August 4 2012, 04:07:13 PM
While I technically agree that no T3 should provide a bigger bonus than its T2 counterpart, to achieve that, a T3 sacrifices so much that it is little more than a paper plane with links.
Originally Posted by Vehlin
August 4 2012, 04:16:18 PM
I also think it's more bad than good. Not only does it make running small gangs against larger fleets difficult but it makes fleet flights more precarious.
Originally Posted by Eshnala
The moment one side loses their 25%-40% buffs it will dramatically alter the tempo of the fleet fight into a cascading loss.
August 4 2012, 04:18:55 PM
Doesn't this mystical smaller fleet vs larger fleet paradigm always assume the larger fleet doesn't also have links? Why wouldn't they?
August 4 2012, 04:34:43 PM
People aren't using the T3 Link setups the way they were designed, they're stuffing them full of command processors which is why they're like paper. A link T3 with 1 link can be properly fit .
August 4 2012, 04:42:35 PM
Hmmm, idea. Leave everything as-is but remove command processors? That way CS retain 3 links while T3 can only fit one link with a slightly better bonus over CS. Gives both ships a role rather than just simply making one better than the other.
August 4 2012, 04:49:29 PM
Would probably need to refund the Warfare Link Specialist 5 training.
TBH at this point I'm really not against just boosting the raw power of all local rep modules if you remove easy multi-link BCs or T3s. People say local active tanks are most used in PvE, and more free tank would make everyone steamroll rats via fitting more dps, but afaik the best PvE is with RR anyway. Then you're just left with everyone having stronger local tanks if they choose to fit active vs buffer, instead of just people with T3 alts.
If only someone could say how many fights are true 1v1s vs few v few, or 1 v blob (not just those that end in killmails), so we'd have some idea how many would be inconvenienced by running into un-solo-able tanks if they did become popular over buffer fits.
Oh wait, ASBs need fixing first. :V
Last edited by Daneel Trevize; August 4 2012 at 04:53:16 PM.
August 4 2012, 04:50:31 PM
Works for me, I'd also like to see a 5% bonus given to Field CS too so they have a reason to fit a link as their role is rather weird atm.
Originally Posted by Mortalitis
August 4 2012, 04:58:43 PM
As we are again at a point where we're throwing retarded ideas around, i want to fit in and bring my retarded idea for links:
Make the effectivness related to the amount of ppl in local/in fleet.
10 ppl in fleet. 10 reds/neutrals in local. Links in 10-man fleet give 15%
10 ppl in fleet. 100 reds/neutrals in local. Links in 10-man fleet give now 30%
Other way around:
100ppl in fleet (or 10ppl in fleet, 90 blues docked), 10 reds/neutrals in local. Links in 100-man (or 10-man fleet of the 90 blues docked) fleet give 7.5%
Those % are completly guessed and have nothing to do with the usual % those links give because i have no clue how much they actually give at the moment.
What this would do:
A small fleet fighting in a mostly hostile system gets an bigger advantage through links than the hostile. So yes, a small organized fleet, which visits someones home-system with hundreds of docked carebear will get an advantage, even if the carebears manage to form a fleet with same numbers. The carebears fleet will only get 7.5% while the attacker gets 30%.
So, might this be a good idea? I don't know.
Oh, and change bonus of CS with T3.
August 4 2012, 05:40:50 PM
Quite a few of the ideas have been sensible and reasonably (for FHC) well thought out.
Originally Posted by Cortess
Off grid boosting needs to go away it just fuels the alt game and those with hone advantage that can park a booster in a pos.
The whole small vs large thing is being looked at the wrong way. In a small gang you want a ship that can boost while DPSing in a large gang you can afford to give up DPS for a Fleet CS. However imo if you've got more than 3 Logis in your fleet then a Fleet CS makes sense. Off grid boosters are worse for a small gang as they can't spare anyone to hunt for the enemy ones.
You fly with a booster when the numbers you're bringing make sense, in a 10 man fleet you bring a T3/BC/Field CS, in a 20+ fleet you bring a Fleet CS. The fact you can boost with an AFK alt breaks this dynamic
August 4 2012, 05:52:55 PM
I spent months training CS5, Warfare Link Specialist 5, Fleet Command 5 and all the link skills to 5 so I could very fill the role I wanted to play, I REALLY dislike this role being hijacked by AFK alts.
Choosing the right ship for the job has always been important, when I was in Razor I flew a Damnation most of the time, in WHs I fly an Abso as the gang size is smaller. Just using an unprobable T3 alt for everything is a bad bit of game design.
August 4 2012, 06:38:19 PM
I personally think there has been too much power creep once T2 links were introduced. I would rather see fleet CS keep their 3% and have T3s get 2% or 3% and no command processors or SOMETHING. But an overall nerf to the effect of links would be a good thing in my book. Looking at all the numbers I think max skilled 3% fleet command ships are in a pretty nice place balance wise. Just nerf those T3s.
Originally Posted by Cortess
Aside from the caveat above regarding magnitude I also wouldn't mind seeing field CS gain a bonus to link effectiveness.
Originally Posted by Vehlin
Last edited by Rynnik; August 4 2012 at 06:43:16 PM.
August 4 2012, 11:51:57 PM
Funny, I distinctly remember quite a few david vs goliath situations well before T3 links went all FOTM, and even T2 3 Link CS's were a rarity. There will always be strength in numbers, and almost any game change that can be conceived will somehow "benefit the blob". So this argument is getting a bit repetitive. If anything, it's a true boost to proper solo players. Eve=losing ships. The trick is to do it slower than the people you're up against.
Originally Posted by inora aknaria
August 5 2012, 12:02:02 AM
Unless explicitly penalized, there is no way to change PVP mechanics to benefit small gangs without, in turn, creating a benefit for large gangs, sans stat modifiers that are irrelevant in the face of overwhelming alpha.
August 5 2012, 12:27:17 AM
Having a links alt requires some preperation and proper gang design. So, when I go to see the big 0.0 blobs, they obviously have the big numbers but they're all over the place, bringing whatever they want, no links, probably no unified fleet doctrine whatsoever.
Originally Posted by Nartek
So while technically, you're right, the reality is that T3 links are overall very helpful in fighting the blob, because blobs just don't tend to use them because they're bad.
August 5 2012, 01:17:34 AM
This, unless its a planned cta or so in which case both sides have it negating the benefit.
Originally Posted by Smuggo
I really don't see the what the big deal is v0v
August 5 2012, 09:35:30 AM
You're saying this like it's a bad thing, it adds more valuable targets to the field and there's more decisions to make. Do we kill tackle first? Do we kill the Recons first? Do we kill the DPS first? Do we take out their Command ship first?
Originally Posted by munen
If you don't like the idea of having all your command links on one boat then spread them out between the BC's/T3's in your fleet.
August 5 2012, 09:37:01 AM
Also, the argument that small gangs bring T3's because they're l33t and blobs don't bring T3's because they're bads is pretty stupid. The skill level of EVE players should have absolutely no bearing on game-play changes, it's something you can't quantify.
August 5 2012, 10:18:38 AM
Its not about small gangs beeing pros and large 0.0 blobs beeing noobs. In a small group of dedicated pvp'ers you naturaly have the desire to make your fleet as effective as possible while looking as engageable as possible, wich results in links/special fleet comps/etc. Large 0.0 fleets mostly dont focus that much on those things as their effectiveness comes with their numbers, they either just dont think they need it or are too lazy to bring them (everyone wants to fly a dmg ship, few people want to dualbox etc).
It mostly comes down to motivation in the end i think.
August 5 2012, 10:23:23 AM
I'd be interested in hearing an argument to keep off-grid links that doesn't mention the use of alts or a skill differential between small gangs and blobs.
August 5 2012, 10:27:55 AM
Try doing that in a 10 man skirmish fleet with a claymore...it will die very quick undless you make half your fleet logis.
Originally Posted by Vehlin
Tbh i dont understand you problem with having alts in a fleet. If they change links so that they only work ongrid then you will just have an alt in a perma-mwd-claymore with all speed mods who just dicks around on the edge of the grid. That is more risky then the unprobable t3 on a save, but it wont prevent people from using alts.
Originally Posted by Resi
Giving fleetbonuses is a booring job with requires nothing of you then just sitting around trying not to die and maybe whoring on killmails, the whole concept of it is prime to be done by an alt. If you want to change that, change the link mechanics so you actively have to do something or so.
An damnation in a armor fleet is in a lot of cases an alt, because it can just sit there and i bet in most large shield fleets its gona be the same with vultures.
In fleets where movement is no big deal you can easily put an alt into a fleet CS and just sit around, but as soon as you have to do a lot of manual piloting and where every fleetmember counts, then CS are beginning to be needed activly piloted (read: not an alt). Wich in the end again sort of hurts small scale pvp.
Last edited by Eshnala; August 5 2012 at 10:36:46 AM.