Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:31:00 -
[901] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
I don't think I'd say that. Because of the way the bonuses stack they're a full 1/3rd lower than the Command Ships at maxed level which is pretty significant. Especially given the "must maximize output" tendencies of Eve decision making.
Everything else about the T3 vs Command Ship trade-offs is spot on though. Love your posts in general, very level headed and logical :) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
251
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:36:00 -
[902] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
I don't think I'd say that. Because of the way the bonuses stack they're a full 1/3rd lower than the Command Ships at maxed level which is pretty significant. Especially given the "must maximize output" tendencies of Eve decision making. Everything else about the T3 vs Command Ship trade-offs is spot on though. Love your posts in general, very level headed and logical :)
Aww [blush] A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:51:00 -
[903] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Mournful Conciousness] I think it shows that the gang link changes are in the correct direction. I also think it hints that even a 2% bonus per level on a T3 is on the high side.
I wouldnt say on the high side considering how long it takes to train for max t3 skills along with the millions of skill points in leadership.
Logically Command ships should be more commanding since they literally have command in their name. They are meant to give a morale like boost to a fleet like any leader. The part I still struggle with is ,figuratively speaking, why put a commander on the front lines with his troops? I understand the squad commander but the fleet or wing commander? The last time we put people of that importance up front was medieval days.... If ever.
I guess another thing Im struggling with is the actual purpose of a t3. Is its ultimate purpose to not be good at one thing but decent at everything? Kind of like a Decathlete?
Why make boosts this much weaker considering they are one of the hardest things in the game to specialize? Should there not be a bonus for accomplishing such a task that only a handful of ships can properly handle?
I'm going back to the outer level of this conversation to get the foundation again..... Kind of got off the path.
---will have to agree. You are easy to communicate with. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 00:30:00 -
[904] - Quote
The point of bringing command ships on-grid is that you should be risking something for such useful boosts. At present an off-grid booster risks relatively little, especially if baby-sat correctly.
Skill-Point requirements and ship cost are barriers to entry, they are not the primary metrics of a ships power. That line of thinking got us AOE doomsday Titans and we all saw how that went. Hell, it's still being cleaned up after.
If the only thing your T3 pilot is good for is boosting in your eyes then well, you've already outlined the trade-offs that make that worth using for you, even in light of the nerf. You've also gotten a good year+ out of that T3 boosting pilot and with everyone being fairly sure this was going to change since at least Winter if not before.
What's going to happen to T3s in the future I honestly don't know, we'll have to see. The fact that they're at the end of Ytterbium's balance list says that CCP are going to take a lot of time to figure out where they fit into things and balance them against the state of the game at that point. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 00:45:00 -
[905] - Quote
I'd have to disagree about your reasoning regarding wing/fleet commanders. Given even land armies typically have a General in the field with them commanding. And certainly have company commanders.
When you go to Naval however which is the actual closest analogy to EVE, the Fleet Commander is right out there in the middle of the fleet. Where it changes however is that in EVE, you can't control an area of space in quite the same way as you can on the sea. In part due to flight controls, in part due to probe mechanics and in part due to the lack of LoS effects, meaning that you can hit the 'fleet booster' right off the gate.
Of course, they are also discussing changing boosts before they come on grid, making it much more likely boosters will not have to have the assigned positions like they currently do and will instead work in some other fashion on every fleeted member on the field. |
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
222
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 01:53:00 -
[906] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:
I'm under the assumption that you are describing a 100mn gang that is easily countered by sensor dampening ships paired with web bonused ships. Killing a ship in eve is easy no matter what boost or mods they have on. You just have to bring the proper counter to fight. Would you bring a bs fleet to fight a 100mn gang? Would you bring Amarr to fight a neut heavy fleet? Would you bring a frigate gang against a destroyer gang? Eve is easy if you use your head. Excuses that someone used boosts to beat you won't get you far in the pvp community.
Have you ever fought solo against a dual damp kiting Hookbill/Condor? Now have you ever done it with a Loki boosted one? I assure you that it's not simply bringing the proper counter to the fight, there is no fight. Literally the only way to deal with it is to have a clone with more speed implants and an even faster Loki boosted ship that can actually get in range to first of all lock, then apply tackle.
Zeus Maximo wrote: Now if most understood what the tank bonus actually was then we wouldn't even discuss this part. When you add resists to your ship it takes into account what is not covered. If you have 60% resists that means 40% is not covered. Lets say your boost is applying 40% more resists. 40(not covered) x .4(your boost) is 16%. Your resist will now be 76%. If we did it your way(60% * .4) then the resists would be 84%. Huge EHP difference between 76% and 84%. In the grand scheme of things this all narrows down to 2,000-5,000 more damage taken on a killmail.
So first up, lets take the mindlink into account. 15% more (shield/armour) HP, giving 15% more EHP there. Now for the resist mod. I'll admit this is before stacking penalties, so the amount isn't as large. But at current a T3 gives 35% higher resists. 35% higher resists means you're taking 35% less damage. So now you divide your EHP by 1-0.35.
This increases EHP by approximately 53%. That's like having a Slave set, by the way. Now you put that together with the mindlink bonus and you have 1*1.15*1.53=76.9% more EHP.
In all fairness the resists are stacking penalized, but I just wanted to point out how big of a difference that actually is. Buy a Merlin. Do it. Fit it up. Now fit up another one, exactly the same. Now have one of them have a perfect Siege booster, and the other nothing. Now what happens? The one with ~77% more EHP wins hands down.
I'd have no problem with this if it were an isolated incident. But it's to the point that half the fights go like this. Hell, even I use and abuse this ****, I have a perfect Damnation booster (I was training the leadership for a while, then when it came time to pick a ship to train I saw the dev blog announcing changes back in winter and picked CS... took a little longer than they said it would) that I use relatively frequently. Also worth noting is the reduction in duration of repper modules also increases the EHP/s repaired by them, which is also amplified by the higher resists granting more EHP for each actual hitpoint repaired. My armour tanking ships are tanking more than twice as strong as an unboosted one. I feel dirty using them in solo PvP.
Zeus Maximo wrote: When someone loses to a ship they believed to be inferior their first reaction tends to be "how?" A lot of the blame falls under the assumption that a person only beat them because they had boosts. I have yet to hear a valid response to this statement over the years.
If boosts were so good how come entities during the alliance tournament don't use them every match? If they were effective how come they don't win every match when using them? History has shown that they don't make a difference as many would like you to think. Boosts don't win fights.
So many people accuse CCP of using AT to balance... this guy's explaining why AT shows that links are balanced.
Zeus Maximo wrote: I'm getting the impression that you are talking in a blob sense. Boosters are the most effective in a small gang/solo scenario. Who cares how much you tank when you have 10 people shooting you? Who cares if you can point farther when the enemy fleet has more tacklers than you have mods on your ship. People that use boosters apply them against small gangs where a logi or falcon would also be extremely effective. If anything the top 50 pilots on the killboards that I have flown with just use them for point range. You know why? Because people bite off more they than can chew and try to run away. Longer point prevents that :)
What...?
In essence an OGB gives a free module/rig/slot to each and every ship it's boosting. If it's boosting 250 ships, it's giving (assuming 3 links) 250 ships 3 free modules/slots/etc. (in the case of webs, points and props with Loki, it's like giving everyone free faction mods). All this for one ship/toon that between the two probably costs less than the combined cost of all the "mods" it's giving people.
Also, I care if I can point farther when the enemy fleet has more tacklers than I have mods. If I can point/web farther than them I can slow down any tacklers that run the risk of getting close (you know, because I'm outrunning everything thanks to Loki boosts, so I only care about things in my potential paths) before they can apply tackle to me and kill them before they become a threat. Eventually if I get sloppy they might catch me, but I'll certainly take a lot out with me if I'm even semi-competent.
Of course, if my enemies were semi-competent, they'd have their own boosts. It's not like it's hard to get the alts. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:21:00 -
[907] - Quote
In a perfect world logi's, falcon's, maulus's, and t3 booster's would be seen as a game changer to most if we all went off paper statistics. BUT, news flash, we are in eve and no two situations will ever be the same. When people test major changes in real life they do sample groups or run advanced computer simulators to predict future results. The beauty of eve is that there are so many different factors involved in a fight that a guaranteed way to win isn't feasible.
Factors of a fight: who fires first velocity transversal mwd/ab boosts sig radius scan res logi ecm skills damage type used cap available sentry guns skill points Player Skill Intelligence
My point is that its impossible to declare boosts as game changers. I used the AT as an example because the whole world watched it and the only thing that stood out was domi sentry's. PL had a 10mn frigate burn perpendicular at 3,000+ m/s 50k away and the drones still hit it. That is an example of game changing.
