EVE Search - Off Gride Command Bonuses Please don't nerf them.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Off Gride Command Bonuses Please don't nerf them.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hayaishi Aperture Harmonics K162 63	Posted - 2012.03.27 20:35:00 - [31] - Quote Imo, the bonuses should be at 50% strength when off grid, and full strength on grid. This way it's not all or nothing, but actually allows for game play variance.
Markus Reese Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION 36	Posted - 2012.03.27 20:37:00 - [32] - Quote Aiwha wrote: E man Industries wrote: AraniFyr wrote: It should be on grid...too big of an advantage for such low risk Agreed, how ever command ships are primary....they need mor eof a buffer when boosting to exist on grid. The Damnation is a prime example of how a CS should be build, like a motherfucking tank. Give the other CS's bonuses to their tanking as well, AND nerf off grid bonuses. Command ship pilot here, I hate off grid boosting, I like to be on field. First off, they are strong, cannot be doomsdays, really tough to alpha 300k ehp off the field, and with all +80% resists, you are not going to break any logistics on it. Moreso, what might be needed is a midpoint command ship to bridge the mass fleet and the cap blob. Ganglink carriers do work. A different link battleship would help in the +100 fleet subcap fights. I agree with Aiwha on the subject of more tank for the other CS. The passive regen needs to be fixed in order to allow vulture to get it's neede EHP. It runs a bit over 150k, not quite as good resists and has to have a huge sig size to do so. The T3 are supposed to be multrole hull, however when a safespot or a pos exist, they will outboost the commships. Tank doesn't matter when nothing can shoot at it.
Rico Minali Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension 434	Posted - 2012.03.27 20:39:00 - [33] - Quote Command ships should give better bonuses than the do it all T3s anyway, and yes command linking ships should be on grid with their fleet. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
adopt Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore 333	Posted - 2012.03.27 20:42:00 - [34] - Quote Veshta Yoshida wrote: E man Industries wrote: AraniFyr wrote: It should be on grid...too big of an advantage for such low risk Agreed, how ever command ships are primary....they need mor eof a buffer when boosting to exist on grid. How much did the biggest tank have again .. 1/4M+ EHP (Damnation)? Some slight tweaking of numbers will be necessary as in all things, but most commands/T3s are perfectly capable of surviving on-grid NOW provided they don't insist on sporting a full rack of links .. spread the love (read: bring more than 1 uber link ship) and you have all the tank you'll ever need 1.1 million EHP Proteus \thread Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled. FREE XOLVE ~ THE HERO TEST NEEDS
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 1368	Posted - 2012.03.27 20:42:00 - [35] - Quote Nerf them...nerf them HARD! EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!!
Neddy Fox FireStar Inc Curatores Veritatis Alliance 6	Posted - 2012.03.27 21:31:00 - [36] - Quote Also FC/Command ship pilot here. I was at all ship balance meetings, and raised the issues/questions about these ships. IMO a T2 Command ship should be well tanked (EOS BUFF) , but also the T3 need some love after they get nerfed : Drop the command processor requirement, and make them viable on grid, since that's not possible now. They need the same tank as a normal CS. Points noted : -CS will have 2 racial boosts / bonusses, 5% per level -T3 will have 4 racial boosts / bonusses , 3% per level Boosts on grid will be BETTER then offgrid; it still will give a bonus, but not as much. Rorquals will NOT require to be on grid. Titans where not mentioned, would be nice to get a statement from the devs here. Do they need to be on grid for max bonus as well? The damnation is fine as is; IMO a normal tanked / painter Damnation tanks already over 400k EHP, the rest of these ships should have the same.. Make them HARD to kill, but of course not impossible; I guess a Mael Alpha fleet can do it instantly, but even then it should be hard. ATM a damnation is normally never primary; a Vulture or Claymore dies way faster, and the Eos is just a joke; get them up to par. And yes, on grid boosting ftw. Also : atm a loki is STILL unscannable with max skills, t2 warfare links (sig radius). It's the only one though, so CCP check the hard cap on this.. (Tried with maxxed out probing alt with prospectors, sitting next to the loki, max result was 88%)
Kattshiro Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 28	Posted - 2012.03.27 21:36:00 - [37] - Quote Talkietoaster wrote: How about phasing the booster effect? The booster effect could be at 100% if on grid and and the boost would be decreased with distance from grid? Just a thought. This is what I was in favor of. But really if you dont fit a full rack of Co -pro, and cmd mods you can in fact fit a nasty tank... And heaven forbid shoot at something with remaining highs...or neut em might be more effective.
