EVE General Discussion

I am happy with putting links on KM, would be happier still with having logi on them as well.

I play with alts as I like the extra pressure of doing multiple things at once, but I rarely play solo. My corp members all have alts for various functions, indie, links, scouts etc. It gives the game more depth to me, would hate having to wait to train one character to do all those functions and even then you couldn't multi-task the functions.

Ok, forgive me but at this point I'm not really sure if you just don't get links or if you're trolling. I'll try again: Links affect small scale pvp more than large fleet pvp because of three simple reasons:

1. Tank to dps ratio: The smaller the gang the higher is the potential tanking boost relative to accumulated dps. That's simple math speaking for itself.

2. Positioning tactics: Small gangs/solo pilots rely on them to make up for their lesser accumulated tank and ehp. Skirmish links heavily mess with these. Manual piloting kiting proness often can't safe you from 16km webs on top of superior speed and agility.

3. Availability of ressources. The larger the gang the more likely it is that at least one fleet member has an ogb available. Availability of ressources also further penalizes guerilla warfare against larger groups in their home systems on top of fighting heavily outnumbered.

Not only will the larger entities have better (command ship) links they will also more likely be able to keep the attackers from running theirs due to an increased availability of dedicated probers -or to intercept/decloak them at gates entering the system even. This advantage of stationary links in well defended home systems compared to the hassle of carrying around an inferior boosting t3 also favors stationary pvp compared to dynamic roaming.

While 2. may be countered by the smaller gang running skirmish links aswell the combination of 1.2. and 3. inherently penalizes smaller gangs compared to larger gangs if links are used by both sides. When links are used by only one side smaller roaming gangs or solo pilots suffer more if the larger gang has them than the other way around since their most important tactical tools are compromised. That's it.

It's late, I'm a bit drunk and I'm also lacking a bit in the english department to explain the whole thing more eloquently but nevertheless i really hope the general idea got through this time.

Until a suitable fix can come along, surely they can adjust things currently.

Like make Links-in-use increase sig radius (easier probing)
Can't activate within Xkm of POS
And more importantly, links create aggression timer when activated (can't dock or jump gate until turned off) See this all the time in lowsec. Links hugging stations and gates. Such a cancer.

Tl;dr.
but
they do talk right now about turning supers into wormhole like Boosters...
even for allies, and youre talking about offgridboosting has to be removed? srsly?

what do you think a superboost will be? only for a grid?

Links on KM would help.

No need to forgive. Yes, partly trolling because it's pretty easy.

Aside from that, different perspectives can all be true. There is no single one truth that rules them all. My points weren't wrong in the same way yours aren't.

So no need to try again. You see it only from one side. I also understand that side, but push a different view which is equally as valid, because a broader perspective on these things is always good.


Except that this is one point I would disagree. Not that your position is wrong, but that is looks at the issue from only 1 perspective.

Links allow smaller gangs to take on larger gangs that they otherwise wouldn't consider. Each ship in the fleet gains equal benefit from the links, but by taking on a larger fleet, the incoming DPS is greater, not less. That's also simple math.

I understand your perspective, but in this whole discussion you haven't acknowledged even once, the possibility that links actually benefit small gangs, only that they hurt them. It's not the full picture, because it's skewed to a single view.

I'm not against changing links at all. I personally think there are plenty of opportunities to increase the gameplay options around them. Just not simply by bringing them on grid though. That wouldn't have a measurable effect for many situations and certainly wouldn't do anything to affect them in highsec pvp.

My previous post outlined some other options and I am sure that there are many more and much better ones that hopefully are eventually implemented.


Your general idea has been put several times. It's still no more correct than mine. They are both equally valid positions and views.

Links are not the big, dirty menace destroying pvp and keeping new players from joining the game (I actually laughed at that one). They are a force multiplier like many force multipliers including ewar, logisitics and N+1 (or N+many).

The counter argument against them is usually not to come cry in the forum asking CCP to deal with the issue.

Most players/fleets either run them as well, counter them by killing them or forcing them to warp, dock or jump; or just totally ignore them and have fun anyway.

But coming and crying in the forum and asking for CCP to change them, when CCP have already stated that they would like to at some point is no different to anyone else coming to the forum and crying for CCP to fix something they can already manage themselves.

Just go manage the issue yourself until it's rebalanced or take useful suggestions to F&I for consideration down the road. That would be far more constructive than moaning in GD.

I'd like to see fleet boosting become a more common component of most fleeted ships, especially as battlecruisers aren't really suited to keep up with the kinds of fleets they are supposed to support, particularly with skirmish and info warfare links.

Command ships could keep their bonuses and multi-link support to maintain their uniqueness in the subcap realm.

I'd really like to see support frigates be able able to sport info or skirmish links, on grid, and only applying stacking limited bonuses to other frigate sized hulls in the same squad. Armor and shield warfare link bonuses should be limited (outside of command ships) to applying to ships of a smaller hull size. This would allow large ships to confer a defensive bonus on their escorts, and promote the use of mixed class fleets.

People are upset about the weakness of battleships to bombs, but either their squishiness is diminished or their damage application rate goes up if they rely on smaller support ships to handle roles like scrambling and webbing targets. Small ship fleets don't have a whole lot of reason to rely on fire support from heavier ships in the current meta.

One thing I would really like to see is transport focused hulls (haulers, DSTs, etc) be able to sport links specifically to support their escorts. Extended fleet hangar access range would also increase their utility tremendously. I think that is a totally reasonable proposition even for freighters. Allowing the pilot of the industrial ship being supported to directly shove ammo into the hangars of escort ships would be amazing, and certainly more interesting than twiddling one's thumbs or hoping something comes close enough to web. Stripping the remote capacitor transporter module from logi ships would be an interesting change, but I digress.

These basic versions of offensive links should have fitting requirements in the range of a salvager (info) or a small smartbomb (skirmish). If they have small cumulative effects not dependent upon fleet booster role, the stacking rules should reflect the limit of bonusing only 10 other ships. Possibly, we have no need for changing the fitting requirements of the existing defensive links, limiting them to the current cruiser sized module, and perhaps including a battleship sized variant of seige or armored links. The new fleet support roles of capitals suggests a role in buffing the defenses of battleships,or junior capital ships.

By the same token of limiting links, wing and fleet bonuses should be limited to on-grid effects, and links probably shouldn't propagate across multiple squads. Command ships might be a reasonable exception, but not across multiple wings.

stop talking nonsense/BS

Just ask ccp to to remove off grid boosting of the game for good ASAP.

It used to be the case you could set your links up in your comfy pos. They took that away at least. Which is a change i agreed with. Removing OGB though seems a bit excessive as its probably only the "have nots" as it were complaining about it, no one is forcing you to run a second account for a booster pilot, and even if you did, its not like the ships are ever truly safe anyway, can always be probed down, caught at gates, accidently left uncloaked somewhere, point is there is risk there.

If its a huge issue, why not either A: train into command ships and provide your own links, or B: recruit someone else to do it. Then your gang can have your own shiny links which are better than a t3 booster.

I would argue that links make a lot of things possible that were not before, ive lost count of the number of times my group has engaged a numericly superior opponent and won just from the advantages links give you. These same fights would have been suicide otherwise, and even finding a fight is hard unless an opponent gang feels they have some form of percieved advantage, such as numbers, tank or dps superiority, the same groups wouldnt have stuck around if we had a similar size gang, contrary to popular belief, no one wants fair fights in EVE, they just want fights they can win.

Actually this is the strongest argument for removing links and boosts from the game entirely. You are right, nobody wants to fly as the link ship. So all it ends up being is someone pays CCP extra money in the form of a subscription in order to have an edge in the fight, or even the odds. It's like that scene in South Park where one of the cripple kids takes steroids and he rationalizes "well everyone else does it, this just gets me on the same playing field".

If everyone has to do it, then what's the advantage? The advantage of shelling out extra money or grinding for extra isk/plex every month to maintain a level playing field? This doesn't sound like the full depth of playing of choices. This is like clone cost upgrades, there is no real choice being made here.

So, CCP made this "Pay for advantage" system where someone has the responsibility of shelling out extra cash for an alt to sit there and idle. And what...if the guy who has the alt leaves your corp, who gets that responsibility now? Do you draw straws? Who in your corp should burden this responsibility? Should every person have one, just in case someone else leaves and takes their booster alt with them? Should every CCP customer be pressured into maintaining a second account to use for boosts?

People beat around the bush, but this is the essence of the problem right here. If it's not a real player in that ship making choices and participating in the game, then it's nothing more than a way for CCP to sell more plex.

Make it a fleet role that is feasible and fun to be a part of, like logi, and most problems go away. People complain about not having a booster alt DO have every opportunity to have one, but the reason they're complaining is that it doesn't add gameplay value when they do. They just shell out extra money to even a playing field.

You could force links to be issued via friendly locks like logi, and reduce the chance of those ships being primaried by scaling back their boosts so the advantage they bring isn't overwhelming. Then it becomes a choice as to whether or not to primary them, because they aren't your biggest problem anymore. It becomes a choice as to whether or not to bring a link ship or another type, because the help is marginal. Suddenly these things become real choices and not just a default "yes". But that's just a quick and fleeting idea, not to be taken seriously. My main point is that CCP made links in a way that's bad for the game because it boils down to fleecing customers for a few extra bucks to even up the odds against richer (isk-wise, who can afford to plex a second account) opponents.

That all said, if CCP doesn't remove links, I really won't care either. They haven't been used against me, and I suspect if I find myself in a PvP position, someone will inevitably bring them for my side, so whatever, it evens out. My annoyance is with it not being a fleet role and just a paid advantage, not that it may or may not provide a lopsided advantage in any past or future fight. I like that. I think the concept is great, I just want a real human at the keyboard.

Edit: see also, the post directly above mine.