Boosts are just another variable in the equation. No reason to touch them. If you want boosts, train 6 months for them. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:32:00 -
[908] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:My point is that its impossible to declare boosts as game changers. I used the AT as an example because the whole world watched it and the only thing that stood out was domi sentry's. PL had a 10mn frigate burn perpendicular at 3,000+ m/s 50k away and the drones still hit it. That is an example of game changing.
Boosts are just another variable in the equation. No reason to touch them. If you want boosts, train 6 months for them.
Boosts are not the end-all be-all of the game, this is true, however I disagree with your conclusion that there is "no reason to touch them"
There have been a number of reasons to bring boosts on-grid presented by the player base and CCP, and CCP have stated their intent to bring boosts on-grid. If you disagree with these reasons then by all means find an argument against those reasons. Don't just respond with "boosts are fine, leave mine alone". |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 04:29:00 -
[909] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:Mining links should not be given special treatment...
Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame. We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.
Can you please explain what is wrong with mining boost from a pos?
I don't think you will find anyone crazy enough to deploy a rorq on grid. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 04:39:00 -
[910] - Quote
Harry Juana wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:Mining links should not be given special treatment...
Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame. We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first. Can you please explain what is wrong with mining boost from a pos? I don't think you will find anyone crazy enough to deploy a rorq on grid.
Unless they balance the Roqual so that it's either survivable enough, cheap enough, or gives a big enough bonus to make that worth it...
Or hell, maybe all three? |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
779
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 07:35:00 -
[911] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:...My point is that its impossible to declare boosts as game changers. I used the AT as an example because the whole world watched it and the only thing that stood out was domi sentry's. PL had a 10mn frigate burn perpendicular at 3,000+ m/s 50k away and the drones still hit it. That is an example of game changing.
Boosts are just another variable in the equation. No reason to touch them. If you want boosts, train 6 months for them. Are you really that naive, can any one be?
All those factors can already be manipulated by fitting faction and just being better, links are not even in the ballpark as they change the numbers to a staggeringly massive degree - so much so that hulls would need 10/10/10 slot layouts and Goddess knows how much ISK to do the same through fittings or the people be actual Gods (as opposed to Demi-Gods) of reaction time and conscious thought.
Few of the boosters were probably trained by users, they were buddy accounts purchased by crafty individuals and sold on to maximize the $/ISK conversion rate. Officially saying that paying more to CCP will give you an edge in Eve is part of what caused the Jita debacle a few years back (gold ammo). Prior to links the "Buy your own .. for hope" dogma that you apparently represent, suffered losses in the form of NOS, Nano, ECM, Angel etc. so simply repeating the oh so very tired party line will not cut it as CCP has already shown willingness to ignore those crocodile tears.
Either do as Mr. Windstalker suggest and come up with reasons/counter-arguments not to give them the axe or provide alternatives that solves the issues involved.
I am as staggeringly massively against links as they are game changing, to a point where I have on several occasions dropped a fleet because it had a safed T3, yet I know the value of them and want them in game in a useable format .. there are compromises available to make the blow trivial for most uses but the initial sacrifice (off-grid) must be made for Eve to make it through its teenage years. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
253
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 08:51:00 -
[912] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote: I guess another thing Im struggling with is the actual purpose of a t3. Is its ultimate purpose to not be good at one thing but decent at everything? Kind of like a Decathlete?
Why make boosts this much weaker considering they are one of the hardest things in the game to specialize? Should there not be a bonus for accomplishing such a task that only a handful of ships can properly handle?
I think I agree that a T3 should be like a decathlete, able to do every job but not as well as a specialised ship. This was probably the original intention, although I would find it very understandable if the devs wanted to give them 'something extra' to make them desirable at the time of inception.
This was at the same time as wormholes I think? They were a new thing at the time and there was no way to know whether players would make the effort to explore wormholes and build T3s. One tempting way to ensure that was to give them oversized bonuses.
This is something I understand very well, having spent the first 10 years of my career designing video and gambling games. You always want to introduce something awesome, but over time you realise that less is more. I think the devs unwittingly broke the game with 10%/level repair bonuses, armour amounts, power grid and damage application. Particularly when they all stacked together on the same ship!
As has been mentioned, 5% per level gang link bonuses on T3 actually translates to 5% per level per link (often 3) times the number of ships in fleet. That's such an outrageously high level of effectiveness. Out of line even with the other OP bonuses on a T3.
Another major flaw with T3s (in my view) was not being able to reconfigure them in a POS. Of course at the time, no-one would have predicted that people would set up home in wormholes. The Eve devs were, by all accounts, fascinated and shocked that people would do such a thing.
I think the right place for the T3 is as an advanced multi-role combat ship, able to be reconfigured at a battlefield outpost (POS) in order to bring the right abilities to the field quickly, but not quite as effectively as the real deal. They would still be heavily used because of the convenience, but they would be outclassed by a perfectly crafted specialist fleet. This would give both classes of ship a sensible place in the game. In order to properly take advantage of this, CCP might also be so kind as to allow T3s to decommission rigs without destroying them, or perhaps craft the bonuses in such a way that rigs are not necessary or possible on them.
I think that would make them perfect.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 10:31:00 -
[913] - Quote
The Problem with links is that they are Overpowered, but only at the moment, no one knows what CCP is doing with these links, besides the fact that they want them to bring it on the grid.
As long we dont know the facts and the future plans, repeating over and over to remove them for "Free" SP is kinda pointless. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 13:42:00 -
[914] - Quote
Dug up the flow chart from when this whole ship rebalancing thing began:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
T2 Mindlinks need to give a slightly higher bonus to 1 discipline than Navy IMO.
Not going to happen in 1.1 but maybe down the road.
Not today spaghetti. |
Kuklinski
Broken Wheel Mercantile and Trading Company Illusion of Solitude
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 14:00:00 -
[915] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I'm doing it for everyone else's sake to be honest. I can always put my booster in a guardian or falcon. You see these changes come about because it's the sore losers that make the loudest complainers. If they didn't die so much then they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Just wait, after boosts get nerfed people will be calling for logi and falcon nerfs again.
+1...especially the last line
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 15:59:00 -
[916] - Quote
@Mournful Conciousness
I do see where your coming from because that ship does project that 5% per level to everyone in the fleet. However, everybody and their mom has access to these skills so it would only make sense for them to train leadership too if that is what their fleet is lacking. This is almost like a fleet complaining that they can't remotely repair their ships like everyone else. Well damn, train up remote repair and logistics. I believe the main reason why boosters are being singled out is because people don't want to wait for 12 million skill points in their que to be completed.
If CCP made leadership x1 skills then we would see a booster in every single fleet.
When on the topic of skill training you then begin to see why titan pilots don't want jump bridges to be nerfed. Why train an entire year for something so special that can be taken away so easily? All it takes is a bunch of 20-30 mil skill pilots spamming the forms saying "this isn't fair". Eve is about wealth and power if you really want to get somewhere. I'll admit, instead of training characters I just buy a new one. Making isk is what I'm good. You look at most of the things people are good at that complain? It boils down to losing ships and complaining.
This is like a CEO choosing an interns opinion over a 30 year vet.
@Veshta Yoshida
Fitting faction and deadspace does not all of a sudden make someone good. Garmon is a great example when it comes to the best fittings mods, ships, and boosts in the game. Look at his killboard, he still died a lot..... Nobody is perfect in Eve because nobody is perfect in life. No two scenario's can ever be repeated so it is flawed logic to nerf something that hasn't been proven to be unbalanced. Proving that something looks good on paper is not a reason to make it an outcast. Everyday underdogs prove that statistics are just that, compiled information that are easier to read. In relation to Mournful on this I too deal with gambling and racing for a living. Statistics can say all day that a specific horse will win but the realistic people know that isn't always the case. The "fastest horse on paper" doesn't always win.
@Everyone else
Boosts are not overpowered; they are extremely specialized skills that CCP made available to us. If you also crave boosts then do what everyone else did that has them. Train up 12 million+ skill points or pay 10 billion isk for a new toon along with another account subscription! Welcome to eve where only the rich, powerful, and the intelligent prevail. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:22:00 -
[917] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:@Mournful Conciousness
I do see where your coming from because that ship does project that 5% per level to everyone in the fleet. However, everybody and their mom has access to these skills so it would only make sense for them to train leadership too if that is what their fleet is lacking. This is almost like a fleet complaining that they can't remotely repair their ships like everyone else. Well damn, train up remote repair and logistics. I believe the main reason why boosters are being singled out is because people don't want to wait for 12 million skill points in their que to be completed.
......
@Everyone else
Boosts are not overpowered; they are extremely specialized skills that CCP made available to us. If you also crave boosts then do what everyone else did that has them. Train up 12 million+ skill points or pay 10 billion isk for a new toon along with another account subscription! Welcome to eve where only the rich, powerful, and the intelligent prevail.
No one is claiming that boosts are inherently over-powered, especially not CCP.
But the risk/reward for off-grid boosts is extremely out of proportion right now, hence why boosts are being pushed out of the POS now, and on-grid eventually and other changes are being considered to make bringing boosts to a fight involve actually risking something as opposed to just having them sitting in a safe-spot and assuming everyone has them.
Assuming everyone has boosts is a stupid assumption, not everyone has the real or in-game money to buy a boosting alt or the ability to support or run the second account. Some of us actually want to be able to fly command ships and boost on our main while participating in fights |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:50:00 -
[918] - Quote
I do understand the idea of bringing boosts on-grid so they can "see what is going on". But, that still doesn't explain why they are nerfing the links all together.
A few pages back a gentlemen explained that a good FC would alpha the booster off the field ASAP. Boosts don't really make a difference during a blob fest but they help magnify a good players skills to be 1 step ahead. If you have been following since yesterday on what I have been saying then you will also notice that many other ships in this game can provide that 1 step ahead too.
I can settle for boosts being moved on-grid
Anyways my original point on this topic still stands. Boosts should be left alone when it comes to their bonus %'s. If they are put on grid, in their current fragile EHP state, that is enough risk vs reward.
Possible idea: Switch the command subsystem from defensive to offensive. This way booster t3's can't cloak but can fit better defensive mods. Better defense would allow them on grid :) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:08:00 -
[919] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:@Mournful Conciousness
I do see where your coming from because that ship does project that 5% per level to everyone in the fleet. However, everybody and their mom has access to these skills so it would only make sense for them to train leadership too if that is what their fleet is lacking. This is almost like a fleet complaining that they can't remotely repair their ships like everyone else. Well damn, train up remote repair and logistics. I believe the main reason why boosters are being singled out is because people don't want to wait for 12 million skill points in their que to be completed.
I think CCP is primarily concerned with ensuring that the various ships built for given roles are actually used, and not obsolete.
Command ships were being obsoleted by T3s which was clearly wrong (we've mentioned this before), so CCP wanted to redress that. There are now reasons you'd choose a command ship over a T3 which once again makes them viable. I'm not saying that they are reasons you'd *always* choose a command ship over a T3, but at least now they seem (at least on paper, and on sisi) to have a battlefield role.
The 6-link lolfit booster ships were I am sure, also of concern to ccp because they are, let's face it, lolfits. Good for nothing except sitting in a safe spot or a POS. Whether these are lokis, tengus, claymores, feroxes or cyclone 6-link lolfits (which I admit I do use), they are actually bordering on pay-to-win because they cost a redundant subscription to use. In fact, I'm going to come out and say it - they are actually pay-to-win. GBP15 a month buys you 30% harder shields, better logistics and skirmish superiority. If CCP marketed this as a pay-for implant there would be a f*cking riot, and rightly so!
When on-grid boosting hits, there are going to be hurdles and things will be different (for me too!). New doctrines will be developed to cope though, and we'll get through it.
Whatever the difficulty though, I will be happier, because one more brick in the pay-to-win wall will have been removed. I won't feel that Goody Twoshoes Virpio's huge investment in command will have been wasted - I'll still use him as a fleet booster when circumstances dictate. May main (this character) will remain specialised in DPS and brawling. He'll never boost a fleet, but he'll certainly lead one. A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:26:00 -
[920] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I do understand the idea of bringing boosts on-grid so they can "see what is going on". But, that still doesn't explain why they are nerfing the links all together.
A few pages back a gentlemen explained that a good FC would alpha the booster off the field ASAP. Boosts don't really make a difference during a blob fest but they help magnify a good players skills to be 1 step ahead. If you have been following since yesterday on what I have been saying then you will also notice that many other ships in this game can provide that 1 step ahead too.
I can settle for boosts being moved on-grid
Anyways my original point on this topic still stands. Boosts should be left alone when it comes to their bonus %'s. If they are put on grid, in their current fragile EHP state, that is enough risk vs reward.
Possible idea: Switch the command subsystem from defensive to offensive. This way booster t3's can't cloak but can fit better defensive mods. Better defense would allow them on grid :)
I direct your attention to this post by CCP Fozzie on their plans for moving Command Ships on-grid.
He's essentially talking about distributed boosts, where you have to lose all your ships with a given link in order for that bonus to disappear, rather than having things relegated to one booster for fleet, wing, and squad.
