Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I don't entirely disagree. Skillpoints and fittings are of course themselves hidden variables.

However, skillpoints (in the main) have some tenuous connection with a coherent narrative, as does the use of better materials and technology in the manufacture of superior T2 items.

Centralized fleet command and control is also part of a coherent narrative, at least in the sense that the command ship could be an information bus that allows other ships in the fleet to share knowledge.

However, the idea that such a data bus should harden armour (already a ridiculous concept) and shields (a concept that would require exponential increments in power output into order to produce linear increments in effectiveness) just seems... unnecessarily ridiculous, and does not in my view add to the game.

Perhaps if the boosts were limited to the squad level only that would make more sense, because the tradeoff would be more difficult to call:

do I bring 10% more dps or another 27 slots to the fight? It's a closer call.

addendum:
I got the number of 27 slots this way:
each gang link is worth (roughly) the power of 1 more slot on each boosted ship, but costs 1 slot on the command ship.
In a squad of 10, I gain 10 slots and lose one for each gang link I bring.
In a squad of 10, a command ship with 3 links brings the power of +30 slots, but at a cost of -3.

centralised computing power is a concept from the 60s. dustributed information processing is currently producing far better results.

whichever you you rationalise it, I find no defensible narrative to support gang links in their current form.

I know that they offer an advantage to a "solo" pvper with 2 accounts (the irony is intentional).

but they do not, when examined in any number of dimensions, add to the depth, realism or sense of involvement in the game of eve.

or is there a dimension I am missing?

Well I think it's pretty simple.

We already have a real information nexus making decisions that improve the prospect of the fleet. He is called the FC and he is supported by scouts, fleet doctrine and a pan-galactic communications system called TeamSpeak (etc)

In my view there is no role at all for performance-boosting gang links. I think it was an ill-conceived idea that, in the case where both fleets have gang links, always favours larger fleets over smaller ones.

I can see a sensible narrative behind an arrangement where command modules improve the performance of ship's electronics, by virtue of more information being made available in parallel, so:

gun accuracy, missile accuracy (explosion radius), lock times, sensor strength (on grounds of redundancy) and so on could be improved by links. All of which would require the booster to be on grid.

A believable narrative could also be constructed that would support the idea of ships in the fleet being able to slave themselves to the command ship, effectively becoming offensive batteries of that ship.

However, considering the current anti-drone-slaving rhetoric in these forums, that's probably a topic better left alone

What game are you playing mate? It does not sound like eve.

You want to force the bonuses on grid, that you can kill em? What about the other 1k people on grid ?

Or maybe you are talking about small scale pvp?
Gang bonuses are hardly relevant for a small fleets, if they ever meet a matching force it usually has gang links as well.

Anyway with the changes coming to CS you will see gang links on field a lot. I wonder what you gonna complain next ?

95% of ideas for "changes" in this forum are inability of losers to adapt or use the mechanics they already have.
It a sad day when I see one of this "changes" becomes reality.

There are tenfolds of dimensions that you are missing.

The problem with your rationale or any "the existance of links necessitate the use of links" remark is that that it can be applied to almost any thing in this game. The other side had points, so now you have to have points. The other side had guns, so now you have to have guns. It literally applies to everything in EVE - and removing one such factor makes the game poorer. As do the currently proposed changes, but in slightly more complicated ways - by ripping up the existing balance of "more on few - less on many" in favour of one ship being outright better in every regard while restricted to a certain defensive subset (being "tanky").

The second thing you need to understand to see how the changes will impact the game is that in EVE any change cut both ways. It's sensitive to argue that "this will help small-gang PvP" unless you have a comprehensive definition of what small-gang PvP implies to support your claim. In many situations changes endorsed to help small-gang PvP end up ruining it long-term. There are still people living under the toughest conditions possible: deep (sov-space) Nullsec that engage in small-gang PvP (playing only "corp-sized", not having blues etc.). They are still by definition "small gang". They exist, but are extremely rare these days - far more rare than the self-proposed small-gang groups that dwell in Lowsec so the Lowsec perspectives on small-gang concepts are gaining traction.

I'm not casting any aspirations on the topic more than this: If you live in lowsec, whatever perspective you have on players in empire, a shallow nullsec player is bound to have on you and a deep nullsec player is bound to have on them (provided they still envision themselves as "small gang"). Take it as you may, but any argument or counter-argument derived from such a hierarchy still applies throughout that span and not just in your immidiate environment.

If you believe fighting a solo-duel against someone with an OBG is a challenge or unfair - try fighting against someone who outnumber you 10:1 and have larger ships with more links. Once you understand that perspective you might appreciate the ability to dedicate into some very narrow extreme in order to give you a fighting chance against something that outright beat you on any other premise but that single thing you dedicate into to at least chance an engagement.

Engage under the most unfair conditions imaginable...

Then you may see gang-bonuses in a different light, or get a comprehensive understanding of any such dimension.

Look at the track-record of most similar changes (extreme speeds, ranges, signatures, EW, etc.) - have they helped small gang PvP? I would say it's in the negative. Most notable small-gang concepts, that have thrived in the face of larger gangs or ships throughout the history of the game, have somehow utilzed some extreme to overcome their initial numerical or volumous disadvantage.

Now, here is the crunch-point: the depth, realism and most importantly, involvement that this leads to is encouraging players to overcome numerics or any other percieved unfairness and chance engagement. Take fights. The idea of "adapting" (or HTFU) is getting a very widespread miss-use where people seem to think that choosing not to fight (not to play) is an adaption: "if you can't roam anymore, adapt and only fight similarily sized duders in lowsec". That's not adaption, that's a missconception and poor assumption - it's not "something else" it's "less of what you already had" - because it quite bluntly assumes you wouldn't take similarily sized fights in Lowsec before. What is actually changing in the "small gang world" is that fewer groups are roaming or living in nullsec against tougher odds.

The proposed changes to Links are likely to contribute to those trends - that's why I see them as negative.

What this game needs now more than anything or ever before - is encouraging people to go out there and fight against the odds (fight someone with more and larger ships) and so forth. Do these changes encourage or discourage that?

Moving those speed- and EW links from a cloaky or speedy ship that fit into a speedy or cloaky control-based gang over to a tank-based platform that commits and handles like a Battleship; or letting any larger gangs that can support a tank-based platform also gain faster ships with better control - how many small gangs will tow one of those into VFK to interact with a million angry bees? That gang that is already larger and can tank that smaller gang will now also have faster small ships and better control on their support ships etc.

I can't think of a better buff to a larger gang, or more clearly raising the barrier of entry to involvement .

The logical result is that we will see more conventional (-tanky) gangs (conventional tanking, where the game has poorest possible scaling, because personal tanks do not scale with numbers at all while damage do) and ultimately seeing more traction of fighting only smaller- or similarily sized groups, restricting yourself to environments where you have the best possible chance of that (as close to home as possible, under your own intel networks, etc.). I can't speak for anyone else, but to me - that's very bad for the game.

I like how CCP is nerfing 11 million skill points. Next year you should remove leadership skills and refund everyone that went out of their way to help a fleet.

idea of boosters = weapon timer

God forbid someone running ganglinks can't dock because 1 dumbass in his 250 person fleet aggressed a drone. Might as well make everyone suspect when one person in their fleet goes suspect.

Links in their current state is way too easy to abuse, and jugding by your whining you abuse them all the time, CCP should nerf your ability to post, crybaby.

But if you put your booster in a guardian and he then repairs someone who is flashy, he himself will become flashy since he aided a criminal.

Giving gang link boosts to a criminal is no less aiding him than supplying him with shields, cap or armour.

Frankly, if he takes ammo from a fleet-member's can or uses a fleet orca to refit, I think the fleet member should get a criminal flag / weapons timer also.

Supplying ammo or giving solace to a murderer does actually make you an accomplice.

thank you fozzie . good changes

Just one quick question (and no, I haven't searched 43 pages of posts to see if this has been asked yet): why not just eliminate the Warfare Processor for Strat Cruisers if the bonus on them is going to be castrated from 5% to 2% per level? This basically will end my use of a Loki as a booster in low... No tears, just wondering why even bother keeping it around anymore?