremobiles with niche afterthought PVP every once in a blue moon action....not sure what happened there but whatevs. Made some opinions here other than that il just wait for this disaster to unfold. Marauders were never supposed to be reworked into PvP oriented roles. This was disucssed during the Bastion rework and roundly shot down by CCP. Go read the thread if you want to know more. Also I'm failing to see a compelling argument for a Battleship sized boosting ship. We have Destroyers, Battlecruisers, and Capitals, why do we need a Battleship when a Command Ship can out-tank a Battleship in most cases?
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 217	Posted - 2016.06.23 21:28:24 - [58] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone. If you're afraid to PvP without boosts, you're risk averse enough that I'd say good riddance.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1082	Posted - 2016.06.23 21:52:23 - [59] - Quote Quote: Marauders were never supposed to be reworked into PvP oriented roles And yet very first update of them was giving em t2 resists and bonuses to webs and only minor tank buffs in bastion and talks about re positioning with MJD as well as RR capabilities to boot on battlefield if that's not epitome of PVP stats i don't know what is Until flood of carebares tears that is at which point all that talk of pvp was replaced with how to kill arch gistum battleships or better yet tank it. Quote: why do we need a Battleship when a Command Ship can out-tank a Battleship in most cases Active tank marauder have significantly better tank than both minmatar and gallente command ships those would be active tankers and suitable in comparison Other than that i mention it as an opinion as to size of boosting bubble/how many ppl get boosts and or strength of certain boosts over the others. Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 19	Posted - 2016.06.23 22:45:41 - [60] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: removal of ogb boosts would result in less pvp, since links allow to bait someone into fighting a seemingly inferior ship. Once ogb boosts are gone, this kind of fights is gone. Don't worry, people who go for Baity McBaitboat 2 minutes after seing his link tengu jump in, will also fall for same ship with a neutral Drake on grid. Individually targeted links? Oh RNG Jesus pls no. I'm old enough to remember buffer class in ancient mmo's, 1 guy spending 3 minutes to provide buffs to a 7-9 man group and than having to sit down and regen for 5 minutes just to be able to redo same thing again. EvE has too much targeting as it is. One "special", shorter, more powerful targeted link is cool thou, blob warfare would keep their aoe while a micro gang could focus on utilizing both aoe and special ability to maximum.

Cade Windstalker 449	Posted - 2016.06.24 00:00:45 - [61] - Quote Mina Sebiestar wrote: And yet very first update of them was giving em t2 resists and bonuses to webs and only minor tank buffs in bastion and talks about re positioning with MJD as well as RR capabilities to boot on battlefield if that's not epitome of PVP stats i don't know what is Until flood of carebares tears that is at which point all that talk of pvp was replaced with how to kill arch gistum battleships or better yet tank it. The first round never gave them web bonuses, that was the first thing to go off the Kronus and the Paladin in the rework. They almost put back 7.5% resists but that didn't work well with the MJD or Bastion and was stepping on the toes of the Serpentis. The ships actually did get T2 resists. There was never any suggestion of RR bonuses, no idea where you got that. You can look at the full thread here for reference. Also if you read what CCP said about rebalancing the class they specifically said they wanted to keep the PvE functionality, that these were PvE ships and they didn't want to invalidate that. Any possible PvP uses were entirely up to the players to find and use. Mina Sebiestar wrote: Active tank marauder have significantly better tank than both minmatar and gallente command ships those would be active tankers and suitable in comparison Other than that i mention it as an opinion as to size of boosting bubble/how many ppl get boosts and or strength of certain boosts over the others. With certain fittings or with Bastion on, sure, but Command Ships in general have far better base resists and can mitigate damage through speed better than a Battleship can. Plus a small gang that local tanks its ships because it doesn't have Logi would probably avoid running big slow Battleships, so I'm really not seeing the use-case here. As for the idea to make certain sizes of ship boost better, I'm just really looking for a compelling reason for this. If you don't have one and just think it would be interesting that's fine. Blade Darth wrote: Don't worry, people who go for Baity McBaitboat 2 minutes after seing his link tengu jump in, will also fall for same ship with a neutral Drake on grid. Heh, this is way too true... lol. Though I rather hope that Drake goes flashy as soon as he boosts the flashy Baitboat.[/quote] Blade Darth wrote: Individually targeted links? Oh RNG Jesus pls no. I'm old enough to remember buffer class in ancient mmo's, 1 guy spending 3 minutes to provide buffs to a 7-9 man group and than having to sit down and regen for 5 minutes just to be able to redo same thing again. EvE has too much targeting as it is. One "special", shorter, more powerful targeted link is cool thou, blob warfare would keep their aoe while a micro gang could focus on utilizing both aoe and special ability to maximum. This is an interesting idea, but there's not really anything to stop it from just being scaled up, so long as you have sufficiently high-SP pilots. Once upon a time RR-Battleship gangs were the OP thing in Eve, I can totally see someone doing 50-man pair-boosting Command Ship fleets.