This means that in any fleet where you have or are facing enough DPS to alpha the boosting ship off the field you also have enough pilots to bring multiple redundant boosting ships. Since these tend to be tankier and harder to hit than most battleships there's a decent chance that unless you possess absolutely overwhelming firepower you're going to kill one boosting ship for every two DPS ships you could have killed, either by splitting your Alpha or DPSing through their weaker tank faster.
In smaller fleets the same trade-off applies since the Command Ship is likely to be the tankiest ship on grid if you go for it as your primary then you had better be 100% sure it's worth it since the Logi are going to have an easier time keeping it up and it'll take longer to burn through even if there are no logi pilots.
Beyond that we've all agreed that T3s need a second look but I don't think you're going to get your way on the boost %s. Maybe when T3s get overhauled and boosts are moved on-grid they'll get buffed to have an easier time fitting more links.
Beyond that, pretty much everything Mournful Conciousness said. |
|
Jack Jab
Void.Tech FreiTek Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:39:00 -
[921] - Quote
Is there any compensation for people already using mind links? I find it would be fair to have some bonus added to the existing mind links so that the 1.4B I paid for mining mindlink couple months back, wont be for nothing.
Just placing a relatively fixed price that low, and then having everything on par sounds unfair for people already owning them. |
Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:56:00 -
[922] - Quote
Jack Jab wrote:Is there any compensation for people already using mind links? I find it would be fair to have some bonus added to the existing mind links so that the 1.4B I paid for mining mindlink couple months back, wont be for nothing.
Just placing a relatively fixed price that low, and then having everything on par sounds unfair for people already owning them. Well, didn't you use it for the last months when the other guys couldn't buy it? So you already have your compensation there... |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 21:40:00 -
[923] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Harry Juana wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:Mining links should not be given special treatment...
Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame. We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first. Can you please explain what is wrong with mining boost from a pos? I don't think you will find anyone crazy enough to deploy a rorq on grid. Unless they balance the Roqual so that it's either survivable enough, cheap enough, or gives a big enough bonus to make that worth it... Or hell, maybe all three?
Will the rorq be able to tank 30 to 50 man (blops) gangs? Will it get some sort of a weapon like a doomsday to blow them up? And what am I supposed to do with my rorq on grid, even if it is cloaked, and a hot dropper decides to cloaky camp my system? let it die? stay on 24/7 untill the camper gets bored?
Will cloaking get nerferd, ehh rebalanced? After the blops rebalancing ppl get hot dropped every day without virtually nothing to counter the droppers as they cloak up and cyno out. You call this rebalancing ccp? Should we not at least get a fair chance to blow them up as well? Sure we can bait them but a good cyno will smell a trap xx jumps away.
I thought ccp had the intention to make mining in null sec more profitable and attractive to new players, seems they lied. Prices of megacyte and zydrine have never been this low for as far as I can remember. Low sec ores like hedbergite and hemorphite are still more profitable to mine than ABC-M. With rats still in the clusters (former hidden belts) I can not anti-gank fit my hulk and can get blown up by the first ganker that flies by. And even when I manage to warp out they probablyl will blow up my cans because they are upset that I got away. And now you want me to risk my rorq too?
Heck, i don't want to mine anymore already, which means I can close the accounts for my rorq and my mining alt. But I am sure ccp does not care about getting 30 of my euros less monthly either. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 21:53:00 -
[924] - Quote
I think your concerns about the rorqual are valid, but bear in mind that ccp have no intention of disabling off-grid mining boosts, at least for now.
I'd personally like to see a world where it was possible to mine with on-grid bonuses, but I think before that could possibly happen there would need to be a long hard look at cyno, covert cyno and bridging mechanics.
They currently all make it far too easy to bring an overwhelming fleet with almost no warning or possibility of escape.
Ironically, the only place I can see that a rorqual can be used on grid with a degree of certainty that it will come home is in a wormhole system (with appropriate scouts etc) since cynos and bridges do not happen there.
It saddens me a little that the most use we ever gave our rorqual was salvaging C5 sleeper wrecks while the dreadnoughts were creating them. It was ludicrous! We also used it in pvp a little (the owner was a little nuts... )
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 23:01:00 -
[925] - Quote
Jack Jab wrote:Is there any compensation for people already using mind links? I find it would be fair to have some bonus added to the existing mind links so that the 1.4B I paid for mining mindlink couple months back, wont be for nothing.
Just placing a relatively fixed price that low, and then having everything on par sounds unfair for people already owning them.
