For the best experience use full HD.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Off Grid Booster Lulz

Last week I read through several posts about off grid boosting. First there was Kirith Kodachi's. I think it was the word "rebuttal" that got me reading into this. I still haven't positively identified what he was rebutting but that's okay. Then there was Jester's take on it. That led me to Poetic Stanzel's and TeaDaze's posts on the subject.

As I'm a carebear, I didn't really understand at first what the big deal was. I've had opportunity to fly Sleeper PvE with a Damnation along. I have a personal appreciation for the boosts. They are nice. I certainly see why PvP pilots want them along in a fight. But after doing all the reading, Googling the topic and following Failheap Challenge threads, and Eve Forum threads and going all the way back to the CSM notes thread, it seems to me the issue falls squarely into the realm of lulz.

To put those lulz into perspective, I need to take you on a bit of a stroll down memory lane. There used to be this thing called Hulkageddon. Once a year for several years, l33t PvP pilots would purchase cheap million ISK ships. They would fly out on a mission of daring that required incredible courage and blow up 100 million ISK mining Exhumers.

Well, actually, their ships cost a little bit more than 1 million ISK. And they didn't always just shoot the expensive barges. This Catalyst actually cost 1.21 million ISK when it was popped by CONCORD after blowing up a Covetor in Renyn. I whored in on the kill mail. *grin* Back to the topic though. When the miners cried foul and said it was unfair for a million ISK ship (whose insurance would make up the loss) to one-shot a 100 million ISK ship, they were dismissively ignored. They were told to put on a tank, don't fly what you can't afford to loose, dock up or quit. They were told that's how Eve is and they should HTFU.

When other's would make fun of the gankers in return, they were subjected to in game harassment... I mean, they were located and taught some respect. Notice the use of six (6) million ISK ships used to kill the anti-Hulkageddon blogger. They certainly pulled out all the financial stops to make an example out of him didn't they?

This had gone on for years. On top of it all, the miners were mocked publicly and made fun of at every opportunity. Certainly some of these Eve players had questionable responses, but mostly it was a bunch of upset people who'd been trying to play the game their way and had some other people piss all over them virtually. Their anger was understandable. No one likes to be bullied, mocked and ridiculed.

In light of the five years of Hulkageddon and the effort to make it permanent, I just have to chuckle at the off grid booster debate. ZOMG! People use game mechanics to gain an advantage in Eve Online. Who knew!?

To bad off grid boosting takes far more skills than Hulkageddon griefing. Perhaps carebears could get it back on their tormentors of old, posting all the juicy tears on a blog and making fun of them. Alas, carebear's have no desire to make fun of other's like that. Those types of lulz rate really low in gross profit calculations.

Eventually (and recently) CCP ended the days of the million ISK PvP ship blowing up the 100 million ISK mining ship for lulz. Now those l33t PvP pilots have to fly 100 million ISK Tornados to do it, and that's not even a guaranteed alpha kill. So don't worry about off grid boosting. CCP will eventually address your concerns - hopefully before several years go by. Until then, I'll just quote Pierat from one of the links above,
"Oh and HTFU people. This is EVE. EVE is not a nice place."
Fly Careful


  1. The point, Mabrick, is that boosting is broke, or at least it certainly doesn't make much sense. Sure, folks are using the existing mechanic. But what if that mechanic is poorly designed? Does it make sense for a ship which can give so many nice effects to not be on grid and able to be shot at?

    Boosting, itself, I have no problem with. Having a booster off grid, safe inside a POS shield, that I have a problem with.

    1. And Mabrick has a problem with people getting killed with 1 million isk ships.

      But ccp hasn't removed that from the game.

    2. I don't disagree that pilots are using design weaknesses in boosting mechanics to gain an advantage. It might even be an unfair advantage. May I suggest you just dock up when you are subjected to it. Then they won't be able to mistreat you and your buddies. *wink*

    3. Boosting is not broken. In fact, it's operating within the current game mechanics, as designed by CCP. There is no way to 'fix' boosting without causing a myriad of other problems (read jesters blog if you really care to know).

      I agree with Mabrick on the view of 'off grid booster lulz'. If, tomorrow CCP made a change to the boosting mechanics,where that boosters had to be on grid in order for the bonuses to be applied...what would change? Absolutely nothing. Ships would get killed. Blobs would get bigger, and people would find something else to complain about.

      CCP needs to work on bigger issues besides off-grid boosting. Tech 2 production (tech moon foolishness), promotion of more small scale combat, Less Titan proliferation, PvE content, ATTRACTING NEW PLAYERS, Black Ops buff, Sovereignty (yes, I mean actually living in systems to be able to claim sov), and several more which I don't care to mention. These issues are far more important than off-grid boosting.

    4. "There is no way to 'fix' boosting without causing a myriad of other problems (read jesters blog if you really care to know). "

      1. Proving a negative is logically impossible.

      2. In point of fact, I mentioned a way to fix boosting without causing a myriad of other problems in the comments to Jester's blog, and no one objected to it. Therefore, it must be right, because Jester's blog is the final authority on EVE--if you really want to know.

      3. Lulz.

    5. The point, Heretick, is that Hulk ganking is broke, or at least it certainly doesn't make much sense. Sure, folks are using the existing mechanic. But what if that mechanic is poorly designed? Does it make sense for a ship which costs sol little to be able to take down a 100M ISK ship in just one or two shots?

      Hulk ganking, itself, I have no problem with. Having a ganker in a worthless ship, easly kill a very expensive ship, that I have a problem with.

      (Wow... the logic really does work both ways...)

    6. Tur, I am completely amazed where you got the idea that I thought being able to gank a hulk using a cheap destroyer was well thought-out. Please, do show me the passage where I said that.

      I've been wargaming for over 30 years and I've seen and used lots of gamey tactics for my own benefit. Almost without exception, these poorly designed mechanics are bad for the game (whichever game one is playing) as a whole. I also understand the trade-off between playability and realism and that sometimes kludges get created to make a system work, but inevitably, those kludges create their own set of issues.

      It should be the objective of game design to eliminate kludges (and other badly functioning mechanics).

      The argument that Issue A is more important to fix and that therefore Issue X cannot be fixed is an incredibly poor one. It also supposes that anyone asking for Issue X to be fixed is asking for it to be fixed Right Now, and screw proper triage. And that's a false assumption.

  2. 1. Proving a negative is not a logical impossibility. It happens everyday, and for academic exercises, 'negatives' are proven in science and mathematics consistently.

    2. I reviewed Jester's post on boosting, and oddly enough I didn't find a reply with the name 'Kurt'.

    2a. Jesters blog is not the final authority on EVE, neither is Mabrick, K162space, Sand and Cider, Penny from Tiger Ears, or any of the other EVE bloggers. However, most of these bloggers offer logical (albeit 'seasoned to taste' in some occasions) views on EVE activities and current states of affairs, along with their daily (or so) experiences in the game.

    That is all.

  3. Now, more to the overall point...

    "Unbalanced" does not equal "Broken". Period.

    I don't know about any of you but;
    I can log on just fine...
    I can log off just fine...
    I can fly any ship I have the skills for just fine...
    I can use any mod I have the skills for just fine...
    I can DO everything the game mechanics allow and are designed for, (and a few things the DEVS dint intend...) all just fine.

    EVE IS NOT "BROKE"... What it IS however is NOT FAIR... by design.

    Show me the section, paragraph or line in the EULA and/or Rules and Policies where "only 'fair' PvP will be allowed in EVE Online"... and if such a line exists (and once we ALL agree on a definition of "Fair"...) then I will eat your effin scummy tighty whities... in public... but you can't so HTFU.

    And don't think you can go all Interweb Lawyer on me and say anything about 'unfair' exploits... CCP already covered that:

    Line 23.

    Section 1-f.
    Section 3-b.

    This post is obviously about EVE mechanic balance not exploits.

    God I do so love a good logical rant ervy now an again! =]


Be civil, be responsible and most of all be kind. I will not tolerate poor form. There will be no James Hooks here. We are all better than that.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.