Markus Reese Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION 36	Posted - 2012.03.27 21:41:00 - [38] - Quote Neddy Fox wrote: Much excellent info, appreciated That is all very cool info, /signed on it all. I found that a single link T3 was fairly effective, but not as a mass fleet fight. I always used the T3 during corp explorations and wormholes to support low mass and maneuverable fleets. The one part I am not sure I follow is the #boosts/bonuses. Does that mean command ships would only fit two links or does it mean they get two different racial boosts able to be applied?
SmilingVagrant GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 150	Posted - 2012.03.27 21:41:00 - [39] - Quote I'm fine with them being on grid. Our FC's have been on grid with them on a fairly regular basis, provided you have decent logi and the enemy isn't using proper alpha tactics (No one in game does to date) it shouldn't be too much of an issue. A few of our FC's fight from command ships, they are watch-listed and several of the logi have then pre-locked. We generally only lose them if we lose the engagement in general.
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 556	Posted - 2012.03.27 21:48:00 - [40] - Quote i'll make you a deal I'll support off-grid boosters if I can shoot ships that are off-grid what's fair is fair
YUMAD BRO Aliastra Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2012.03.27 21:56:00 - [41] - Quote I have a great Idea.... How about you fking train it up on a char like everyone else and do it to?? you Fkn Downy.. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Mariner6 EVE University Ivy League 53	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:02:00 - [42] - Quote I think removing off grid boosting will hurt more than it will help and puts too much advantage in the fleet that is already on grid. I know that an off grid booster upsets people but its the only way to insure level playing field. If he's sitting in a pos, oh well, take the pos down. If he's in space scan him down and find him. Even if you don't point him, he must warp and as command mods turn off in warp so the boosters are off also. So task organize your attack and neutralize his boosters. Bring your own boosters to help too, whatever. Everyone has the same ability to boost in a system, but having to be on grid gives ridiculous advantage to the first on grid (defense) and especially to the already too prevalent kiting fleets. Example, my fleet is trying to catch one or multiple targets in system. Perhaps baiting, perhaps utilizing a warp in from a cloaky. Once the scan is achieved the tackler goes in. I have interdiction manuevers and rapid deployment on. When the tackler arrives we might get the point and lock him down, but only if he's not already aligned. If he stays and is kiting still, the rapid deployment and interdiction maneuvers might give the extra boost needed to get the scram and web in what would otherwise fail to reach as they burn out of range. I cannot accompany him into the fight until the target is locked because I cannot boost while in warp. If I have to wait until I pop on grid, target is probably gone as my warp speed is slower. if we fleet warp, then its the slowest warp speed ship to the fleet and that negates the warp in to a large extent due to the target having already moved too far already. Part of the power of the interceptor isn't just mwd speed but warp speed too. If he's tied to my warp speed that scan lock is now worthless as the targets now too far away. If we do it right, once the target is locked down then I bring my Mrym in and help with the kill, and turn boosts back on, but I only do this once I know the target/ targets are fully locked down. If I couldn't do this, then even more targets would just endlessly warp off/burn away and get away/win. Often a target will stay on grid and not warp away thinking he can win with just some little tackler on grid with him. What do you think will happen if I bring in my BC, or a T3 or a command ship. Instant running like 90% of people do already. Plus, often we are trying to do multiple things in the system, like block more than one gate at a time. Now I can't boost system wide. Why bother flying it then? Instead of seeing more command ships/command modules etc, you'll see less. Nothing but endless canes and drakes. Vanilla. In other applications, the fleet already on grid will have their boosts running and when the attacking fleet arrives, they may not show up all at once (sure preferred but when warping in at optimals, different ships will arrive due to different warp speeds.) You'll have to wait for boosting ships to arrive and then some of the key boosts such as info and skirmish might already be too late - as certain ships have already been jammed or escaped due to boosts/lack there of. Finally, on grid is too squishy. I mean you can play grid fu all day long and exploit the grid to your favor to isolate boosters from the combat fleet if your clever. Again, favoring the defense. The best way to keep it relatively fair is system wide. Sure, they can have a pos, but you know what? You rate some advantage for having a POS. Burn it down, bring your own boosts, whatever. Them being in a pos doesn't negate you bringing your boosts. Being on grid only denies the attacker too many options.
Varesk Mafia Redux Black Legion. 36	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:24:00 - [43] - Quote Talkietoaster wrote: I could imagine something like this - near own POS: medium nerf - near Station / Gate: considerable nerf Lets take a look at these two. My POS is under attack, my command ship would be nerfed while trying to defend my tower. Jump into a system, on no i am at a gate, there goes the command ship bonuses. Command ships and t3s should be on grid. no grid = no bonus.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 39	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:25:00 - [44] - Quote Gevlin wrote: At fan fest some dev mention a preference to have command ship command bonus requiring ships to be on grid. My question are: With this not remove the Planet Hugging/Safe Spot hiding/POS staging Command ship or t3 cruiser which may have lesser of a tank? Will this not remove the role of the Combat Scanner Role in mega fleet fight that is to find out the location of these Ships? Will not change the Role of Command Bonus for Mining. Placing the Rorqual at the belt in Industrial mode? There for removing the need for a hauler at a belt. Due to the selection of ore coming out of the belts, the Rorqual has a hard time compressing ore unless it is at a POS with access to a corp hanger. I am concerned about forcing a certain type play style over another. May I recommend a compromise: Tech I Command modules can be off grid but Tech II Command Modules provide their Bonuses while on grid. The only one of these questions that remotely valid is the rorqual tbh. SS hugging t3 bonus givers are the problem. The combat scanner role needs to be on grid with the ships it providing gang warp for anyway. Cs don't have a weak tank (they often have very strong tanks) and neither do single link t3s
Skogen Gump Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction 6	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:27:00 - [45] - Quote I've got no problem nerfing off-grid bonuses ... ... for field command ships. Fleet command ships though, no way - they're designed to work out of combat.
Doddy Excidium. Executive Outcomes 39	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:28:00 - [46] - Quote Skogen Gump wrote: I've got no problem nerfing off-grid bonuses ... ... for field command ships. Fleet command ships though, no way - they're designed to work out of combat. um what?
Kattshiro Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 28	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:33:00 - [47] - Quote So much of the sentiment for keeping off grid is because they might get shot...? Isn't that the point? Every other ship in the fleet can get shot why not ships that provide bonuses exactly? Cause they help? So do logi's... Heaven forbid you have to change tactics. Furthermore the excuse "Everyone does it." Doesn't mean it shouldn't change or that it's not Bullshit. Guess everyone will have to bring the ship on grid to get the bonus then won't they? What happened to the l33t pvp "risk v. reward" mentality? Furthermore you shouldn't have to POS bash to get one ship... That's the most ******** reason i've heard all today.
Drew Solaert University of Caille Gallente Federation 99	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:36:00 - [48] - Quote How is an a pro 1v1 pvper going to work if you can't have your off grid booster! Shock Horror! For every player ship that blows up, the wheels of the economy turn slightly faster. -áDo your bit today. -áGo out and PEW.
Markus Reese Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION 37	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:37:00 - [49] - Quote For the people who say boosters need to stay offgrid, will get agressive on the matter. I ****ing dont. I put up my CS front lines where it belongs. I dont subscribe and spend the time and isk to play whee spin the ship in shields. I show up, I expect to die in glorious fire, I do not because I focus on my positioning, the FC orders and know when to GTFO and bounce back to keep myself alive. Is awesome.
Mariner6 EVE University Ivy League 53	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:39:00 - [50] - Quote Drew Solaert wrote: How is an a pro 1v1 pvper going to work if you can't have your off grid booster! Shock Horror! You fleet up with him and are in the same squad. then you know your opponent gets no boosts. Seems simple for an arranged 1v1.
EnslaverOfMinmatar BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS 24	Posted - 2012.03.27 22:42:00 - [51] - Quote Remove the ability to fit command links on T3. Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF
Reaver Glitterstim Resurrected Darkness 74	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:11:00 - [52] - Quote E man Industries wrote: AraniFyr wrote: It should be on grid...too big of an advantage for such low risk Agreed, how ever command ships are primary....they need mor eof a buffer when boosting to exist on grid. Buffer comes from mid and low slots, and fleet command ships have the best tanks of any subcap (as far as I'm aware). People just need to learn not to fit so many gang assists that they can't run their capacitor. After all, if the ship is fit for tank, it won't have any command processors, so it should only have 3 gang assists. I think the problem is that people have been enjoying easy command for too long, and you're all squishy now. HTFU -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens
Parsee789 Immaterial and Missing Power 74	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:21:00 - [53] - Quote How will you make this work? Imagine you're in a system where you have different parts of the fleet in different areas of the system. With the requirement of On-Grid boosting the fleet commander will have be on-grid with one group while the rest receive no bonuses. In order for boosts to be given to everywhere you will now need several times more leadership players to give everyone boosts. This requirement for On-grid boosting will simply hurt more than it helps. This will make the application of Boosts more complex and Cluttered. This will simply make applying boosts a real big hassle when you're dealing with fleets that are scattered around the system, all doing different things. How are you gonna fix this without requiring more leadership characters and bigger blobs.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong White-Lotus 493	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:28:00 - [54] - Quote My question are: Quote: With this not remove the Planet Hugging/Safe Spot hiding/POS staging Command ship or t3 cruiser which may have lesser of a tank? yes, yes it will. And it will be a better game for it. Just go into battle with the new target breaker module. I'm sure you'll get targeted by a TON of ships. Quote: Will this not remove the role of the Combat Scanner Role in mega fleet fight that is to find out the location of these Ships? yes, yes it will, thank god. how can something off the battlefield get to have an effect? so stupid. if you want that kind of gameplay it should be tied to structures that give allied players system wide combat bonuses. Then you can have a small fleet hunting down what's been giving bonuses, kill it, and return to battle. There might even be some small scale warfare going on while the large battle happens over these deployable, system wide command modules. Note, these would be placed like POS turrets, outside of the shields. Other wise, hunting down a tiny, moving Tech 3 ship, that in no way could be able to have an effect on a huge battle it can't see, is not fun. It's stupid and should be on the field so that it can apply bonuses. Quote: Will not change the Role of Command Bonus for Mining. Placing the Rorqual at the belt in Industrial mode? There for removing the need for a hauler at a belt. Due to the selection of ore coming out of the belts, the Rorqual has a hard time compressing ore unless it is at a POS with access to a corp hanger. so then the ship will have to be used the way it was designed. or upgrade the systems mining at the hub by mining more.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong White-Lotus 493	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:29:00 - [55] - Quote Parsee789 wrote: How will you make this work? Imagine you're in a system where you have different parts of the fleet in different areas of the system. With the requirement of On-Grid boosting the fleet commander will have be on-grid with one group while the rest receive no bonuses. In order for boosts to be given to everywhere you will now need several times more leadership players to give everyone boosts. This requirement for On-grid boosting will simply hurt more than it helps. This will make the application of Boosts more complex and Cluttered. This will simply make applying boosts a real big hassle when you're dealing with fleets that are scattered around the system, all doing different things. How are you gonna fix this without requiring more leadership characters and bigger blobs. People all have been proposing nerfing boosts to grid without providing a way to properly balancing the nerf. You propose things that are convenient to you, you don't think ahead of the consequences that it will make. Actually I'm all for making it so if you're more than 150km away you don't even get bonuses.
Parsee789 Immaterial and Missing Power 75	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:39:00 - [56] - Quote MotherMoon wrote: Actually I'm all for making it so if you're more than 150km away you don't even get bonuses. You did not answer my question. What If I had a fleet who were spread through different Areas of the entire system. Areas that are separated in terms of AU rather than km. What if my fleet was defending multiple poses? 150km is certainly not enough to cover that distance. How are you going to handle that?
Markus Reese Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION 46	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:52:00 - [57] - Quote MotherMoon wrote: Actually I'm all for making it so if you're more than 150km away you don't even get bonuses. This idea not in favor of, having a specific range. I have been in larger combats where the fleets spread out a fair bit but still on grid. Start doing bounces around bubbles and poses, ranges can easily exceed that. For Parsee about the spread fleet, in that case, that would be a risk for splitting the fleet up, or you set up more planning in the wings. No bonus or partial bonus, I just want an advantage for putting commship onto the field.
Parsee789 Immaterial and Missing Power 75	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:56:00 - [58] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: MotherMoon wrote: Actually I'm all for making it so if you're more than 150km away you don't even get bonuses. This idea not in favor of, having a specific range. I have been in larger combats where the fleets spread out a fair bit but still on grid. Start doing bounces around bubbles and poses, ranges can easily exceed that. For Parsee about the spread fleet, in that case, that would be a risk for splitting the fleet up, or you set up more planning in the wings. No bonus or partial bonus, I just want an advantage for putting commship onto the field. With current 0.0 fleet doctrines, your commandship will die within a blink of an eye. Even Carriers get alpha striked by a fleet these days, hence one of the very reasons why supercarriers are used as logistics rather than normal carriers. How can you make it so without giving the Commandship have an ehp bigger than capitals?
Valleria Darkmoon Parsec Flux 15	Posted - 2012.03.28 05:57:00 - [59] - Quote The problem with forcing gang boosters to be on grid is that it is completely to the benefit of large blobs who are in little need of the force multiplier. The larger the blob the easier it is to hide or protect your booster in the middle of the field. It's not hard to imagine what a single motionless Loki is doing 250km off the fight with only 6 guys on grid is it? I would suggest the following instead have the effectiveness of links degrade as more and more fleet members tap into it and the booster ship itself would be excluded from this count. Maybe have the links degrade by 2% of their effect for each person beyond the booster down to a minimum of 20% effective. For example: -I have a 6 man gang, one gang booster. 5 ships are using the links so they degrade by 10% making the links 90% effective on the other 5. -I have a 40 man fleet, one fleet booster. 39 ships are using the links so they degrade by 78% and are 22% effective on the entire fleet. -I have a 400 man armada, one fleet booster. 399 ships are using the links so they degrade by 80% to their minimum and are 20% effective on the fleet. If you want better links you should be able to add in more squad boosters boosting only 10 ships and you will get 80% effect but you will obviously need many more of them to pull it off. The advantage is a slight levelling on the field as in no case is the booster ever required to be on grid but (as Loki links are the ones I see most often) the speed advantage goes to the 6 man-gang who needs it more than the 400 man armada. At the same time are you really going to say we have so many guys that I don't even want the small boost we'll get by putting a Loki in fleet? It also makes some kind of sense from a purely fiction standpoint. The more of you there are tapping into the boosting ship's systems the more you strain it and the benefit decreases.
Reaver Glitterstim Resurrected Darkness 74	Posted - 2012.03.28 06:06:00 - [60] - Quote Parsee789 wrote: What If I had a fleet who were spread through different Areas of the entire system. You could designate squad boosters, just a suggestion. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens

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

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