Such is Eve.
I just finished Marauders to 3 but I'm not going to start whining about getting my training back if the Marauder changes go in a direction I don't like.
As someone else pointed out, you've had that mining link for a month more than everyone else. Maybe it was worth it and maybe it wasn't but that's not really CCP's problem. If you couldn't afford it you wouldn't have bought it.
Harry Juana wrote:Will the rorq be able to tank 30 to 50 man (blops) gangs? Will it get some sort of a weapon like a doomsday to blow them up? And what am I supposed to do with my rorq on grid, even if it is cloaked, and a hot dropper decides to cloaky camp my system? let it die? stay on 24/7 untill the camper gets bored?
Will cloaking get nerfed, ehh rebalanced? After the blops rebalancing ppl get hot dropped every day without virtually nothing to counter the droppers as they cloak up and cyno out. You call this rebalancing ccp? Should we not at least get a fair chance to blow them up as well? Sure we can bait them but a good cyno will smell a trap xx jumps away.
I thought ccp had the intention to make mining in null sec more profitable and attractive to new players, seems they lied. Prices of megacyte and zydrine have never been this low for as far as I can remember. Low sec ores like hedbergite and hemorphite are still more profitable to mine than ABC-M. With rats still in the clusters (former hidden belts) I can not anti-gank fit my hulk and can get blown up by the first ganker that flies by. And even when I manage to warp out they probably will blow up my cans because they are upset that I got away. And now you want me to risk my rorq too? Where is the risk vs. reward in this? And how is this balanced?
Heck, i don't want to mine anymore already, which means I can close the accounts for my rorq and my mining alt. But I am sure ccp does not care about getting 30 of my euros less monthly either.
So, one you seem to be just a bit paranoid about covert-ops ships.
Cloaking is an ongoing discussion, this is not the thread for it.
Going back to your first points in no particular order:
- I doubt it will ever be able to tank enough that it's not gankable, that's not the point.
- I do suspect though that CCP will find a risk/reward balance that they feel is appropriate for it though. Whether or not this will mean you solo-boosting with your Rorqual is a good idea or not is another thing entirely. As a gang-boosting ship it's not really intended to be risk efficient for boosting a single miner.
|
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:19:00 -
[926] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think your concerns about the rorqual are valid, but bear in mind that ccp have no intention of disabling off-grid mining boosts, at least for now. I'd personally like to see a world where it was possible to mine with on-grid bonuses, but I think before that could possibly happen there would need to be a long hard look at cyno, covert cyno and bridging mechanics. They currently all make it far too easy to bring an overwhelming fleet with almost no warning or possibility of escape. Ironically, the only place I can see that a rorqual can be used on grid with a degree of certainty that it will come home is in a wormhole system (with appropriate scouts etc) since cynos and bridges do not happen there. It saddens me a little that the most use we ever gave our rorqual was salvaging C5 sleeper wrecks while the dreadnoughts were creating them. It was ludicrous! We also used it in pvp a little (the owner was a little nuts... )
Thank you for your response, it is nice to see that at least some1 is sharing my concerns somewhat. But tbh I would rather hear something form ccp themselves about this subject. That ccp has the intention to remove off-grid boosting for mining is reason enough for me to be worried about where this all will be going.
I would like to hear from ccp why off-grid mining boosting is wrong and why it needs to be rebalanced. The only reason I can think of is to provide the army of gankers and hot droppers with even more easy kills. Speaking of which, the reason that I have time to write this is because there are at least 3 cov op cynos (and just as many gangs) active in my neighbourhood right now. And without any effective measures to counter these gangs (rebalance this pls ccp) I have no choice other than to sit in my pos untill they get bored and go away. Did I mention that I am slowly losing interest in this game?
Without rebalancing blops gangs and giving us a way to counter these overpowered gangs there is nothing balanced about this game and on-grid mining boosting should be out of the question.
I think everything is fine and balanced enough as it is, mining has become just as dangerous as ratting. Now if the reward for mining would be the same as for ratting (risk vs. reward) then things would be really balanced :)
Here is my interpretation about what ccp means by rebalancing (at least for the carebear part of it): Make it harder for ppl to make isk while at the same time make it easier to kill ppl that are trying to make isk.
