Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
16 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[proposal] limit gang links to a single grid

First post
Author
#1 - 2011-09-14 22:09:47 UTC
Gang links should only apply to the grid where they are active.

Off-grid gang links these days are pretty popular with "solo" players and small groups that operate in a single solar system. I believe that if a pilot and ship are affecting your on-grid combat, they should be on-grid with you so that there is a chance to eliminate the force multiplier. This is already the case with every other ship and module that affects combat unless you count assigned fighters -- and in that case you can destroy the fighters to eliminate their effect.

I have no problem with gang links in general as I've been the beneficiary probably more often than the victim, but someone ought to be at the helm and the ship ought to be vulnerable to counterattack.

Likely the main detractors will say that since a gang linked ship has to be uncloaked to provide bonuses it is vulnerable -- but this isn't true if the ship is at a POS.
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-09-14 22:30:28 UTC
I agree with this. Another role where you can be completely immune in PvP combat and yet still effect the outcome of a battle. Not really a good thing.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

The Bastard Cartel
#3 - 2011-09-14 23:39:41 UTC

I agree with this in principle.

However, given the current fleet bonus' mechanics, I'm pretty sure its not possible to limit fleet booster effects to ongrid without completely revamping the fleet boosting system.
#4 - 2011-09-14 23:44:26 UTC
+1

While the current system of off-grid boosting isn't as easy since unscannable ships were eliminated (unless you're boosting with a neutral in highsec or hiding it in a POS), It would make a lot of sense to require the boosting ships to be on-grid and actively involved in the battle.

This would also force mining boosters to be on-site for the mining, creating higher risk to go along with the higher reward.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

#5 - 2011-09-14 23:45:33 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I agree with this in principle.

However, given the current fleet bonus' mechanics, I'm pretty sure its not possible to limit fleet booster effects to ongrid without completely revamping the fleet boosting system.

Why? The current system is limited to the solar system the booster is in, I don't see why it couldn't be reduced further to only be for those ships it can see on grid.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

#6 - 2011-09-14 23:46:14 UTC
Your proposal is based on a false premise. Namely that off grid ganglinks are immune to attack. Back when it was possible to make a ship unprobable, it was broken as they had no risk beyond spies in fleet. Now however, they can be probed just like everything else. There is nothing stopping you from probing and killing them other than your own ineptitude. Some people do put them inside POS's and although that blocks attacking the booster ship, you can always go kill the POS instead. It probably costs more anyways tbh.Blink

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

#7 - 2011-09-14 23:47:58 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

However, given the current fleet bonus' mechanics, I'm pretty sure its not possible to limit fleet booster effects to ongrid without completely revamping the fleet boosting system.


I appreciate that comment, but I think we should leave it to CCP to decide what is difficult because they're the guys writing the code. If they say it's impossible or would take months of work for a potentially small benefit, then I'm content to let them work on something else.
#8 - 2011-09-15 00:00:19 UTC
King Rothgar wrote:
Your proposal is based on a false premise. Namely that off grid ganglinks are immune to attack. Back when it was possible to make a ship unprobable, it was broken as they had no risk beyond spies in fleet. Now however, they can be probed just like everything else. There is nothing stopping you from probing and killing them other than your own ineptitude. Some people do put them inside POS's and although that blocks attacking the booster ship, you can always go kill the POS instead. It probably costs more anyways tbh.Blink


Actually, I haven't based my proposal on that premise at all. I've based the proposal on the premise that off-grid assets shouldn't influence on-grid fights. Anything that influences a fight on a grid should be on that grid.

And honestly, "you can go kill the POS" is a kind of silly response as you can't just go shoot the POS and stop the ship with links -- you would have to go through the whole process of reinforcing it, then coming back later to finish it off. You've not stopped what I consider to be the problem, you've merely prevented it from happening in the future.

I expect the likely outcome would be that people would still use gang links this way, but that they'd be out at 300 km from whatever fight they are influencing. But at least you'd know that your fight was being directly impacted by links.
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-09-15 00:15:40 UTC
I agree as well with the idea of limiting the range of gang links. Especially in respect to mining. I've been in 0.0 before and I have seen plenty of players park their Rorqual/Orca alts in the safety of a POS while other mine (reaping the bonuses). Not much risk there compared to the rewards of mining.

Adapt or Die

Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2011-09-15 02:31:38 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
rewards of mining.


What rewards?
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2011-09-15 02:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
fleet fights would always start with "primary the claymore/vulture/damnation" and the whole point of fleet bonuses would vanish into thin air

(fleet fights usually have command ships on grid though v0v)

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2011-09-15 02:44:00 UTC
but I do believe that fleet boosters should not be in NPC corps

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2011-09-15 02:50:33 UTC
also do people actually fly the eos because lol

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-09-15 04:21:28 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Henry Haphorn wrote:
rewards of mining.


What rewards?


Mining in nullsec? The reward of mining 6 jetcans of ore per hour (minimum) with a dedicated hauler alt going between Hulk(s) and Rorqual.

Adapt or Die

Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-09-15 06:24:23 UTC
Im not sure if the reason it is this way is because ccp dont want to have deal with fixing broken grids.

#16 - 2011-09-15 08:27:46 UTC
maybe introducing module that prevents non-grid bonuses to apply? kind of communication countermeasures.
#17 - 2011-09-15 09:13:24 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
I agree as well with the idea of limiting the range of gang links. Especially in respect to mining. I've been in 0.0 before and I have seen plenty of players park their Rorqual/Orca alts in the safety of a POS while other mine (reaping the bonuses). Not much risk there compared to the rewards of mining.



With reward you talking about, reward its none almost spend time and noting els ;( dis days mining is worst profesion in eve, max wath you can ern per hour is 25 milj mining arkonor bistot, so tell me how the poor miner with such income will genareta back his lost rork how much hours its takes to mine so much minerals back to replace it with all fiting.
I not talking that evrage income per hour its verry poor that is 11 milj per hour with one hulk by perfect boosting, by mining randome ores. so for rorqual need to mine around 181 hours with one hulk. So look numbers and befor posting somting calcualte how that guy will ern back that money and if there is eny good reward at all.

This days ppl mining not for money eny more:
1, they minign for fun - to rest from hard work day.
2. they minign thatthey like to mine and chill in chats and voice.

If wie wish keep 0.0 mining att al in eve wie ned to create buble around hiden belts that one shjip with guns cant warp in it, that comes out form current mining incomes.
#18 - 2011-09-15 09:41:33 UTC
The above post melted my brain.

However, if you do that then people will just get better at gridfu, and put the booster at a pos anyway. You will see them in their WTF grid sitting at 100,000km from your fight, and the grid will earn its name again.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

The Initiative.
#19 - 2011-09-15 09:55:39 UTC
paritybit wrote:
Gang links should only apply to the grid where they are active.

Off-grid gang links these days are pretty popular with "solo" players and small groups that operate in a single solar system. I believe that if a pilot and ship are affecting your on-grid combat, they should be on-grid with you so that there is a chance to eliminate the force multiplier. This is already the case with every other ship and module that affects combat unless you count assigned fighters -- and in that case you can destroy the fighters to eliminate their effect.

I have no problem with gang links in general as I've been the beneficiary probably more often than the victim, but someone ought to be at the helm and the ship ought to be vulnerable to counterattack.

Likely the main detractors will say that since a gang linked ship has to be uncloaked to provide bonuses it is vulnerable -- but this isn't true if the ship is at a POS.



This means that the whole fleet has to stay together in the system. Eg: you cant have the heavy ships shooting a POS and the lights camping the in gate.

Also, the Fleet Command ships will need to be reworked to be able to have buffer tanks comporable to the Damnation; the Eos and the Claymore will need to lose their lolrep bonuses in favour of some kind of EHP boost. Shield tanking Fleet Commands may also need their slot layout revising, as the Command Processors replace tanking mids.

Being required to be on grid would make T3 gangboosters effectively useless.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-09-15 12:45:36 UTC
supported, currently with T3 ships, gang links mean very low maintnence, almost risk free alts and don't bring anything to the game beside spreadsheet statistics, it's not just about the POS, it's also about being almost unprobable
16 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump