Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
194
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have been using T3 links ever since Apocryphia
The eve community seems to be under the impression that the main problem with links is that :
You can put up links in a safespot, should be ongrid to commit to battle T3's fill too many roles, amazing scout and links, easy to move with your gang Able to put up links in POSes, and generally in safety, links present at all times to those that want aslong as they stay in system This is a tunnel vision that the community and perhaps CCP has had for a while towards link ships, the notion that they are very risk averse ship, which is ofcourse true but
The main problem with them is the fact that they are by far the biggest force multiplier in the game
So lets throw some numbers at you and discuss what implications this has for the game
A standard CFC Maelstrom fit
So with 4 Scimitars repping it, with 3 reps each, no overloading -
Without links - 135k EHP, 4k reps With links - 162k EHP, 7.6k reps Presence of links pretty much changed 4 scimitars into 8, obviously in these fleets far more than 4 scimitars are used, such a ship could potentially represent 15+ ships in term of effectiveness
For solo/very small gang, an active tanked Maelstrom with crystals -
Without links - 1.6k tank With links - 3.26k tank In terms of active tanking, you could call links super crystals or something, without links/crystals, it's a 1.05k tank, the amount links add in comparison to a 2b investment is so massive. It's also worth noting that linked active tanked ships has definitively made it seem active tanks are stronger than what they are, making fixing them less attractive.
It's true that links can accommodate for crazy/fun fits, 100mn ab cynabal anyone? but sure this is fun, not fair on rest of players
What implications does this have for the game? Well for starters, it makes a lot of groups more risk averse and more prone to bring more dudes, or in some cases make some people just not want to pvp, which is completely understandable if their opponents use links as it's such a huge force multiplier, and often, an unseen one
As mentioned today in CCP Ytterbium's presentation on ship balancing, fleet formats gets so fine tuned and there's not much variation, and this is a problem, I do actually believe links contribute to this somewhat
Fleet formats these days for the most part are very defensive, combined with logistic spam and links, their main priority is to stay alive, which is completely understandable, the two most common fleet formats used to their greatest effectiveness today are CFC's + Solar fleet Artillery Maelstroms, and Tengu spam, the latter is the most defensive one, it gains full bonus on both sets of links, skirmish and siege. While the Artillery Maelstroms format adapts to the over defensive nature of eve due to alpha (durr!), obviously not as effective against tengus due to Skirmish links though
So what points am I actually trying to make?
Links have overtanked eve They're pushing away some non link users away from competitive small gang pvp Less variation in fleets
In terms of skirmish links on a Loki, signature radius and speed link is self explanatory in a lot of situations especially tengu like formats
But in small gang, the massive range you get on your warp disruptor and web is so huge, there's two bad points for this, going back towards the defensive route, you take SO much less damage from most gang formats at 42km than you would at 28km, and at that range you're not at all committing to the fight, you always have a better chance to escape tackle. And people are just not expecting a tackle at that range, being webbed at 25km by a 90% web sucks, or tackled at 53km by a Vagabond, it's a bad design
But why am I whining about this right now?
Two points, Tiericide and ship balancing, and Crimewatch
Tiericide and ship balancing, is going to attract a LOT of bittervets and new player alike to pvp with the rebalanced ship, who wouldn't want to fly a bellicose and not get laughed at ?!
Crimewatch is going to pull a lot more inexperienced people into pvp, mainly because pvp is going to be so much more accessible than it is right now
Considering the heavy use of links right now, wouldn't it be a damn shame if those guys tried out pvp, die in a complete fire, and then just decide pvp isn't for them? or maybe decide solo/small gang pvp is not for them and become more risk averse
It's true, I am making a lot of assumptions here, especially with how links have shaped fleet pvp, but the negatives that comes with it is true, it's doing much more bad than good
So what would I actually change about them?
Well it's very simple actually, instead of 100%~ bonus to your tank through active tanking/logistics, it should be more on the line of 20%. It would still give fleets an incentive to use links, but make small gangs, especially solo players, much less incentive to use them. And nerf skirmish links to the same degree
Sure this would nerf commandships even more, they might get fixed some day, but I think the problem with links is a MUCH bigger issue
Please show your support if you agree, and if you do not agree, please post too, but god damn look at the numbers they give
tl;dr
[A BUNCH OF EXAMPLES HERE] [THIS IS MAKING LINKS A REQUIREMENT TO PVP COMPETITIVELY AND INFLUENCING FORMATS THIS IS BAD] [CHANGE THEM LIKE THIS] Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
No. That is all. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
194
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kessiaan wrote:No. That is all.
That is all because it would hurt your play style too much Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3375
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
TIL our Maelstroms apparently have 135k EHP. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tweety Bird
Tackled In Belt
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier Federation Navy Stasis Webifier Federation Navy Stasis Webifier |
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Kessiaan wrote:No. That is all. That is all because it would hurt your play style too much
This game already has enough incentives to blob, it doesn't need more.
Also, wtb my old damps back. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
196
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kessiaan wrote:
This game already has enough incentives to blob, it doesn't need more.
Also, wtb my old damps back.
Thinking extreme force multipliers encourages small gang pvp is completely delusional, it's the complete opposite Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Im Super Gay
Hedion University Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Kessiaan wrote:
This game already has enough incentives to blob, it doesn't need more.
Also, wtb my old damps back.
Thinking extreme force multipliers encourages small gang pvp is completely delusional, it's the complete opposite Thinking removing extreme force multipliers removes blobs is completely delusional as well. |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
How can such a stellar PVPer be so incoherent?
Links are imba. Making them on-grid only is a big step in the right direction and is better than nothing. Getting rid of all leadership skills would be better.
(And I just started my Cha/Wil remap last week.) |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
yea please this stuff needs fixed. when t3 boosting became 'the thing' in fw nearly all small scale/1v1 pvp ended. and only people who are suicidal like me still fight without links. |
|
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
198
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Im Super Gay wrote:
Thinking removing extreme force multipliers removes blobs is completely delusional as well.
Sorry but where exactly did I imply this?
AkJon Ferguson wrote: Links are imba. Making them on-grid only is a big step in the right direction and is better than nothing.
I'm not even sure if they're going to do this, in fanfest it was said it's a bit hard to do due to coding and all that, sure it would be a step in the right direction but it wouldn't completely fix the issue, I would adapt, as other people will
AkJon Ferguson wrote: How can such a stellar PVPer be so incoherent?
Accept my apology if I was hard to understand, if you could point out what parts I had problems with I'll try and fix it Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
514
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
off-grid boosters are dumb as hell, extreme-o gay |
Warzon3
Solar Storm The Forsaken.
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
I agree that it isnt fun fighting against a gang that has 100 km points and webs and this should be fixed. |
Derth Ramir
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
TBH I really think links should be ongrid(maybe make it some kind of bubble that only effects fleet members and doesn't not stack). But that most likely won't happen. Another idea is reduce the tech 3 bonus from 5 to 3.5 but make it apply to all links types(based on the idea that techs 3s are more general and less effective) and give command ships the 5% to their specific link type. |
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Derth Ramir wrote:TBH I really think links should be ongrid(maybe make it some kind of bubble that only effects fleet members and doesn't not stack). But that most likely won't happen. Another idea is reduce the tech 3 bonus from 5 to 3.5 but make it apply to all links types(based on the idea that techs 3s are more general and less effective) and give command ships the 5% to their specific link type.
I would agree with this. T3 links may be a bit OP and off-grid boosting has always been stupid, but the links themselves are fine, IMO.
I do a lot of skirmish fleets these days - the biggest fleet we can field is like 20 people and the space we roam through the local sov holders can scramble twice that on a moment's notice. A well-coordinated fleet with links can engage a blob 2, 3 times its size only by good use of the bonuses granted by links in their current form. Long point range, long web range, and speed bonuses to GTFO when the time comes.