Frostys Virpio Yet another corpdot. 2943	Posted - 2016.06.24 01:56:36 - [62] - Quote Mina Sebiestar wrote: And yet very first update of them was giving em t2 resists and bonuses to webs and only minor tank buffs in bastion and talks about re positioning with MJD as well as RR capabilities to boot on battlefield if that's not epitome of PVP stats i don't know what is . Marauder don;t have T2 resist, only a partial profile. This is also true while in bastion. Name one marauder with a web bonus please.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1082	Posted - 2016.06.24 03:27:33 - [63] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mina Sebiestar wrote: And yet very first update of them was giving em t2 resists and bonuses to webs and only minor tank buffs in bastion and talks about re positioning with MJD as well as RR capabilities to boot on battlefield if that's not epitome of PVP stats i don't know what is Until flood of carebares tears that is at which point all that talk of pvp was replaced with how to kill arch gistum battleships or better yet tank it. The first round never gave them web bonuses, that was the first thing to go off the Kronus and the Paladin in the rework. They almost put back 7.5% resists but that didn't work well with the MJD or Bastion and was stepping on the toes of the Serpentis. The ships actually did get T2 resists. There was never any suggestion of RR bonuses, no idea where you got that. You can look at the full thread here for reference. Quote: We discussed the Marauder situation further and came with the following changes: Shield, armor and hull 30% resistance boosts have been removed on the Bastion Module - instead, all Marauders will now get proper tech2 resists. This will allow Marauders to have better RR use outside Bastion and reduce overall tanking effectiveness inside the mode. We have removed all tanking bonuses on the Marauders hulls (Armor Repairer amount on the Paladin and Kronos, Shield Boost amount on the Golem and Vargur). Instead, we are giving them 7.5% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level. This will not only help reducing their tanking effectiveness, be more in theme with the ship role itself and help anyone using them with short range weapons. We are not giving them a full 10% per level back as this would be extremely powerful in conjunction with the other bonuses / Bastion. We are going to leave the full 10% web strength amount on the Serpentis ships for now and see how things evolve with time. Also, we are removing the mass penalty on the Bastion mode. Tests have shown you can't really turn when it's active anyway, and we don't want to have players abuse that to collapse wormholes. Thats from thread you linked the very first iteration of a original idea of marauder re balance was t2 rezist battleship that move and can RR no bonus so it dont go OP all in effort to reduce ridiculous bastion tank and immobility of same.PVP as all hell if you ask me fk yeah. And if you read that quote from very thread you linked you will see that they specifically wanted to open up Marauders for PVP and not as an afterthought bud rather admitting making a ship PVE is a flawed design. untill sea of tears start pouring in that is. Quote: Also if you read what CCP said about rebalancing the class they specifically said they wanted to keep the PvE functionality, that these were PvE ships and they didn't want to invalidate that. Any possible PvP uses were entirely up to the players to find and use. "Marauders were initially released during the Trinity expansion in 2007 and were aimed for PvE activities. However, as time passed and we rebalanced other classes, especially the Pirate Battleships, they lost appeal as a whole. We also believe that designing them for a very specific activity doesn't fit the emergent nature of EVE, and as such we wish to expand their use to PvP as well." Further more you couldn't even activate bastion module in high sec without first lowering your security settings from "happy happy carebear" to lower levels. Further further more if one need / want to do pve or pvp it needs internet spaceship with internet spaceship weapons fitted as perfectly illustrated with pirate ships that do both better ie pve functionality is a just term that doesn't mean nothing really. until ships with 5% l4 mission per level start poping out that is...they are coming. Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1082	Posted - 2016.06.24 03:42:10 - [64] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Mina Sebiestar wrote: And yet very first update of them was giving em t2 resists and bonuses to webs and only minor tank buffs in bastion and talks about re positioning with MJD as well as RR capabilities to boot on battlefield if that's not epitome of PVP stats i don't know what is . Marauder don;t have T2 resist, only a partial profile. This is also true while in bastion. Name one marauder with a web bonus please. i did not say they have. i did not say marauder have web bonus i dont know what are you on about. Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1180	Posted - 2016.06.24 08:19:31 - [65] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Besides all of this though, just the fact that you consider Boosts to be so powerful says that they should be on-grid and under direct risk of getting shot rather than off-grid, hidden, and quite safe (you know, in comparison). you know as good as I do, that they arent going to be on grid. People will stop using them or just in fleet warfare when they can be protected. Sonya Corvinus wrote: If you're afraid to PvP without boosts, you're risk averse enough that I'd say good riddance. im not afraid to pvp without boosts, I'm just saying I can engage in far less fights.
Cade Windstalker 451	Posted - 2016.06.24 13:38:23 - [66] - Quote Mina Sebiestar wrote: Thats from thread you linked the very first iteration of a original idea of marauder re balance was t2 rezist battleship that move and can RR no bonus so it dont go OP all in effort to reduce ridiculous bastion tank and immobility of same.PVP as all hell if you ask me fk yeah. That's not the first itteration, that's the second itteration. The first iteration lost the web bonuses (which provoked complaints from Incursion runners and PvP pilots) and had a Bastion module that was close to what we have now but more powerful overall. You can see pieces of this by reading through the thread and looking for quotes from the original post, but most of that post is gone since it was edited for further changes (like the update you quoted above). They were never RR bonused or even capable of being remote repped when in Bastion. I'm really not sure where you're getting this stuff about the Marauder rebalance. It blatantly contradicts what was stated in the thread and even the ship details from the rebalance you're citing are incorrect. Mina Sebiestar wrote: And if you read that quote from very thread you linked you will see that they specifically wanted to open up Marauders for PVP and not as an afterthought bud rather admitting making a ship PVE is a flawed design. untill sea of tears start pouring in that is. And if you read one sentence on you find: "Of course, their high price, low mobility will always ensure their role remains a niche one, but we at least can make that purpose more appealing than a simple "jam me now and forever" target dummy." The first-itteration Marauders were introduced when the bogeyman of RR Battleships was fresh on everyone's mind, so CCP specifically gave Marauders crappy Sensor Strength to make them basically completely in-viable in PvP. If you read through the thread you'll note that at no point does CCP say they want the ships to be focused on PvP nor do they back off of the idea that they'll have more than maybe a niche PvP application post-changes, just that they shouldn't design ships specifically to be useless in PvP. Mina Sebiestar wrote: Further more you couldn't even activate bastion module in high sec without first lowering your security settings from "happy happy carebear" to lower levels. Yes, which was fixed because it was defeating the intended purpose of the safety which is "prevent you from doing something that could get you killed" not "prevent you from getting a weapons timer". Mina Sebiestar wrote: Further further more if one need / want to do pve or pvp it needs internet spaceship with internet spaceship weapons fitted as perfectly illustrated with pirate ships that do both better ie pve functionality is a just term that doesn't mean nothing really. until ships with 5% l4 mission per level start poping out that is...they are coming. This makes no sense in English. At all. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Best guess, you're trying to say that the Pirate Battleships are better for PvE, which isn't really accurate. I'd love to see you try and tank a C4 or C5 Wormhole in a Pirate BS. Mina Sebiestar wrote: Just an idea if they are introduced as command battleships their tank goes t2 so you point about tank doesnt stand. My point about the tank was that Command Ships already tank quite well and we don't need a Battleship that tanks like a Carrier because that would be hilariously OP in all kinds of situations outside of massive fleet fights. It's the same reason no Battleship has ever gotten full T2 resists, because it becomes extremely easy to brick tank them to the point that they're at no significant risk outside of a fleet engagement.
