hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Moar Link (and Logi) Changes

  1. #1
    Davion Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 7, 2011
    Posts
    1,534

    Moar Link (and Logi) Changes

    Now for everyones favourite topic: Links.

    Not sure how possible these are, but here we go:

    1) Link pilots inherit a LE timer from a fleetmate (who is actively receiving link bonuses) who engages a target.
    2) Link pilots inherit a weapons timer from a fleetmate (who is actively receiving link bonuses) who engages a target.
    3) Link and Logi pilots, if they boosted or repped a friendly on a killmail, are credited on killmails.

    I've bounced this idea off several people people (true solo, linked solo and small gang pilots) and I've received mostly positive feedback from. The one negative point is "solo" linked pilots will no longer show up as solo, nor will "solo" pilots who cloak an osprey/augorer in a medium plex, thus slapping some inner childs.

    Thoughts?
    "We need less dakka dakka!" -No one. Ever.

  2. #2
    Marlona Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    7,420
    I don't know. I just hate how links raise the bar on what is needed to be competitive. I wish the role of a 'booster' was more fulfilling to fly or something without being as devastating to a gang without links as they are now. I mean sure; I am for your suggestions, but I just want more than what is possible right now. vOv

  3. #3

    Join Date
    January 26, 2013
    Posts
    429
    Aggression is the very least of what link ships need to inherit. However, it alone is not really going to do much except lead to a slightly higher occurrence of link ships being destroyed. I suppose having link ships on killmails will hurt a few egos, but I doubt it will effect any actual change.

    I wish the role of a 'booster' was more fulfilling to fly or something without being as devastating to a gang without links as they are now.
    Buff dispenser (especially AoE buff dispenser) is not going to be a fulfilling role in PVP because it isn't really a combat role. And independent of that, making links less devastating is a straight forward matter of decreasing the magnitude of the benefits.

  4. #4
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    I've always thought that the difference between fleet ships and solo ships should be determined by what you have in your highslots. Basically let anyone with an active link contribute that link's boost to the fleet. Instead of it being a role, let it be a job that half the fleet can be involved in.

  5. #5
    Yankunytjatjara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    A short time ago I proposed the very same, here's the discussion that followed: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?t=12015
    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude!
    Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors

  6. #6
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    I'm going to go ahead and throw a silly idea out. What if links were not simply "Hey you're in my gang you get my bonus!", but needed a master/slave setup? Change the current warfare links to "Warfare command" modules, and add highslot warfare link modules that can be fitted to any ship. Ships without a warfare link module don't receive link bonuses from command modules. Now you have to make a choice in fitting between a link or some other utility highslot mod.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  7. #7
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    I'm going to go ahead and throw a silly idea out. What if links were not simply "Hey you're in my gang you get my bonus!", but needed a master/slave setup? Change the current warfare links to "Warfare command" modules, and add highslot warfare link modules that can be fitted to any ship. Ships without a warfare link module don't receive link bonuses from command modules. Now you have to make a choice in fitting between a link or some other utility highslot mod.

    -O
    But you're penalizing ships that don't have a utility high such as gunboats. Abaddon and Zealot for example.

  8. #8
    HEY LOOK AT ME I HAVE A TITAN LordsServant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 3, 2011
    Location
    [VENIO]
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    I'm going to go ahead and throw a silly idea out. What if links were not simply "Hey you're in my gang you get my bonus!", but needed a master/slave setup? Change the current warfare links to "Warfare command" modules, and add highslot warfare link modules that can be fitted to any ship. Ships without a warfare link module don't receive link bonuses from command modules. Now you have to make a choice in fitting between a link or some other utility highslot mod.

    -O
    But you're penalizing ships that don't have a utility high such as gunboats. Abaddon and Zealot for example.
    Rig Slot.

    No more lolrofltanked supers without losing some ehp with a bonus rig. Same with massive ehp fleet ships, etc etc.

    So basically a stealth nerf to link stats, but without nerfing links themselves.

    Eh?
    It's 2019. Get a grip.

  9. #9
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Rig slots could work too, I think this is something that would need some careful playtesting and theorycrafting. The general idea though is to make links require a fitting choice of some sort to receive the bonuses, rather than just passively receiving the bonuses because one guy has the right modules fitted.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  10. #10
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    Not object to that idea TBH. So long as links stop being so centered around battlecruisers I think they can become fitting choices instead of a dull skill-less 'role'.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    January 26, 2013
    Posts
    429
    So long as links stop being so centered around battlecruisers I think they can become fitting choices instead of a dull skill-less 'role'.
    Does this mean frigate gangs can finally get links without needing to haul around a boat anchor?

    --

    Adding a link receiver mod/rig isn't a bad idea itself, but doesn't do much about the very strong incentive to run your links on a link alt rather than a combat main. You can get your favorite flavour of siege/armor links + skirmish on a single ship without needing to waste the attention of a human being. Plus it means there's relatively little meaningful choice.

    I (think I) agree with Cue, that links should be decoupled from BC/T3 hulls and made a regular utility high/midslot/rig/whatever (and axe command processors). Just accept that it's an ancillary function at best and force people to choose what links they want in fleet rather just taking everything relevant because there's no reason not to.
    Last edited by Milton Middleson; March 22 2014 at 06:12:12 AM.

  12. #12
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Milton Middleson View Post
    So long as links stop being so centered around battlecruisers I think they can become fitting choices instead of a dull skill-less 'role'.
    Does this mean frigate gangs can finally get links without needing to haul around a boat anchor?

    --

    Adding a link receiver mod/rig isn't a bad idea itself, but doesn't do much about the very strong incentive to run your links on a link alt rather than a combat main. You can get your favorite flavour of siege/armor links + skirmish on a single ship without needing to waste the attention of a human being. Plus it means there's relatively little meaningful choice.

    I (think I) agree with Cue, that links should be decoupled from BC/T3 hulls and made a regular utility high/midslot/rig/whatever (and axe command processors). Just accept that it's an ancillary function at best and force people to choose what links they want in fleet rather just taking everything relevant because there's no reason not to.
    Frigate gangs not needing a T3 who moves slower than the frigates is one reason, another is that I think it's absolutely stupid that you HAVE to have a BC/T3 hull to bring boosts. Combining the two ideas actually would be fine by me, and poses an interesting situation, I just don't think it should be a rig slot, since you can't swap your ship fit around to use boosts if it's a rig slot. Maybe do like ECCM does and have both a midslot and a lowslot module that does the same thing, no benefit if you have both though. That way armor and shield tankers can make use of it without it being an extremely hard to make choice.

  13. #13
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    I've always thought that the difference between fleet ships and solo ships should be determined by what you have in your highslots. Basically let anyone with an active link contribute that link's boost to the fleet. Instead of it being a role, let it be a job that half the fleet can be involved in.
    You thought it was.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •