Player Features and Ideas Discussion

In many ways it does make sense - for warfare boosts to be effective they in a theoretical technical sense require extensive tranmission to and from the command ship of telemetry data from the fleet along with the use of super computers to be able to compute an enhanced solution to boost a ship's capabilities both of which would result in the command ship having a hard time masking its presence.

While I understand what you're trying to do, make the Safe Spot Boosts Probable, which after the chances last year they already are.

For the most part Off-Grid Boosting itself doesn't bother me all that much, the problem stems more from when it is used in Small / Solo PVP and on ships that already have considerably good Bonus' usually with full Implant Sets on (near) Perfectly Skilled Characters.

One of the biggest problems is that ALL of these things combined actually provides too BIG of an advantage.
Omega Implants for example, realistically need to only be 5, 7.5 and 10% not 10, 25 and 50% ... seriously they take the ****, without the Omega; Implant Sets are actually great as they provide a slight bonus that provides an edge - but with it, that edge becomes a dominating factor. Implants frankly should be providing an Edge, not making them Over-Powered if they happen to have the ISK.

I mean if you look at the Faction, Dead-Space and Officer Modules; sure they provide those Over-Powered Bonus' but they're not exactly "easier to fit" ... as the ones that are offer the same bonus' as Tech 2, the ones that are better also require more Fitting, Cap, etc... It's a trade off, Implants don't have a Trade-Off they simply make your ships BETTER.

Any how back on to the main topic here, outside of the Implants the Bonus' provided via Warfare Links / Fleet Bonus' are in the same category as the Implant Sets. Where frankly Money = Better Ships, with almost as little real risk as Implants.

The first change I would make is when active Warfare Modules had the negative of +50% Signature Radius.
This is both a Nerf to OGB as it makes them easier to Probe when in use, but it's also both a positive and negative for Command Ships; meaning they're more susceptible to getting hit by larger ships - but also easier to lock up for Logistics.

Next I would suggest both Command Ships and Tech 3 had the same 25% Perfect Skills with Mind Link output.... but before you're like "What!? They changed that so Off-Grid the Tech 3 wouldn't be as useful!" - which sure I'd agree with if the difference wasn't literally 1%. (Seriously CS is 26%, T3 is 25%.. the difference is pointless)

Now here comes probably the more controversial suggestions:
While On-Grid, Warfare Links provide 100% Effectiveness (i.e. < 500KM) but past that it reduces to 40% (meaning an effective bonus of only 10%)

I would also Tier the effectiveness based on Ship Class:
Tech 1 = 100%
Navy = 80%
Tech 2 = 50%
Tech 3 / Pirate = 25%

The reason for this is simple, the Warfare Links /should/ be being used in Fleets to provide more help to those who need it because their skills might not be perfect; or the ship they're flying is less ideal.

I would also recommend a Tech 2 Command Destroyer, that are a Small Scale variant of the Command Ships.
Providing a good Bonus ship for Small Scale Fleet Warfare.

The final thing I would suggest, and this is really aimed towards the Tech 3 Rebalance is move the Warfare Link Sub-System to Electronics or Offensive instead of being a Defensive Sub-System. Really those Defensive Systems should be:

Resists, Active, Hit Points and Logistics

Still I'll probably make a post about that soon given they are pencilled in to be rebalanced Soon™, so should probably start making suggestions now.

I agree with the OP for the most part.

RavenTesio - implants are not really imbalanced, because they are expensive and they can be destroyed pretty easily. So while there is a lot of reward, there is most definitely a lot of risk. In fact, implants can be destroyed almost too easily. I know someone that put in a crystal set and lost it that same day to a smartbomber in lowsec. To destroy an implant set, all you have to do is bring a smartbombing ship into the fight, approach, wait until they are close to dying and turn on your smartbombs. Or wait at a a gate if they aren't insanely careful with their pod. This is ridiculously easy. Too easy, IMO because that smartbombing ship can just fill its lows with warp core stabs so you don't even have to worry about slow align issues, etc. in low sec.

Off-grid boosting on the other hand has *even more* reward than implants, and almost *zero* risk. IMO, the following changes would make off-grid boosting an ok mechanic:
1. No off-grid boosting from a ship within 200km of a POS. If within 200km of a POS, the booster can only on-grid boost. This is to prevent the broken mechanic of sitting on the edge of the shield, a second from safety, with a bunch of POS guns guarding the booster.
2. Active links make the boosting ship much easier to scan.
3. Boosting ships appear on kill mails.

In addition to this:
A. Tank bonus when links are engaged (boosting ship gets a tank bonus, unrelated to the specific link). This is to encourage more on-grid boosting.
B. Passive links that do not make your ship easier to scan and *can* off-grid boost next to a POS, but are much less powerful.

Aside from making things that are not cyno beacons act like cyno beacons, that is what I'm trying to get at. Unscannable T3? Go for it. Boosting T3, go for it. Unscannable Boosting T3, no.

I've noticed that even my loki with just 2 ( yes insane numbers i know) ECCM midslots became "almost" unprobeable for the casual hostile fightingbuddy, it needs a nerf ( i really want to see somebody catching my loki so I have to worry about it ..... (just kidding, i don't want to worry about it, but i should have to)).

Ongridonly-boosting shouldn't be the solution, instead simply remove the eccm/scan mechanics if ganglinks are fitted and its all solved without touching any ships themselves ;)
It does of course also effect commandships, but currently you can even get those "unprobeable" with a little more effort, hpwever they can't cloak or warp through bubbles .....

regards
rc

Partly, because I am concerned that CCP will struggle with the implementation of something constrained to a "grid" (by definition "on-grid"). This concern is due to the fact that grids in EVE can be hilariously broken, intentionally.
10,000Km long grid in an "L" shape? Sure, we can do that.
D-scan says target is less than 50Km away and you can't see/target them? Awesome grid boundaries, yo.
Basically grids in EVE are pretty bad and hinging such an important aspect on their proper behavior is risky at best.

Without addressing the fact that, for all intents and purposes, T3 boosting setups are still able to be un-probable, basing the future of fleet boosts/gang links on grid magic is a tenuous position. Same with attempting to limit the module effectiveness by range instead of grid boundaries. Enter the scenario above where someone finds the edge of a grid and sets up the un-probable booster just on the other side. Hidden from view/overview but within the range 200Km or 250Km or whatever it is. Someone will do this (hell someone has probably already done this tbqh). Forcing ships running boosts to remain detectable by combat scanner probe is a surefire way of bringing risk to that aspect of EVE without relying on a perfect implementation AoE properly constrained by grid boundaries.

That is why, imo, it is appropriate.

boosting ships dont have any weapons and the skills involved in perfectly flying one are imense, so you want to make it easier to kill an un-armed ship, put a boosting ship on grid and its instantly primary just making the whole ship pointless to have in a fleet and the months of skills pointless

Then you are "doing it wrong" as they say. And clearly didn't comprehend the point of this proposal.

Un-probable boosting T3s should have never been a "thing".
They are broken in countless ways, not least of which is "Let me vastly increase the combat capability of an entire fleet of 255 pilots at literally zero risk."
As has been said over and over, "Time and ISK are not balancing factors." If they were then whichever pilots have the most skillpoints (time) and largest ship (ISK) automatically wins. GG, game over.

There's no need to run a boosting setup with a full rack of links. You can, of course. But it doesn't mean that you should and that comes at a price.

It is entirely feasible (I know because I/we have done it) to put boosting ships on grid with a very high degree of survivability. They are called Command Ships. It's possible to make them very tough to kill. Impossible? No, of course not. But nothing should be. Which, coincidentally, is the issue with the un-probable boosting T3s.

So you have a problem being primary in a ship that can keep distance on any DPS fleet, has 150-200k EHP and silly resist profiles?

I'm sure the logi flying with you won't mind knowing that you're a high priority for the enemy with fairly high survivability. It makes their job that much easier.

I fly a loki alot and have been primary and the tank of a t3 doesnt hold up that great when 30ships have locked you up even with logi, i dont mind losing ships but if a ship is going to be on grid for less than 30secs then whats the point in using it, so basically what you are implying is you cant fight a fleet with boost off grid the boost needs to be ongrid so you can kill it first.

I understand there are various circumstances but i dont see such a big issue with having boost offgrid