EVE General Discussion

If they don't run links, that's their choice. If they are hesitant because of that, then they will find some other excuse to be hesitant in the absence of links. Risk aversion is not determined by the presence of links in the game, it's an individual thing that exists outside the game mechanics.

Why do I need links? I don't particularly. It's a game mechanic that is available, so I choose to use it. There is nothing wrong in doing so and it's nothing about boosting my stats. I don't give two hoots about stats, just having good fights. In relation to this particular issue, links allow me to engage a much wider group of targets, both having and bringing good fights as a result. So in my personal experience, they aren't a negative in that respect.

In relation to casuals. Quite frankily, if they are going to whinge because they are a casual, then that is just another excuse used. "I'm just casual. It's not fair" is a pretty weak argument and if someone doesn't want to run a second account, then links are no different to someone else choosing to run a second account for logistics, or as to multibox DPS. 2 v 1 in those cases is no different, but complaining about not wanting to do something is the typical request for CCP to step in and help because they can't accept that it is their own self imposed limitation.

Success in pvp is never a concrete thing (with or without links) and no, why should tactical means be the only thing that affect outcome? Operational and Strategic decisions are equally important.

But overall I don't disagree with the argument about OGB. It could be removed from the game and the only affect would be to make the landscape of pvp a little less interesting (more uniform and less varied in that respect).

The only lament I would have from that is the time and effort that has gone into training a character to use the mechanics to their best advantage. It's not a trivial commitment. Those who make that choice gain benefit out of that choice, but if you look at the skillset of that character I linked, she is pretty much links focused at the moment and has been constantly trained since she was started two and a half years ago. Links characters are not an instant win button. But I'd move on and find some other use for her it if happens.

In the absence of brain-in-a-box, I guess it would always be possible to remove links from the game temporarily.

I don't see that happening, but temporary solutions should be possible until the preferred approach is available. Passive boosts from leadsrhip skills would still exist, but it should be possible to temporarily remove the effect of links modules.

Off Grid Boosting exists for one big reason:
On Grid Boosting is NOT viable. Not unless you are in Carriers or Titans. Or a Slep roam. Beyond that booting ships are survivable for any length of time at all. It's a broken mechanic with broken ships and modules that hamper their use in small fleets, and in large ones make Off Grid, or using Cap's that aren't as easy to just blow off the grid.


CCP did make changes so there's no more of the unscanable Booster ships, and kicked them out of the POS's (except for Rorq/Orca, they can still boost in a POS till they get their rebalance).. Which was a good change imho. They are now able to be killed, you just need to get them, or keep forcing them to warp, either way removes the boosts.

Now for me, I think Off Grid boosting should remain, but with one change. I'd like difference bonuses for off grid vs on grid. Say a 50% Bonus for being On Grid (Or a 50% Reduction for being off grid)..
Also, I'd like an end to those Command Processors. Having them take up your mids kills shield booster ships. It makes no sense that you can fit near a full rack of links on a Damnation, AND Tank, but try that on a Vulture you get just the links and nada else. Just make it so you can fit as many as there are slots on Command Ships, and adjust their fitting stats to even it out. T3's.. hell just make it 1link + link for each level of that Subsystems skill. There's your 6 high slots. Do the same for Carriers and Titans. Leave BC's alone as 1 link only..


Now as for the comment about can't warp/jump/etc.. Well Boosting should give an aggression timer.. so no gates/docking while links are on+1min. While in warp, links go off anyway, so as long as you keep scanning em down, they aren't boosting anything, or are tackled. It takes about as much SP to make a scanning toon that can scan down that booster in seconds, as it does to have the perfect booster.. so I don't see the issue myself.. sooner or later you'll catch em, or they won't notice the probes, and you'll have your kill. In the mean time constant warping will keep them from boosting.

Another idea, increase the cycle time of links, but make them take a massive amount of cap at the beginning.. it would average out to the same now, but if you keep activating them as you warp away, land, etc, then you'll be cap dry in short order and unable to warp, or unable to boost. Or blowing though a lot of charges, which again, finite amount, can't keep it up forever..

People who do it, ridicule. Rational people go, huh? You get an extra row of pawns? To the response, "Crybaby!"

Agreed, but the point was that you want static factors like sp or a booster alt to have a bigger impact wheras I and others would prefer spontanious tactical decisions to be more decisive. The strategic aspect of eve has a huge impact as it is -that's just fine and nobody wants to turn eve pvp into a game of chess I believe. The problem with boosts is that they provide a massive advantage which especially in solo pvp can't be countered and which involves no risk or interaction even. I'm sure you understand how that makes ogb's unique compared to any other static factor or strategic decision. Removing links would leave more room for dynamic factors like smart manual piloting and deception and I just think that would make a better game as I'm sure you'll understand. But tbh as i said i don't really wanted to discuss why ogb is a bad mechanic. That has basically been settled

Just my personal opinion as a Semi-Link whore.

-> Drastically lower boosts for Offgrid boosts. IE: Instead of a 30% bonus, change it to about 5%.
-> 30% bonus for On grid Boosting
-> Add more boosting ships for each ship size. Battleship, Destroyer, Frigate, Cruiser (Not T3's)
-> Nerf fitting requirement on links to increase combat viability of on grid ships.

What does this mean? Offgrid boosting is still capable - providing a small advantage, but not an exponential one. Encourage people to bring their links on field while being useful. Make links more accessible as well.

I think they should get rid of boosts entirely. No off grid, no on grid, no fleet bonus. Turn the command ships into something else. Refund SP for fleet command skills and allow anyone to form a fleet of any size.

Again this wouldn't have any affect on their use in highsec.

When you need links in highsec it's usually because you intend to engage a numerically superior but otherwise inferior opponent and that extra advantage. The numbers of people involved in your kills is irrelevant and losing the element of surprise after their first use is much the same as it is with neutral logistics except with links they are never actually vulnerable.

The logical solution is to give neutral characters that are providing fleet bonuses to characters who are suspect flagged, involved in limited engagements, or are engaging war targets suspect flags.

It sounds like a great idea right? I guarantee it wouldn't work out how people want it to, much like suspect flagging of neutral logistics had a number of funny side effects that routinely screw over the uninformed.

I'm thinking the same thing.

I too am beside myself with outrage and disbelief over a broken game mechanic. As a customer I feel entitled to demand change.

But deep down inside, I know I deserve everything that CCP does. CCP giveth and CCP taketh away.