Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This issue is really quite clear. Being an Off-Grid Booster is a terrible job. You are not part of the fight, you sit at a safe spot, you cloak up or move if you see probes getting too close on D-Scan. If anything sneezes on you, you are dead. That is why the role is performed by alt accounts most of the time.

Additionally, boosters currently have a huge affect on an entire fleet, while being at minimal risk. This is painful in all levels of warfare, from small gang to huge fleets.

Bringing Off-Grid links on to the grid will not fix all the problems. They still have a huge affect - 6 ships boost an entire fleet. And the game play of being on grid is not that interesting - turn on links, make sure boosts are passed, turn on tank, maybe activate civilian gun to tag killmails. Even when on grid, this is often an alt character.

Contrast that with any other role in the fleet - DPS, logistics, E-war, tackling, etc. All require active involvement and situational awareness of some sort.

Enter the OP's idea - make the gang links an active module that must be targeted on the recipient's ship. It's a really good idea. Unlike the current system, it doesn't work from a safe spot. It doesn't scale up to 6 ships boosting an entire fleet. And it does not require waiting for Brain-in-a-Box, which is coming SoonTM.

So, as suggested earlier, here are the tweaks I propose.

1. Combine all the links of the same type into one Siege, Armor, Skirmish, Information, and Mining Module. There would be a Tech I and a Tech II version. Thus, for example, at base value, the Siege Warfare Link II would provide 6% bonuses to Active Shielding, Shield Efficiency, and Shield Harmonizing to one ship. The base range for the module would be 50km (both T1 and T2). Cap cost would continue to be 25, duration would continue to be 10 seconds.

2. Change the role for the Command Processor. My preferred solution would be to give the Command Processor a flat 50km bonus to Warfare Link range.

3. Change Wing Commander and Fleet Commander skills. Make them give a bonus to Warfare Link Range. Wing Commander would give 10% more Warfare Link Range per level. Thus, at Wing Command V, the Warfare Links would have a maximum range of 75km. Fleet Command would give an additional 20% per level. Thus, at Fleet Command V, the maximum range would be 150km. The Command Ship would still have to fit Sensor Boosters or Signal Amplifiers to make use of the full range.

4. Command Ships would therefore be susceptible to Sensor Dampening, ECM, and Neutralizers - just as with current Logistics ships. They would have to make trade-offs between damage, personal tank, lock range, ECCM strength, and cap stability.

5. Command Ships currently give bonuses to two categories - this is a nice feature and would remain. For example, the Eos would still be able to give bonuses to both Armor and Skirmish Warfare Link modules.

6. The Command Ships currently have pretty good slot layouts. With the exception of the Eos, they currently all have seven high slots and five primary weapon hardpoints. Change the role bonus for Command Ships to be able to fit up to 7 warfare link modules simultaneously. Give the Eos a seventh high slot (but leave the number of turret hardpoints at 4). Now the Command Ship can perform multiple roles. It can provide decent DPS and boost a couple of critical ships. Or it can forgo the DPS and boost more ships - but never so many that it is easy to have everyone in a fleet covered by Command Ship boosts. If you go with seven boosts, you may have to adjust your fit to get more cap, which leaves you potentially with less personal tank, or more vulnerable to Sensor Dampening, ECM, or Neutralizers. Depending on the situation, there is no single obvious best fit.

7. No ship can receive the same kind of boost from more than one ship. Thus, if two Nighthawks activate their Siege Warfare Links on my ship, I only receive bonuses from one of them (whichever one has the highest bonus). In a larger fleet, this is something that has to be coordinated carefully and there is room for pilot error and wasted cycles. On the other hand, if a Claymore puts a Siege Warfare Link and a Skirmish Warfare Link on my ship, I get both bonuses. Or I could get Shield Warfare Link from one ship, Skirmish from another, and Information from a third. etc...

8. Since they are not electronic warfare, and not remote repairs, Warfare Links could still apply to ships in Siege, Triage, Industrial, or Bastion mode (and Super Carriers and Titans).

9. As for Tech III's - they would still be able to provide three kinds of bonused boosts, at the 2% per level amount. They would be able to fit up to five warfare link modules simultaneously.

10. The Battle Cruisers would be able to provide up to six warfare link modules simultaneously, with a 2% bonus per level amount to the single racial type. Thus, a Drake would give bonused Siege Warfare Links.

11. The Super Carriers and Titans would be able to do some stuff too, but I'm not basing this idea around those ships. I'm thinking give Super Carriers a 5% and Titans a 10% bonus per level to the single racial type (e.g. an Avatar could give 50% bonus to Armor Warfare Links at Amarr Titan V).

12. I still think a T2 Destroyer would be nice for smaller gangs. I'm thinking a maximum of three Warfare Links, with up to five weapon hardpoints. They would give a 2% bonus per level to the two racial types. So, the T2 Algos would give bonused Armor and Skirmish Warfare links.

That's all for now.

This thread is about game design not deciding which tactics are against your principles.

I would like to see links changed so that they are more engaging and 'fair.'

Here are my principles:
As long as you are not doing what is considering by devs as an exploit, play the game the way you want.

You are free tell yourself that you won't use Bombers or Tech 3s because you perceive them as broken, but don't think for one second that people need to abide by your principles and play the game the way you want them to play it.

It is up to game designers at CCP to change the limits of the game to ensure that the game remains enjoyable.

Can't wait for the "why didn't you boost me in time" cry when people die fast in fleets if things like that get implemented.

I am not sure about what would make a suitable range for links. If we are working on the principle that commandships should just be ‘on-grid.’ Then it should be reasonable to attain a module range of 250km. Whether the range should be based on the level of the Command ship skill or an additional module is a matter of balance.

The other aspect of course is lock range, with this proposal a command ship would need to lock its target in order to give the bonus. In order to reach a theoretical 250km link range they would need to have both locking and command links that could reach that far.
I personally think the ship should have a passive link range potential but limited to the lock range.

The pilot could then fit their ship according to their needs. A command ship who intended to brawl might not need an bonus to lock range while a sniping setup would require mid or low slots to be committed to modules with a lock range bonus. A command ship trying fly with smaller ship might opt for modules to give him scan resolution or potentially fly a smaller link ship (link destroyer?)

You could potentially have the command module an optimal range of say 120km beyond which the amount of bonus given would decrease. A command processor rig (as to not favor shield or armor command ships) to increase this optimal.


Skills should be more front heavy then they are currently. A pilot should be able to give effective links in at T1 ship with T1 lvls of SP.

So your passive bonuses would by the first tier leadership skills like Siege Warfare, lvl 5 giving you the ability to use T2 mods and implants.

The second tier like Siege Warfare Specialist would be related to capacitor usage, fitting, or range of the modules.

As far as long range Warfare Linking is concerned, as you point out, the limiting factor is actually going to be fitting enough Sensor Boosters to get the lock range up that high. I'll revise my earlier proposal.



I agree that the current skill tree is a bit limiting and lengthy. I'm inclined to restructure it.

I'll use the Armored Warfare cluster as an example:

Armored Warfare - change to enable Armored Warfare Link I at Level I. Level V enables the Armored Warfare Link II, and opens up training for Armored Warfare Specialist skill.

Armored Warfare Specialist - 20% effectiveness to armored warfare link modules per level. Level 5 still required for the Armored Warfare Mindlink and the two faction mindlinks.

Do similar adjustments for Siege Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, Information Warfare, and Mining Director.

Warfare Link Specialist - 10% effectiveness to all warfare link modules per level. Level IV enables Command Ships skill. Level IV enables the Command Processor I. Level V enables the Command Processor II. Then I would change the Command Processors as follows:

Command Processor I - limit of one per ship, increases effectiveness of all warfare link modules by 10%. Becomes an active module, requiring 25 cap with a 10-second cycle time.
Command Processor II - limit of one per ship, increases effectiveness of all warfare link modules by 15%. Is an active module, requiring 30 cap with a 10-second cycle time.

Command Ships - currently requires Armored Warfare, Siege Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, Information Warfare, Leadership, and Spaceship Command to Level V, with Warfare Link Specialist to Level IV. This is a bit hefty. My recommendation is to knock this down to Level IV skills for Armored, Siege, Skirmish, and Information.

Leadership - stays the same
Wing Command - stays the same
Fleet Command - stays the same

I do not really like the idea of any passive bonuses, but that is all for now.

Just do this and remove the T3 subsystem, or increase the CPU cost of command processors with a bonus CPU reduction on command ships for it. Literally Job done.

You will struggle to find someone who does not agree with the forcing of links onto the grid.
The main reason it is not possible currently is that takes too much server load to check which ships are on grid and should receive a bonus in real-time.

CCP’s ‘brain in a box’ project is one way they are looking at moving these calculations to a second server. This second ‘brain in a box’ server might also allow for other interesting rapid fire AoE weapons like a perhaps a projected smartbomb to counter anchoring and ensure pilots have to fly their own ships.

You could also add a projected links AoE so you’d target a ship and project your command links that way onto all fleet members within a sphere of say 50km.

I do get the feeling that CCP are simply holding out for the ‘brain the box’ project to complete and then to for links on grid, but even if you are providing links on grid doesn’t make the gameplay interesting.

No decision = No fun
Added this to the first post
I think it changes to links need to go a step further. Even with them being brought on-grid, the autonomous benefit they provide is to a fleet is broken.

...Imagine if all logistics pilot on field could just turn on repairs and it would hit anyone on field taking damage, this describes the state of links (even on-grid).

Fleets of a reasonable size are basically forced to bring links or put themselves at a significant disadvantage to their tanks, speed, and EWAR. This is NOT decision like “Lets bring some damp ships, because opposition rely on their range.”

This is bring links for fight, or keep your fleet docked.

There are no other roles in EVE as big a force multiplier to fleet and yet it is completely passive.

“Come out of warp, turn on links, and there you go you’ve probably done the most important thing you will do all fight.
What I am proposing in this thread is something that could work with the release of the ‘brain in the box’ to give a pilot providing links more compelling gameplay.


The crux of the problem is once you have them turned on (as long as you dont get exploded),you are doing your job. No other ship class comes close to providing the same benefit to a fleet as links... and you just have to sit there. Allow players to think "I want to be a good links ship pilot," saying that now is close to a joke.

If you are going to make them a ridiculous strong force multiplier, then ensure that a pilot has to EARN IT!

I have not given much thought of how to give the industrial command ships something meaningful in all this. I wouldn't call myself a mining veteran but its something it something I have been doing and learning about the last couple months.

The thing that I feel does need a change regarding mining links is the skill requirements and progression. Like warfare links the mining bonuses are back end heavy and aren't really worth using until you have Mining Director V. This is in part because Mining Director is a 20% per level bonus and both T2 links and the Mining Foreman Mindlink both require this skill to 5.

In terms making the mining command role interesting is hard. I think part of it is the fact that mining is it self quite a 'dry' activity.
The only times when I miner might want something extra is tank for when rats spawn and the miner is tanking them.

I would be tempted to say leave them passive unless CCP decide to make mining a more engaging experience, and less about the how many alts you can manage.