Cade Windstalker 451	Posted - 2016.06.24 13:41:32 - [67] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: you know as good as I do, that they arent going to be on grid. People will stop using them or just in fleet warfare when they can be protected. For your purposes sure, IMO that's not a bad thing. You're now given a meaningful choice between using boosts and risking that second hull or not, as opposed to off-grid boosts where, if you have the account and the ability to run two at the same time, there was never much of a question as to the better choice here.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 217	Posted - 2016.06.24 13:45:15 - [68] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: im not afraid to pvp without boosts, I'm just saying I can engage in far less fights. Not true. It means you can engage is less fights where you know 100% that you will win. Take the fight anyway. You might have fun being challenged for a change.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1265	Posted - 2016.06.24 15:20:33 - [69] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Robert Caldera wrote: im not afraid to pvp without boosts, I'm just saying I can engage in far less fights. Not true. It means you can engage is less fights where you know 100% that you will win. Take the fight anyway. You might have fun being challenged for a change. I always am, unless thanatos but fighters don't count. But I don't mind fighting that "one" dramiel that multiplied almost unexpected to a Zealot, Stork, Ares, Tengu and the last one didn't even bother, because they had to bail from a one girl army Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 219	Posted - 2016.06.24 15:51:18 - [70] - Quote elitatwo wrote: I always am, unless thanatos but fighters don't count. But I don't mind fighting that "one" dramiel that multiplied almost unexpected to a Zealot, Stork, Ares, Tengu and the last one didn't even bother, because they had to bail from a one girl army I actually don't join corps/alliances if their KBs are too green. If they have next to no losses, it just means they never take any risks, and only fight when they know 100% they can win. Some of the most fun fights in the game are when you all say to each other "well, this will probably end horribly, but **** it, lets go"

Davionia Vanshel Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance 28	Posted - 2016.06.27 08:57:53 - [71] - Quote This whole discussion kicked off with the assumption that link mechanics are bad. To argue links are broken requires a reason to the effect that somehow, their existence dominates a type of game play to the extent that they have no reasonable counter. This is a nonsensical proposition and if it were true, restricting links to on-grid skews their use further in favour of prepared defenders than allowing them to be used in an off-grid manner. (If you wish to posit some other definition then let me open the flood gates to other broken mechanics.) 1v1 in Eve means me and all my friends v you and all yours. The addition of links is no more pay to win than Faction / Deadspace fitting or N+1. N+1 and Falcons killed the Rifter Drifter not links. In a nutshell the counter for Links is combat probes. The counter to the prepared ground advantage that defenders have for setting up their Links is to allow off-grid boosting. Allowing prober v booster fights to play out alongside larger battles makes for a more interesting time and also partially counters pay to win - as it makes it harder to dual box links. In battle, defenders have the advantage of prepared ground. In Eve this means bookmarks, ships at optimals and Links. The attackers benefit from deciding whether and if so how to engage while knowing the fleet comp of their enemy in advance. Now add off-grid links: Defenders would use Command Ship Links at a POS or Citadel. Attackers would know this from their vigilant scouting of the camp. It is simple to probe down a Command Ship, it is simple to land a fleet on it outside the 75km scram range of the POS. Meanwhile it is simple for attackers to bring cloaky nullified T3 links doubling as scouts. These are decloaked only when the fight begins. A Links Command Ship has its tank so compromised that it may easily be alphaed off the field by even a medium sized roaming gang a T3 even more so. This means whoever is dual boxing defending links must remain vigilant lest the attackers primary links not the defenders. Meanwhile attackers in T3s are able to establish their links at a safe and decloak only once the attack begins. Should both sides bring T3 links cloaked at safes (eg 2 roaming gangs or large scale fleet fights), then the battle of links plays out at alongside the main fight, with both sides attempting to probe down and kill opposing links as their FCs get their main fleets in position to fight. It also means in large engagements flying links requires continuous attention. This (if only by accident) also reflects the Entosis mechanics forcing FCs to innovate beyond blobs of DPS and Logi. The fact it often takes a Virtue Prober points to a potential issue with Slippery Pete doctrines in general rather than anything to do with boosting. The solution to it (if it is right to regard it as a problem) is not on-grid boosts but signature radius penalties for active link modules (cf MWDs). Notably in the case of T3 links at safes, neither side of a fight is advantaged. Hence T3 Links cannot be considered a broken mechanic unless the cries of F1 monkeys who regard the task of flying the crucial links ship worse than logi should be given any weight. A PvP alliance with no-one wanting to fly links, is like a PvP alliance with no one wanting to FC, Scout, Stock the market, fly logi etc. You may consider that links do not favour new players given the 14m or so SP required in Leadership skills. However Alliances whose leadership cannot afford to supply links should be closed. Now consider the solution of requiring links to on-grid: In addition to the defensive benefits of on-grid Citadels and POSes the defender's links will also be on-grid, but cloaked potentially thousands of kilometers away from the fight, and they will not decloak until the fight was committed and not before aligning to their next on-grid tactical thousands of kilometers away. Since the defenders should have a mix of tackle and long range DPS and Logi / EWAR, there will always be someone to warp to links defence if required. Defenders have their entire deployment to make links bookmarks. Attackers do not. Defenders may additionally be protected by strategically placed bubbles designed to drag probers onto the guns of the defending Citadels / POSes. Should defending Links be probed by a nullified T3 the risk remains that you've warped your T3 to bait links, or else it would be aligned to its next on-grid tactical thousands of kilometres away or it traded one of 6 links for stabs. So for small gang situations dual boxed Command Ship links remains a viable tactic even on-grid leaving attackers materially worse off. The reason on grid boosting disadvantages attackers is that their links will be much easier to tackle or drive off the field than the defenders' because they have no prepared ground and fewer options to warp to. This means attacker's links will be compromised from the outset or there will be a long wait prior to the fight as your links pilots motor around the defended system making bookmarks - sound fun anyone? Much better to let them boost from off-grid. Finally for HiSec and Lowsec links use - I do agree with those who say the mechanic should reflect logi use in terms of setting a suspect flags. No links to war targets or criminals. Of course then there is HiSec mining boosts. On grid Orcas: Nope. The counter to bump mechanics requires a jump drive and Orca's don't have them.
Cade Windstalker 459	Posted - 2016.06.27 16:53:00 - [72] - Quote Davionia Vanshel wrote: Wall of text that would stop a 1400 arty shell. CCP already commented on the issues with OGBs and has already said that they're definitely going away. The problem with OGBs is that the risk/reward mechanic is pretty dramatically out of whack. Boosts provide a significant advantage and a well fitted boosting ship is under very little risk in most practical circumstances. While in theory they're quite easy to probe down and kill the reality is that this happens fairly rarely, and in cases like solo or small gang engagements it almost never happens. Davionia Vanshel wrote: Now consider the solution of requiring links to on-grid: In addition to the defensive benefits of on-grid Citadels and POSes the defender's links will also be on-grid, but cloaked potentially thousands of kilometers away from the fight, and they will not decloak until the fight was committed and not before aligning to their next on-grid tactical thousands of kilometers away. Since the defenders should have a mix of tackle and long range DPS and Logi / EWAR, there will always be someone to warp to links defence if required. Defenders have their entire deployment to make links bookmarks. Attackers do not. Defenders may additionally be protected by strategically placed bubbles designed to drag probers onto the guns of the defending Citadels / POSes. Should defending Links be probed by a nullified T3 the risk remains that you've warped your T3 to bait links, or else it would be aligned to its next on-grid tactical thousands of kilometres away or it traded one of 6 links for stabs. So for small gang situations dual boxed on-grid Command Ship links remains a viable tactic while leaving attackers materially worse off. This is making a lot of erroneous or unfounded assumptions about how on-grid links are going to work, including a lack of a range limit and that cloaking and warping around the battlefield at 1000s of kms is going to be a viable tactic. It's also ignoring the fact that you can't fit 6 links on most Command Ships and still tank them effectively, so already bringing the links on-grid is forcing linkers to make meaningful decisions with their fit that they didn't really have to make before. You're also making some really weird assumptions about how many bookmarks the Attackers will have going into a large fight. The linker doesn't even need to make the bookmarks, someone can have the entire grid safed up to 3000km weeks or months previously and simply throw copies of the bookmarks in a can or contract them before the fleet ever leaves. Also it's pretty pointless to 'threaten' CCP with unsubbing your boosting alts. They know who does or doesn't have dedicated linking alts. Even if a large portion of those get sold or unsubbed it's better for the game if links are on-grid and at risk than if they're not.
Cade Windstalker 460	Posted - 2016.06.27 18:51:40 - [73] - Quote For anyone who missed it, there was a brief comment on Fleet Boosting changes by CCP Larakin on the o7 show. The even shorter summary is that they were described as a "Buffing smart-bomb" with a huge radius (I would assume something in the dozens or hundreds of km, but he didn't specify) that works independent of position in fleet. So Squad Members can buff with Command Ships.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6060	Posted - 2016.06.27 21:10:36 - [74] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: For anyone who missed it, there was a brief comment on Fleet Boosting changes by CCP Larakin on the o7 show. The even shorter summary is that they were described as a "Buffing smart-bomb" with a huge radius (I would assume something in the dozens or hundreds of km, but he didn't specify) that works independent of position in fleet. So Squad Members can buff with Command Ships. The range, I'd think, would be something which needs to be thought about. One of the knobs to twiddle with. Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cade Windstalker 460	Posted - 2016.06.27 21:43:39 - [75] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: For anyone who missed it, there was a brief comment on Fleet Boosting changes by CCP Larakin on the o7 show. The even shorter summary is that they were described as a "Buffing smart-bomb" with a huge radius (I would assume something in the dozens or hundreds of km, but he didn't specify) that works independent of position in fleet. So Squad Members can buff with Command Ships. The range, I'd think, would be something which needs to be thought about. One of the knobs to twiddle with. Definitely agreed, and I'll admit this is partly wishful thinking on my part. I've been running a lot of Incursions lately and these changes are something the entire community is looking at and thinking about. A small range burst would significantly increase the danger to the fleet and probably the number of Command Ships they would need to bring on-grid, which would increase the barrier to entry to HQ fleets. At the same time I think it's more interesting for larger fights if Command Ships can be used to make positioning and formation matter a bit more, especially as we're getting more tools to adjust our position and orientation from CCP.
Davionia Vanshel Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance 28	Posted - 2016.06.28 08:34:40 - [76] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Davionia Vanshel wrote: Wall of text that would stop a 1400 arty shell. Also it's pretty pointless to 'threaten' CCP with unsubbing your boosting alts. They know who does or doesn't have dedicated linking alts. Even if a large portion of those get sold or unsubbed it's better for the game if links are on-grid and at risk than if they're not. I will keep the links toon I trained myself because it also flies JFs (although I have 3 other JF pilots) and she has other useful skills. But I would have no use for the Links toon I purchsed from Char Bazzar on an account I subbed for the purpose of boosting. Yes CCP will know which particular account I am talking about because they can check. It's better for CCP and better for EVE players in general if accounts get logged in. CCP is cancelling the 10,000SP reward for rat killing because it did not increase the number of accounts logged in. Introducing on-grid boosting by way of buffing smartbombs (buff-bombs) will not only reduce the number of accounts logged in but the number of accounts subbed. I said I'd unsub if CCP screwed up the change: The sketchy info on Buff-bombs does not necessarily mean they are broken. There may still be a role for a buff-bombing alt. From what was described it implies links can warp off after buffing the fleet and the fleet retains the boost for some period of time. What's that period of time? 1 min, 5 mins, 15 mins, longer, shorter? The shorter time the less useful boosting alts are. If it is a de-facto remain within range to keep the boost, and anyone can boost, then you may as well simply fly doctrines with 9-12 Command Ships and everyone gets a link. (Favours blobs, disproportionately favours people with higher SP and isk) - ie the exact opposite of what CCP is trying to achieve in breaking up fights and is more of a "pay to win" than off grid boosting. But if you are going to say buffs last for eg 15 mins then rather than "on-grid" boosting, boosts won't necessarily be in the same system - they could just buff on the undock.
Lu Ziffer Jelly Baby Corporation 83	Posted - 2016.06.28 10:34:24 - [77] - Quote I have used all commandships over the last 6years and I have been always on the grid of the fight. A few points I want to make. -The booster positions are limited to 6 positions any more is not effective. -A pilot who is ongrid boosting needs to free fly and predict the FC to not get killed. -A 200k ehp tank is considered huge on most ships on a commandship in a fight with 256 pilots per fleet that ship is gone in a second as soon as it is in range. That is why all shieldcommandships need to be fast as they can not tank as well as their armor counterparts. -The Damnation is a rock and the only real commandship in the game it can tank 500k ehp and can do ewar while boosting but it is a slow moving rock if it gets seperated the booster is gone. -Most pilots hate flying booster it needs huge amount of time to get the skills and it is not fun as your only job is to stay alive for the next 6hours and it is expensive. They should remove offgrid boosting and buff the shield commandships. NO to boost over time and NO to aoe boost both lift the restrictions on how much boost can be applied and reduce the risk for the boosting pilot.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1494	Posted - 2016.06.28 11:32:03 - [78] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: For anyone who missed it, there was a brief comment on Fleet Boosting changes by CCP Larakin on the o7 show. The even shorter summary is that they were described as a "Buffing smart-bomb" with a huge radius (I would assume something in the dozens or hundreds of km, but he didn't specify) that works independent of position in fleet. So Squad Members can buff with Command Ships. The range, I'd think, would be something which needs to be thought about. One of the knobs to twiddle with. If they don't make them auto repeatable I'm going to be really, really miffed. And a short range is just bad as it encourages balling up too much leaving you too vulnerable to the chain booshers which [still] have no counterplay.
Cade Windstalker 460	Posted - 2016.06.28 15:07:07 - [79] - Quote Davionia Vanshel wrote: It's better for CCP and better for EVE players in general if accounts get logged in. CCP is cancelling the 10,000SP reward for rat killing because it did not increase the number of accounts logged in. Introducing on-grid boosting by way of buffing smartbombs (buff-bombs) will not only reduce the number of accounts logged in but the number of accounts subbed. I said I'd unsub if CCP screwed up the change: The sketchy info on Buff-bombs does not necessarily mean they are broken. There may still be a role for a buff-bombing alt. From what was described it implies links can warp off after buffing the fleet and the fleet retains the boost for some period of time. What's that period of time? 1 min, 5 mins, 15 mins, longer, shorter? Up to you if you want to keep your boosting toon(s), but personally I'll take the unsubbing of the (relatively) small number of boosting alts for a more healthy overall PvP scene, which might bring people back to the game or stop them from leaving in the first place. Davionia Vanshel wrote: The shorter time the less useful boosting alts are. If it is a de-facto remain within range to keep the boost, and anyone can boost, then you may as well simply fly doctrines with 9-12 Command Ships and everyone gets a link. (Favours blobs, disproportionately favours people with higher SP and isk) - ie the exact opposite of what CCP is trying to achieve in breaking up fights and is more of a "pay to win" than off grid boosting. But if you are going to say buffs last for eg 15 mins then rather than "on-grid" boosting, boosts won't necessarily be in the same system - they could just buff on the undock. Personally I'm against anything that doesn't make the Command Ship stay on-grid and in the fight to be effective. That's the whole point of these changes, making you have to risk the ship and actually have someone playing the game to get that benefit, because it really is quite a powerful one. Alternatively set your Alt to "Keep at Range" and drag it along, but that's riskier than manually piloting it. As for Isk and Time spent... that's always been a good way to do better at Eve. I have enough SP that my T1 frigates with T2 fittings can whelp (or at least give a run for their money) a lot of people's AFs just because I'm getting more out of the modules I have fitted and I have a lot more fitting options. If you start throwing Faction and Deadspace on there the difference gets more pronounced. That said, if you throw 2-3 newbies at me in T1 Frigs I'm going to have to rely on piloting experience more than SP if I want to beat them, because N+1 is way stronger than SP+100,000,000. Also those same newbie pilots can bring a T1 fitted BC booster and do pretty well, since CCP did a lot to even out the boosting curve when they did the Command Ship rework. Morrigan LeSante wrote: If they don't make them auto repeatable I'm going to be really, really miffed. And a short range is just bad as it encourages balling up too much leaving you too vulnerable to the chain booshers which [still] have no counterplay. I can think of literally no reason they wouldn't make them auto-repeat unless someone at CCP has gotten really sadistic towards those server hamsters (seriously, auto-repeating modules are easier for the server to handle than processing command spam) How short of a range is too-short though? Also what about giving some ships range bonuses (like capitals)?
Tahrl Cabot EVE University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2016.06.28 15:39:59 - [80] - Quote I think command ships need to be exactly that - a ship for the commander (FC) to fly. It should help the FC do his job first, and provide boosts second. restrict command ship offensive capability to 2 high slots with no hull bonuses for weapons, leaving 5 or more utility slots. Hull bonus to Leadership skill (increase fleet scan resolution). Turn on all the links and let them cycle for a large aoe/bubble effect- so as not to distract the FC from his job. Make command ships more resistant, but not immune to headshotting: Allow command ships to fit bastion modules - giving you the option to stay immobile on grid and go out in a blaze of damage absorption -or- boost RR 30% to 50% to discourage headshotting ADD FUNCTIONS THAT ASSIST FLEET COMMAND!! so that this becomes the primary function of command ships and boosting is secondary some ideas: create new command modules. Target designator - high slot, boost scan resolution, adds +2 targets, has a low (50%, stacking penalized) target painting effect and auto tags targets with a unique tag like C1, C2, C3 so normal tags are still useable. Command Probe Launcher - holds 10 "encrypted micro cynosaural probes". Probes take 15 seconds to anchor anywhere on grid, are targetable and destructable, but small signature, last 15 to 30 minutes (based on command skill?), and can be warped to by anyone in fleet (but encrypted so enemy cant use them). Can be moved by command destroyer, can be smart bombed. Add a waypoint function that lets the FC designate (but not auto warp) a squad or wing to move to a command probe. One function of this would be to allow the FC to set a baseline by dropping a command probe 32K out the fleet can align to Reduce grid size by 50%, then have command ship skill increase grid by 10% per level. Leave squad warp as a generic function for all squad leaders, restrict wing warp and fleet warp to command ships. Please provide other options for helpful, but not game breaking, ways to encourage FCs to fly command ships. And the boost bubble is a nice secondary benefit.

Sephiroth Clone VII Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance 168	Posted - 2016.06.30 05:22:07 - [81] - Quote Thinking of every science fiction drama, the command ship is typically with the fleet, screen by other things but still in the thick of them. Having off grid boasts would only be good in a sci-fi story would be a comical parody of one. And for pvp with people doing solo pvp with off grid boasts the examples people have mentioned is cheap. The command BC's do have some fighting bonuses that make them used for things other than boasts so they can do it, and fc's in real big fleets and go do tatics to try and protect them adding a new sort of meta game. I feel for orca and roaq's which would be crazy to ever put in a belt, but still would be worth it to remove the creasyness of every other offgrid boaster. Mabey could have it be like how industral ships and freighers with jump fatuge are realsticly or unrealsticaly able to ignore jump fatige that totaly affects combat ships, so if you want to be a coward off grid boasting you can do it, you can olny do it with minning boasts in a roaq or orca : D
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2172	Posted - 2016.06.30 17:06:32 - [82] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Besides all of this though, just the fact that you consider Boosts to be so powerful says that they should be on-grid and under direct risk of getting shot rather than off-grid, hidden, and quite safe (you know, in comparison). you know as good as I do, that they arent going to be on grid. People will stop using them or just in fleet warfare when they can be protected. Sonya Corvinus wrote: If you're afraid to PvP without boosts, you're risk averse enough that I'd say good riddance. im not afraid to pvp without boosts, I'm just saying I can engage in far less fights. We run boosts about half the time. We pvp w/ a fair amount of command ships. Guy throw 1 or 2 links on some of them. I really think that there are 2 issues that are being addressed. 1. Frustration - not being able to legitimately engage a ship that is doing a lot to take you out. 2. The shitfit 6 link boat off grid boosting allows. Let's be honest here - if there was a reasonable way to engage off grid boosters their fitting wouldn't consist of links, cpu modules and command processors. The mechanic is as garbage as the fits utilizing it. It's time has come and gone. Good riddance.
GsyBoy Flames of the Phoenix Amplified. 15	Posted - 2016.08.02 14:42:32 - [83] - Quote I dont care what happens to boosts, on/off,increase/decrease, include bells...no cares, let people do what they want to do. One request though - we need effects or 'bonus tag' (similar to crim tag) that shows that an individual is under their effects. Thought i was shitter than I was and fits not right until realised peeps were soloing with bonuses, maintain a list now of known pilots and refuse to engage. Must be even more fustrating for newer players. Either that or make on-grid. Do something asap please.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.