Oh hey, maybe I should reskill my alts for blops and join the ranks and just gank every carebear I see silly untill he cries and ragequits. Beats sitting in my pos for sure and is probably more profitable as well than mining with all the down time. Soon we can call this game gankers online, cloaky camping online, blops online or whatever. We should not forget that miners are the corner stone of eve, without them a simple frig wil cost +100mil or we will all be flying around in our rookie ships. Just my 2c. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:39:00 -
[927] - Quote
Harry Juana wrote:Thank you for your response, it is nice to see that at least some1 is sharing my concerns somewhat. But tbh I would rather hear something form ccp themselves about this subject. That ccp has the intention to remove off-grid boosting for mining is reason enough for me to be worried about where this all will be going.
I would like to hear from ccp why off-grid mining boosting is wrong and why it needs to be rebalanced. The only reason I can think of is to provide the army of gankers and hot droppers with even more easy kills. Speaking of which, the reason that I have time to write this is because there are at least 3 cov op cynos (and just as many gangs) active in my neighbourhood right now. And without any effective measures to counter these gangs (rebalance this pls ccp) I have no choice other than to sit in my pos untill they get bored and go away. Did I mention that I am slowly losing interest in this game?
Without rebalancing blops gangs and giving us a way to counter these overpowered gangs there is nothing balanced about this game and on-grid mining boosting should be out of the question.
I think everything is fine and balanced enough as it is, mining has become just as dangerous as ratting. Now if the reward for mining would be the same as for ratting (risk vs. reward) then things would be really balanced :)
Here is my interpretation about what ccp means by rebalancing (at least for the carebear part of it): Make it harder for ppl to make isk while at the same time make it easier to kill ppl that are trying to make isk.
Oh hey, maybe I should reskill my alts for blops and join the ranks and just gank every carebear I see silly untill he cries and ragequits. Beats sitting in my pos for sure and is probably more profitable as well than mining with all the down time. Soon we can call this game gankers online, cloaky camping online, blops online or whatever. We should not forget that miners are the corner stone of eve, without them a simple frig wil cost +100mil or we will all be flying around in our rookie ships. Just my 2c.
We are repeating things that CCP have said as to why boosts are being pushed on-grid. They are currently very high reward for little to no risk, whether that's mining or combat boosting and that's not what Eve is about.
If you want a counter to BLOPS gangs then I suggest finding friends who like to hunt such things or join up with a large null-sec group that's recruiting industrialists and will protect them (everyone likes when the bait is helping make your replacement ships after all). Alternatively you could find a wormhole corp to take you in, same principal, no hot-drops.
If you somehow feel that you should be able to, as a miner without using a combat ship, completely interdict an enemy force... well that's kind of unrealistic. They are working together to kill you and you should have to work together to kill them. This is not a solo-man's game.
If you want low risk for your reward then that's what High Sec space is for. |
Harry Juana
Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:48:00 -
[928] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:So, one you seem to be just a bit paranoid about covert-ops ships. Cloaking is an ongoing discussion, this is not the thread for it. Going back to your first points in no particular order:
- I doubt it will ever be able to tank enough that it's not gankable, that's not the point.
- I do suspect though that CCP will find a risk/reward balance that they feel is appropriate for it though. Whether or not this will mean you solo-boosting with your Rorqual is a good idea or not is another thing entirely. As a gang-boosting ship it's not really intended to be risk efficient for boosting a single miner.
First off, I am not paraoid about cloaking, I just think it needs to be rebalanced as well, which makes this the appropriate thread to post my concerns regarding on-grid mining boosting and the frequency of the now o so popular blops gangs. Second I am not a solo miner, I have hosted big mining fleets but numbers have been dropping lately beacuse of said cloaky camping, ganking. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
417
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:51:00 -
[929] - Quote
Mine in high sec for safety. Ore may not be worth as much but you won't have to jeopardize a rorq! You'll noticate that your profits won't change much if any. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 06:59:00 -
[930] - Quote
Harry Juana wrote: First off, I am not paraoid about cloaking, I just think it needs to be rebalanced as well, which makes this the appropriate thread to post my concerns regarding on-grid mining boosting and the frequency of the now o so popular blops gangs. Second I am not a solo miner, I have hosted big mining fleets but numbers have been dropping lately beacuse of said cloaky camping, ganking.
Sounds like your big mining fleet needs protection or to move to high-sec or wormhole space, away from such gangs.
Cloaking and stealth mechanics in general do not seem to be in for any spectacular change any time in the near term if ever. If CCP manage to come up with a good fix that leaves them still useful then they will probably implement it but over 2 years of complaints and player suggestions have not yielded anything so far. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |