Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Mining ships? What? Surely you jest or are just not caught up with what has left to be balanced. Besides, nobody said anything about Command Ships coming "at the same time." What I did quote was that the first T2 in the line, as stated, are Command Ships. So yes, once T1 hulls are done--and there are only T2 ships left to rebalance, that does mean that CSs are next, because, as I quoted, CCP Ytterbium expressly stated that. The confusion is that Fozzie seemed to imply that Command Ships were much farther down the "roadmap" than Ytterbium expressed. In actuality, anything farther than first on the T2 list conflicts with what we were told in the past. I hope it's not "old CCP" rearing its head again...

If you keep misusing that phrase so badly, it will lose all meaning.

"CCP only rebalanced or added 40 ships this expansion, let's shoot the monument!"

Glad to hear this is still a priority.

But if this ends up being pushed out to sometime after the end of time, I will call you out on it.

Maybe just give it a long cycle time of 24 seconds. Everyone in fleet within 100k gets the boost for the 24 seconds. If you are not in range during the next cycle no boost for 24 seconds.

Or just delete all these bonuses every 3rd week of the month. No need to tell players, just blame it on the sansha.

Fozzie, you're assuming the angry players need an excuse to shoot something.

Where is the sacrifice then? The whole point of making links so hard to fit is to force a choice and to justify the over-the-top bonuses they provide ...

But judging from you description, the problem might as well be that the fleet mechanics do not allow for a sufficiently fluid boost system where multiple hulls might contribute rather than "The One" .. if each squad/wing could have multiple boosters then the tank problem goes byebye .. instead of you ship with six links you could have 3-4 fully armed and armoured ships all contributing with boosts.

---

Gotta say, the idea of axing links (boggles mind that it comes from a Heretic ) in their entirety is looking better and better .. they do provide an abnormally high benefit for comparatively zero cost. Quite amazing that they have existed for as long as they have given the ISK/Time cost to get a fraction of the boost they provide through skills, modules or implants .. out-of-whack doesn't even come close when talking cost/benefit of links, and that is before nigh infinite scaling is taken into account

Remove them completely (almost);
- Only Titan's can boost entire system but not from within a forceshield and maybe with some other detrimental effects applied such as links sharing DD timer or something. Note: Titan's like all capitals are born with link capability!.
- CC/T3 can get a hefty increase in sensor strengths (lock #, res, range, sensors) and provide their links directly/automatically to locked, fleeted targets. Might require some additional targeting code so that one can 'grey out' a locked item to prevent shooting it by 'accident'.
- Increase mobility/tank of link hulls so they can follow ships one size down around (ie. Cruisers/HACs) or introduce links to a lighter hull (ex. AF's, *new* T2 Dessie etc.)
- Linkship itself always gets full benefit of all modules running.
- Optional (Blob vs Solo mechanic): Divide the bonus between client ships + skill based modifier (ie. if five are locked by an all V character they each get 20% + 10-25% of the bonus). Even with 10 sharing the bonus will still be equal to or greater than and extra skill level or a faction mod.

Makes them on-grid and vulnerable to everything there. Goes a long way towards balancing the cost/benefit ratio. Blob vs. ~Elite~ PvP'er debate is killed in the cradle as one is better off with smaller crews. With the promised CC buffs and lowering of skill reqs there should be more than enough pilots/ships to pick up the slack.

We don't actually need a reason for that you know, it can be done based on any perceived slight .. just easier to rile people up if one can point to some official tomfoolery

No, because your suggestion has no relation to how fleet boosting is actually used.

I had made a post about this a few weeks ago. Since this one has a Dev Tag, I'll post it here too.

"According to old CSM notes and several blogs, it looks like we are not going to see boosters on the field any time soon. Although I have nothing against them, it makes people to get multiple accounts to stay competetive, which is a bad game design.

Furthermore, I believe current gang link distribution is too much in the favor of Matari links. I think the gang link bonuses themselves should be reshuffled to reflect racial doctrines.

So here is what I propose. I'll begin with ganglink modules. The values I'm listing are base values for t2 versions of modules

Amarr
Imperial Doctrine - Passive Defense - Armor Resists +%2
Imperial Doctrine - Parasitic Channel - Neutralizer/Nos Amount +%2.5
Imperial Doctrine - Flux Field - Cap Recharge -%2.5

Caldari
Superiority Process - Shield Harmonizing - Shield Resists +%2
Superiority Process - Electronic Superiority - EWAR range (ECM, TD, Damp, Paint), EWAR Str +%1.5
Superiority Process - Sensor Integrity - Sensor Str +%3.75

Gallente
Forced Engagement - Repair Efficiency - Armor Rep Amount +%2.5(local and remote)
Forced Engagement - Interdiction Maneuvers - Point Range +%2.5
Forced Engagement - Inertial Compensation - Agility +%2.5

Minmatar
Skirmish Warfare - Shield Efficiency - Shield Rep Amount +%2.5(local and remote)
Skirmish Warfare - Stasis Extension - Web Range +%2.5
Skirmish Warfare - Evasive Maneuvers - Signature Reduction -%2.5 OR Rapid Deployment - MWD/AB speed +%2

Web range is minmatar recon bonus, whereas point range is gallente. I believe they should be seperated.
I'm still undecided about speed bonus vs signature reduction. IMO they shouldn't exist together.

Mindlink Efficiency should be reduced to %25, and should apply to all links. Having specific booster clones is....not cool..

Specialization can be made at T2 Field Command BC's. 10% per level efficiency to racial specific doctrine puts them in today's t3 link levels.

T3's are generalisation ships and they should get %3 per level bonus to all

This way the multipliers at lvl5 skills become (without/with mindlink)

T1 BC's 7.5 / 9.375
T2 Field Command BC's (non-racial - racial) 7.5 / 9.375 - 11.25 / 14.06(<-This value is what a t3 booster today gets)
T3 Warfare Procs = 8.6 / 10.78

As a final touch, the boosting amount should be variable by its hierarchial level.

Squad Booster gives full boost
Wing Booster gives 75% boost
Fleet Booster gives 50% boost

This way, when making your squads you should choose which boost goes where carefully. One ship to boost them all shouldn't work.

/me puts on flame/troll slime retardant suit.

Flame on."

Even if the coding problem were fixed tomorrow, links would still be in an awful state, a) because they're absolute crap from a gameplay perspective, and b) the sheer magnitude of mindlinked (nerf mindlinks!) bonuses eclipses pretty much everything else. Skirmish links stand out as the most egregious right now because of the supremacy of speed and the limits imposed on combat by tackle range, but siege/armor links are nearly as bad in many respects. 40% more tank and doubled RR effectiveness can be effectively insurmountable in small-to-midscale fights.

Or just make boosting an active role instead of a passive aoe buff.

Yeah, what will all the terrible PvPers do that have to rely on the advantage OGB gives them to have a remote chance at winning against anyone but newbs?