I just don't see how it's necessary - in big fleet fights everyone will have links anyway so it's moot. 1v1 has always been about who can out-fox the other more than anything else. In a small gang a sleipnir will **** you up because it's a sleipnir, not because it's giving a link, though that might help. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
If you really want to enccourage small gang....
Make boosters have to be on grid. Make the bonus fall off as fleet size increases.
|
Andrea Griffin
190
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:29:00 -
[17] - Quote
As someone who does a lot of solo, single-account PvP, I don't have the benefit of uber-links following me around all over the place. Yeah, I know, boo-hoo, sucks to be me, right?
Except that kinda sucks gameplay-wise for someone who really does want to go at it alone. I shouldn't NEED a T3 alt account or a gang to back me up in order to be competitive.
If I see a potential target but I also see some T3 hanging out in space, I'm likely to move on instead of engaging. I happy to take a risk, but I'm not interested in just throwing away isk. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Derth Ramir
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
Caldari Citizen20090217 wrote:If you really want to enccourage small gang....
Make boosters have to be on grid. Make the bonus fall off as fleet size increases.
There is a problem with the coding to allow on grid boosters(unless you use some kind of bubble effect)
And the bonus fall off for fleet side completely goes against what eve is all about. |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
The real real issue is active-tanking is weak, far too weak. EHP has only grown with the rig changes. Coupled with the fact that mobility is key and shield rig drawbacks are nothing compared to armour ones, and that armour rigs are just plain more expensive too while shields also regen for free, and I can't help but feel that local rep setups should be far more powerful than they are atm relative to buffer fits, especially armour. Increasing them would increase the engagement envelope of all the solo & small gang peoples, and not unbalance fleet/sov fights. Yes you'd likely have more 'stalemates' where 1 can on paper tank 1, but then there's always something to decide the outcome, range control, neuts, sentries, even previous cap charge & heat use carried over to the current fight.
Improve active tanking so it doesn't need links to be sane to fly about, and then you can nerf link bonuses.
And remove ECM.
And buff damps. And nerf the Tengu, the Drake, the Cane's PG, Angels. And buff the cloaky legion. Etc. |
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
138
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:35:00 -
[20] - Quote
The only really bad thing about T3s with links is that they get a 5% per level boost from a rank5 skill while Fleet command ships are limited to 3% that just don't seem right to me.
My suggestion would be to lower the boost on T3s to a 2% per level bonus and give them the ability to mount 3 links. Part of the reason why you don't see T3's boosting on grid is because the requirement to use command processors makes it impossible to fit anything resembling a tank on one.
Letting them fit 3 links without needing command processors and lowering their boost so that Fleet command ships have a clear advantage would go a long way towards addressing the imbalance.
Currently T3 level 5 defensives subsystem 25% boost compared to a command ship with CS5 15% boost.
Change T3s to a 2% boost and it would be T3 level 5 def 10% boost compared to CS5 15% or even CS4 12%.
|
|
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
174
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
I strongly agree with Garmon. |
Derth Ramir
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:
And buff damps. And nerf the Tengu, the Drake, the Cane's PG, Angels. And buff the cloaky legion. Etc.
Please do not derail this thread with your nerfing rants this is about tech 3 links there is already enoug threads about nerfing ships and modules that you have mentioned. |
ROXGenghis
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
LOL @ Garmon saying that the problem isn't offgrid links, it's that links are OP in the first place, and half of the responses suggesting ongrid links.
Also it's not just about tanking. Being pointed at 106km is just broken.
The short story is that Links are overpowered to the point they are mandatory, whether they are ongrid or offgrid. |
Honeyhole
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Posting my support that the issue with booster ships no matter T3 or Command is not just the ability to be off-grid or in a Pos shield. It's the almost absurd boost in performance that make the mechanic too good to *not* use. Honestly making them on-grid only or some bubble effect will only pigeon-hole the viable use of the ships to large gate-camps and mega-fleets.
Also please do not mob together to mold a change in Link design because of the natural weakness of Command Ships in today's game. That is a entirely different issue. A re-balance of all Command Ships has been suggested for quite some time, long before the use of booster ships became as popular as they are today. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
Well it might not stop you personally, Garmon, if link ships had to be on grid and were killable easier because you have enough isk not to care. But for the rest of EVE, a t3 link ship is not cheap, especially when podded and people will stop using them if they die far more often.
I call BS on the excuse that CCP cannot code it. Rat bounties and what you can see on overview and other mechanics work on who is on grid.
T3 link ship bonuses need to be toned down and all of the bonuses on the links themselves need to be toned down due to the release of tech 2 links. Tone down the mindlink as well. Maybe give command ships the AF boost treatment so they can fit one link + be useful in an in your face combat role. Except for the info links, those might need to be boosted or rethought completely. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3377
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
ROXGenghis wrote:Being pointed at 106km is just broken.
The short story is that Links are overpowered to the point they are mandatory, whether they are ongrid or offgrid.
nah "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 05:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
Garmon, the real problem with links is that Skirmish links are OP whether they're on grid or off grid while Armor, Siege, and Info links aren't OP whether they are on grid or off grid. When someone complains about "links" they are almost invariably complaining about Skirmish.
I will be fine no matter what happens, but I do hope that if they nerf links they at least make the gameplay surrounding them fun. Because right now flying a link ship is just about fun enough that throwing it on the alt is the right think to do. And no, just being on grid in a 100 DPS battlecruiser isn't going to magically make it fun.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
spellbound spirit
Beach Boys Cartel.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 06:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Well it might not stop you personally, Garmon, if link ships had to be on grid and were killable easier because you have enough isk not to care. But for the rest of EVE, a t3 link ship is not cheap, especially when podded and people will stop using them if they die far more often.
I call BS on the excuse that CCP cannot code it. Rat bounties and what you can see on overview and other mechanics work on who is on grid.
T3 link ship bonuses need to be toned down and all of the bonuses on the links themselves need to be toned down due to the release of tech 2 links. Tone down the mindlink as well. Maybe give command ships the AF boost treatment so they can fit one link + be useful in an in your face combat role. Except for the info links, those might need to be boosted or rethought completely.
Maybe also reimburse that useless SP it becomes on peoples characters? Cause LS skills will become useless and t3's are in no way designed to be able to survive on grid fight. 2 tornados and there is no chance of survival for skirmish loki, cause he'll be alfa'ed
What you're proposing will push eve even more to blob>rest, imo it started with warp scramblers change(at the time when CCP argued that speed tanking is too much 0/1), and continues, that's actually a sad news for ppl who would like to go and fight f/x 2hacs/vs 5bc's. IMHO problem is tied to people having all llv5 now, which they didnt have 4years ago -> CCP didnt add any new real skills. The other problem encouraging blobbing is that t2 combat ships aren't better than battlecruisers... Garmon, links are not a problem in a fleet fight neither is tank, as with 1.8k ppl in local you will just get alphaed and funny thing is that you dont see a problem with that. Links change things, especially offgrid, for solo/few man gang that want to multiply their force and have a fighting chance with blob. If they nerf links people will just bring falcons instead. I agree that t3 links should be switched in effectivnes with command ships, commands should be further boosted, they might need some kind of nerf, but it should be tied directly with providing solo/small groups with tools to invest their money in smth that makes them more effective than ppl without those investements, else in 1 year we'll all just fly drakes/hurricanes, cause anything else wont make sense. |
Endeavour Starfleet
723
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 06:46:00 -
[29] - Quote
Posting in a dumb "OH NOES NURF TEH OFF GRID CAUSE I CANT PVP FOR CRAP" Thread |
Sverige Pahis
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
876
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 08:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Posting in a dumb "OH NOES NURF TEH OFF GRID CAUSE I CANT PVP FOR CRAP" Thread
Hi nameless NPC alt #26375484842332 I see you and garmon haven't been acquainted |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |