These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why We Should Support Off Grid Boosting
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#241 - 2013-08-06 04:36:07 UTC
What CCP should do is enhance Off Grid Boosting with Out of Game Boosting.

So for every bite you get on a troll post, you score another 5% enhancement to shield, armour and cap size. This should work relly well for elite "solo" PvPers.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Yaturi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2013-08-06 05:07:48 UTC
What was the issue with mjd operation as an added role bonus to command ships.
I made a thread about it a while back in F&I, but it didn't really take off.

This wouldn't ask for much since its only 1 ship class we are talking about here.
Also, if you wanna talk about roles there are plenty of ships with more than 1 role.
Not withstanding coverts,
Orca has 4
Rorq has 4
Carrier 4
Super has 5
and Titan has 5

It seems like a fair inclusion to add mjd to CS's. Along with activation/fitting reductions, I would go so far to say 165km range in addition be sanctioned. This would separate them from BS's and make them warp to points as well.

They are suppose to be the command ships for all subcaps right?
Dr Silkworth
#243 - 2013-08-06 05:46:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Silkworth
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Dr Silkworth wrote:
I agree we should keep OGB. Admit I haven't read the rest of the thread but I have an opinion I haven't seen voiced in previous similar threads.

OFF Grid Boosting is a balancing component of a general boosting scheme. The other is the current ON Grid Boosting. The conversation should center around balance rather than elimination.

Off grid boosts are mostly defensive in character. The possible exception being Skirmish for its boosts in Offense. But even Skirmish has many defensive aspects such as reduced target radii and kiting abilities which end up as defensive.

On grid we already have a system. Most are offensive in nature. These are readily deployed with cheap disposable boats of the ECM and Logistical Varieties. ON Grid we have a dual balance of defensive and offensive with things like tracking links and remote sensor boosters balancing tracking disruptors and ecm or damps for instance.

The balance instead of teetering on a balance like a seesaw is more complex. It has to form a stable triangular base to keep one from over-tipping. It has to hold position almost like a gyroscope can remain static in unnatural positions.

Our on grid boosts are very cheap both skill wise and isk wise. Our offgrids are very expensive in those manners also. They also take complimentary skills, one being strategic and another piloting. THere is a lot of balance already in place, IT does not need destroyed but there is some room for tuning. I also see some room for adding to it on the OFF GRID side with some more offensive boosts besides skirmish and targeting speed

What are the current ON grid counters to the Off Grid system? Are they complete and balanced? and in what ways? Most important, What would a winning/successful boosting system look like when it was done?


What you consider on grid boosting is remote assistance and EWAR. All of those are targetted making them much less powerfull when you consider how large a fleet can be. Most of the EWAR also has it's own counter directly on grid right now so there is no reason to balance it all with off grid boosting. There is no reason why something with such a potential impact on a fight should be able to stay away from the fight itself.


You are correct. That was a main point. we already have ongrid boosting. WE call it a different name but it is what it is. Sure they are less powerful but How many t1 ewars and logistics can be deployed for the cost of one t2/t3 off grid counter? T1 ewar can counter T2/3 ewar(OGB). neuts for instance can cancel or limit armor rep or shield boosting. Webs can cancel skirmish. Were left with the ECM bonus which isn't popular. I don't know why this is so, I've never used the Gallente Boosters and links. I guess because ewar pilots are few. EVE always favors the Blob. This is consistent. A blob of cheap t1 can fight a smaller more experienced and boosted force. Social interaction is encouraged, this is consistent design.
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#244 - 2013-08-06 06:22:29 UTC
you mean, when I, as a complete noob get into FW and think, let's see whether I can take on this frig, the outcome is even more predetermined than I thought? this somehow is curbing a bit my motivation of trying again. actually I went to become toast (which I knew) in the hope to someday become a toaster myself. What you're telling me is that this will not happen if I'm a poor unboosted solo (unless I happen to run into the other poor player)?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#245 - 2013-08-06 06:30:45 UTC
embrel wrote:
you mean, when I, as a complete noob get into FW and think, let's see whether I can take on this frig, the outcome is even more predetermined than I thought? this somehow is curbing a bit my motivation of trying again. actually I went to become toast (which I knew) in the hope to someday become a toaster myself. What you're telling me is that this will not happen if I'm a poor unboosted solo (unless I happen to run into the other poor player)?

Join a blob.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
neo smith
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2013-08-06 09:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: neo smith
maCH'EttE wrote:
Getting rid of OGB only benefits those who can gather up enough logi to support the links = Large corps/alliances.
Leaving OGB benefits everyone..
Leave it be and concentrate on balancing ECM, something CCP has been ignoring for a long time.





No it also benefits the true solo player



I think minimum og booster should show km


And yes I can fly and afford command/t3 ships
Lucretia DeWinter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#247 - 2013-08-06 10:28:17 UTC
Benjen Gelade wrote:
Greetings

Firstly, thank you for clicking on my thread. It is very important that everyone reads this and understands the situation.

I fully support the existence of off grid boosting. The reasons for this are many, but I have tried to summarise the main arguments below.

The Mining Argument

Rorqs just need a change to provide their bonuses undeployed, so they can GTFO when they're on grid. If they need to be deployed to bonus, their bonus needs a huge boost to make it worth the risk or just remove boosting, rebalance the ship benefits (improve industrial core compression etc) and have Orcas do boosts.

The 'Really Difficult to Program' Argument

Granted. Problems with live systems and fiddling with legacy code that breaks everything else is not easy. This is more a "this is why we haven't done it yet" than a "we can't do it"

The Revenue is King Argument

This is a logical fallacy. Sure, some people will rage quit their OGB alts, but (evidential numbers required) I believe many more subs are lost by newer players and people who can't/won't buy a 10 billion ISK alt who have a very large disadvantage against boosters and get fed up of being blowed up all the time.

The EVE is Harsh Argument

You changed this into a Pay To Win argument, but meh. P2W should not be paramount - player skill and tactics should trump ISK every time. Yeah, OGB could be a 'tactic' but its a pretty lame one. Core concept of EVE is risk=reward. Boosters should be put at risk - it's not like command ships are fragile or lack DPS, they should be on field just like Logistics. The harshness of EVE has to affect to booster as well as their victims.

The Fair Argument

This argument is actually valid IMO. Anyone can do it, but that doesn't mean that it is good design or that it is the most fun for your players and helps you engage and entertain subs. Sure people will still be upset about boosters, it'll become the new meme: Because Of Falcon will become Because Of Vulture. However, just because everyone COULD do it doesn't mean that they SHOULD (or should HAVE to) and there are numerous examples of CCP making changes to mechanics such as these where they are clearly in need of attention.

The 'Elite Solo PVP' Argument

"They use OGB to help them fight against whole gangs of pilots solo." Lies. OGB are used to crush people who don't have them. Elite solo PVPers tend not to use them more than do.

The 'It has always been like this' Argument

EVE has been one of the more sweepingly progressive and changeable MMOs I've ever seen. If CCP can do something they feel is better, they most often do. Whether that's WIS, tiericide, V3, Exploration revamp etc.

The 'elite Small Gang pvp' Argument

"Small gangs need the OGB 'pay to win' mechanism to remain viable." They need better skills and picking fights. Guerrilla warfare works just fine. Steaming your gang into a blob cause boosts will save you isn't elite in any way.

The Curbstomp while Outnumbered Argument

Force multipliers should be on grid. Having magic buffs that can't be removed is stupid game design. And besides, the outnumbering side will more likely have boosts and better ones (plus other multipliers) than the smaller side.

The Force Multiplier Disuse Argument

"This is why most fleets in eve do not use jammers or logistics." What? what fleets are you flying? See above...


Regards
Benjen "Manual Pilot" Gelade


Thanks for your thoughts. I've added my responses.

TL/DR: OGB is currently broken and does more damage than good. Yes it's fun to WTFPWN people left and right, but boosts should be on grid. Command ships rock, field them.
Prince Kobol
#248 - 2013-08-06 10:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
I think one of the best suggestions I have seen made in regards to Off Grid Boosting is that you get a significant sig bloom when activating links.

Put this together with not be being able to boost within a PoS means that you can counter the Off Grid Boosting ship if you wish.
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia
#249 - 2013-08-06 10:50:50 UTC
+1 for keeping OGBs the way they are
Le Badass
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#250 - 2013-08-06 10:59:51 UTC
The nature of communications, command and control elements, in my mind, means that command links and cloakability are mutually exclusive.
A command ship would be bound of have a constant stream of information flowing to and from it, making it easily detectable.

Therefore I suggest that command ships with active links becomes visible on the discovery scanner, increasing in strength over time until, within a couple of minutes, it's directly warpable.

As for On-grid vs. Off-grid boosts, I think both should be an option, only the on-grid links should be significantly better due to battle field proximity.
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#251 - 2013-08-06 11:03:57 UTC
TKL HUN wrote:
+1 for keeping OGBs the way they are


you confuse me a bit.

On the one hand you think multiboxing to be devil's work and on the other hand OGB should stay as is.

could you please explain your logic?

coz with multiboxers I'd have assumed that at least you know precisely what you're up against while this is - in my admittedly limited - knowledge of OGB not the case (or is it?).
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia
#252 - 2013-08-06 11:07:45 UTC  |  Edited by: TKL HUN
embrel wrote:
TKL HUN wrote:
+1 for keeping OGBs the way they are


you confuse me a bit.

On the one hand you think multiboxing to be devil's work and on the other hand OGB should stay as is.

could you please explain your logic?

coz with multiboxers I'd have assumed that at least you know precisely what you're up against while this is - in my admittedly limited - knowledge of OGB not the case (or is it?).


Ofc I will explain it to you.

1. OGBing is an ingame advantage, which can be used by anyone, just like implant sets, deadpsce modules etc.

2. On the other hand, multiboxing softwares are not in-game features, and it's not an in-game advantage.

EVE is EVE, everyone should play EVE inside EVE. I too failed sometimes, because there were guys with OGBs, and they killed me. But I don't care, coz anyone can have that, now I have mine too.
Prince Kobol
#253 - 2013-08-06 11:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
TKL HUN wrote:
embrel wrote:
TKL HUN wrote:
+1 for keeping OGBs the way they are


you confuse me a bit.

On the one hand you think multiboxing to be devil's work and on the other hand OGB should stay as is.

could you please explain your logic?

coz with multiboxers I'd have assumed that at least you know precisely what you're up against while this is - in my admittedly limited - knowledge of OGB not the case (or is it?).


Ofc I will explain it to you.

1. OGBing is an ingame advantage, which can be used by anyone, just like implant sets, deadpsce modules etc.

2. On the other hand, multiboxing softwares are not in-game features, and it's not an in-game advantage.

EVE is EVE, everyone should play EVE inside EVE. I too failed sometimes, because there were guys with OGBs, and they killed me. But I don't care, coz anyone can have that, now I have mine too.


Yet multiboxing software can be used by any one.

By your argument that means all out of game tools should be banned.

Websites such as Dotlan and Staticmapper are great tools and if used correctly can give useful intel that is not available in game.

Z-KillBoard can also be used for gathering intel such that be banned as well?

You cant have it both ways.
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia
#254 - 2013-08-06 11:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: TKL HUN
Prince Kobol wrote:
TKL HUN wrote:
embrel wrote:
TKL HUN wrote:
+1 for keeping OGBs the way they are


you confuse me a bit.

On the one hand you think multiboxing to be devil's work and on the other hand OGB should stay as is.

could you please explain your logic?

coz with multiboxers I'd have assumed that at least you know precisely what you're up against while this is - in my admittedly limited - knowledge of OGB not the case (or is it?).


Ofc I will explain it to you.

1. OGBing is an ingame advantage, which can be used by anyone, just like implant sets, deadpsce modules etc.

2. On the other hand, multiboxing softwares are not in-game features, and it's not an in-game advantage.

EVE is EVE, everyone should play EVE inside EVE. I too failed sometimes, because there were guys with OGBs, and they killed me. But I don't care, coz anyone can have that, now I have mine too.


Yet multiboxing software can be used by any one.

By your argument that means all out of game tools should be banned.

Websites such as Dotlan and Staticmapper are great tools and if used correctly can give useful intel that is not available in game.

Z-KillBoard can also be used for gathering intel such that be banned as well?

You cant have it both ways.



These other out-game tools can never affect PVP directly, so...

But we shouldn't go offtopic here
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#255 - 2013-08-06 11:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
As much as I like the "Fozzie touch" on ships balances on this specific matter I think he's not doing it right.

First of all getting rid of OGB means hard coding and as he said himself it's something you don't want him to do.

Then what's left? -take the current system and tweak code lines or ships/modules values which means at some point when they start messing with that bit of code the wing commander issues will be a small bug compared to whatever the crap is going to hit.

They're not willing to make command ships stronger, yes they are getting tweaks and more dps but in the end if we start looking at each race and ships differences are so huge and not fitting in the role the only thing I see us getting pretty soon is solo/small gang gank machines but certainly not command ships able to field their role and something you don't want to waste time shooting because of its huge nasty tank, not because of its dps.

What does this means in the end?-you're still going to get omgfckinpow in the rocks by dudes with 100mn T3's with oversize ABs at 4500m/s points at over 40 with pirate implants/combat boosters/ogb burning entire gangs with their twink because CCP loves twinks.
This will not change the current pvp solo/small gang situation at all, but make it worst when they fight larger numbers where the global alpha will kill them even faster without catching whatever heck reps or be able to put a single hole.

There's only one right way to do it and it's by completely change how boosting functions, by removing specific leadership links/bonus to dedicated skill trees so everyone and his cat can train them at will like now but, make it so those effects are only available to self/members when the position is taken in the fleet and fielding a command ship/T3 on grid.
You should still be able to fly those as fleet member but neither profit from ship boosting bonus nor provide any bonus at any other place but on grid.

Command ships themselves need to be tanky stuff, a fleet command ship with dedicated bonus to TP's and other usefull stuff for the COMMANDER, commanders don't need to be doing 100000² dps, they need to have the ability to target crap and immediately all members have the same target, immediately identify threats etc but most important the fleet commander needs to survive, right now when you know fleet commanders main and alts you just alpha them off the field and the fight is over, this is quite silly on top of ogb.

Make the second command ship be a real field command ship, active tank, nasty resist profile, high dps but bonus working the same way.

OGB is bad and because of it despite many arguments to keep it doesn't create more pvp but less because the imbalance in between those affording it and those who can't for whatever reason is so huge you do'nt want to fight or even try whatever fight once you know how locals act in pvp, when you know you have 0 chance of having a decent fight you don't go there and try until you make it, you avoid it and go find fish you can fry.

EDIT: the great boosting move (at all) you did is just take of grid boosting from inside the POS shields to the closes set of POS disruption/batteries because that exactly what's going to happen, a single point of the pos with a huge number of guns and the the less invulnerable but still safe afk alt will be boosting without much to worry about getting pop and still changing the tide of the fight with close to 0 risk.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
mama guru
Yazatas.
#256 - 2013-08-06 11:39:53 UTC
Rorquals need a rethinking in terms of deployment. Orcas need some on grid utility other than boosting.

Active reps are underpowered as hell for solo/small gangs, which is why offgrid boosting is so powerful. Do away with offgrid boosting, and buff local tanks.


Having your offgrid tengu/legion literally doubling your tank is not the right way to balance local reps.

EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#257 - 2013-08-06 12:02:55 UTC
Dr Silkworth wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Dr Silkworth wrote:
I agree we should keep OGB. Admit I haven't read the rest of the thread but I have an opinion I haven't seen voiced in previous similar threads.

OFF Grid Boosting is a balancing component of a general boosting scheme. The other is the current ON Grid Boosting. The conversation should center around balance rather than elimination.

Off grid boosts are mostly defensive in character. The possible exception being Skirmish for its boosts in Offense. But even Skirmish has many defensive aspects such as reduced target radii and kiting abilities which end up as defensive.

On grid we already have a system. Most are offensive in nature. These are readily deployed with cheap disposable boats of the ECM and Logistical Varieties. ON Grid we have a dual balance of defensive and offensive with things like tracking links and remote sensor boosters balancing tracking disruptors and ecm or damps for instance.

The balance instead of teetering on a balance like a seesaw is more complex. It has to form a stable triangular base to keep one from over-tipping. It has to hold position almost like a gyroscope can remain static in unnatural positions.

Our on grid boosts are very cheap both skill wise and isk wise. Our offgrids are very expensive in those manners also. They also take complimentary skills, one being strategic and another piloting. THere is a lot of balance already in place, IT does not need destroyed but there is some room for tuning. I also see some room for adding to it on the OFF GRID side with some more offensive boosts besides skirmish and targeting speed

What are the current ON grid counters to the Off Grid system? Are they complete and balanced? and in what ways? Most important, What would a winning/successful boosting system look like when it was done?


What you consider on grid boosting is remote assistance and EWAR. All of those are targetted making them much less powerfull when you consider how large a fleet can be. Most of the EWAR also has it's own counter directly on grid right now so there is no reason to balance it all with off grid boosting. There is no reason why something with such a potential impact on a fight should be able to stay away from the fight itself.


You are correct. That was a main point. we already have ongrid boosting. WE call it a different name but it is what it is. Sure they are less powerful but How many t1 ewars and logistics can be deployed for the cost of one t2/t3 off grid counter? T1 ewar can counter T2/3 ewar(OGB). neuts for instance can cancel or limit armor rep or shield boosting. Webs can cancel skirmish. Were left with the ECM bonus which isn't popular. I don't know why this is so, I've never used the Gallente Boosters and links. I guess because ewar pilots are few. EVE always favors the Blob. This is consistent. A blob of cheap t1 can fight a smaller more experienced and boosted force. Social interaction is encouraged, this is consistent design.


Cost is nto a balancing factor in EVE so the relative price between a T1 frig and a T2/T3 booster is meaningless. Booster is the only thing that affect an ongoing fight while not having to be on grid. This is opposed to everything else having influence in fights. Thats why it needs to go.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#258 - 2013-08-06 12:05:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Because when you're trying to fly a cheap fleet with no ship above 160m and you have to pay four time this price to get a booster, you don't want to risk loosing this money + five day of skillpoints.

On grid boosting will benefit large entities, those who have the money to affort leadership losses.
Small entities can't say the same, and thus you'll increase the difference in power between the two by the same percentage these ships are boosting.

That's why.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Evanga
DoctorOzz
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#259 - 2013-08-06 12:29:11 UTC
no off grid boosting plz. Let them warp them orca's and rorqs to the belt or asteroid clusters. TwistedTwistedTwisted
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#260 - 2013-08-06 13:23:04 UTC

I've been considering another approach to "fix" off grid boosts:

Perhaps the Potency of Warfare links should be related to the number of people in fleet with you.

Really, if you are in a fleet of 250+ players going out to shoot something, then generally you'll be facing an opponent of similar size. At this level of fighting, the firepower, ewar, and tactics utilized by both sides allows for decent battles even with massive booster bonuses.

However, at the 2-10 man gang size, the boosts from a booster are much more imbalancing. Essentially, the "less" players that are involved in the fight, means there is less ships to overcome the benefits boosts provided.

So, Perhaps boosts should be more akin to:
Base boost * Mindlink Boost * hull bonus * Fleet Bonus.

Fleet bonus = (1 + .002 * Link Specialist Level + .001 * Warfare Link Spec Level) * ( # of pilots in fleet).

Using 1.15 for Hull bonus (CS) and 1.25 for Mindlink bonus, then the evasive maneuvering II (8% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
5 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 12.36% reduction in Sig Size
10 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 13.23% reduction in Sig Size
15 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 14.09% reduction in Sig Size
20 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 *20 ) = 14.95% reduction in Sig Size
30 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 16.68% reduction in Sig Size
50 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 20.13% reduction in Sig Size
75 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 24.44% reduction in Sig Size
100 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 28.75% reduction in Sig Size
150 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 37.38% reduction in Sig Size
200 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 46% reduction in Sig Size
250 in fleet: 8 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 54.63% reduction in Sig Size

Likewise, Rapid Deployment II (7% base) would give very different bonuses based on your fleet size:
5 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 10.82% increase in speed
10 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 11.57% increase in speed
15 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 15 ) = 12.33% increase in speed
20 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 13.08% increase in speed
30 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 14.59% increase in speed
50 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 17.61% increase in speed
75 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 21.38% increase in speed
100 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 25.16% increase in speed
150 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 32.7% increase in speed
200 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 40.25% increase in speed
250 in fleet: 7 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 47.8% increase in speed

And now, for the important defensive links I (6% base):
5 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 5 ) = 9.27% Resists/Repair Rate
10 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 10 ) = 9.92% Resists/Repair Rate
15 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 *15 ) = 10.57% Resists/Repair Rate
20 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 20 ) = 11.21% Resists/Repair Rate
30 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 30 ) = 12.51% Resists/Repair Rate
50 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 50 ) = 15.09% Resists/Repair Rate
75 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 75 ) = 18.33% Resists/Repair Rate
100 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 100 ) = 21.56% Resists/Repair Rate
150 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 150 ) = 28.03% Resists/Repair Rate
200 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 200 ) = 34.5% Resists/Repair Rate
250 in fleet: 6 * 1.25 * 1.15 * (1 + 0.015 * 250 ) = 40.97% Resists/Repair Rate


With one link, this is an effective repair/HP bonus of:
5 in fleet: = 10.22% Effective Repair Boost
10 in fleet: = 11.01% Effective Repair Boost
15 in fleet: = 11.81% Effective Repair Boost
20 in fleet: = 12.63% Effective Repair Boost
30 in fleet: = 14.29% Effective Repair Boost
50 in fleet: = 17.78% Effective Repair Boost
75 in fleet: = 22.44% Effective Repair Boost
100 in fleet: = 27.49% Effective Repair Boost
150 in fleet: = 38.95% Effective Repair Boost
200 in fleet: = 52.67% Effective Repair Boost
250 in fleet: = 69.4% Effective Repair Boost

With all repair links running, this is an effective repair bonus of:
5 in fleet: = 21.48% Effective Repair Boost
10 in fleet: = 23.23% Effective Repair Boost
15 in fleet: = 25.02% Effective Repair Boost
20 in fleet: = 26.85% Effective Repair Boost
30 in fleet: = 30.63% Effective Repair Boost
50 in fleet: = 38.71% Effective Repair Boost
75 in fleet: = 49.92% Effective Repair Boost
100 in fleet: = 62.54% Effective Repair Boost
150 in fleet: = 93.07% Effective Repair Boost
200 in fleet: = 133.09% Effective Repair Boost
250 in fleet: = 186.97% Effective Repair Boost

In small gang (<10), the warfare link boosts are appropriately sized... game influencing without totally breaking game balance between the boosted and not-boosted.

In medium gang (<30), the links become more effective, and more important. This is fair.

In large gangs (>50), links become incredibly important... even encouraging redundant members.

Note: Fleet members probably need to be in system, in space, to limit afg in station game-the-system stuff. And AWOXers will take care of the AFG in space in fleet crowd!