Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The original owner of that account is the person who convinced me to start playing Eve.

I'm an incursion FC. I have my own booster on hand, nearly 23/7 when I PVP. I am extremely aware how of powerful links (especially perfect CS links with the faction mind link and a WS-618 to let the CS be faster than a t2 cruiser fleet) can be, in PVE or PVP
What I am saying is that eve is an MMO. To play an MMO solo, especially to intentionally PVP solo against groups, is taking on an inherent disadvantage as a way to show off. To give an inherent advantage to people who are

A: doing something which is hard because they choose the hard way of doing the thing
B: doing things by themselves, thereby ignoring the opportunity cost of the time spent to organize and gaining more time spent doing the thing.
C: Have an inherently lower investment in the thing, as they have one character on grid, compared to several. characters and their SP are the most difficult investment other than players,

is a bad plan, and can be infinitely abused.



With more PG, or CPU, you can very quickly break several intended tradeoffs, like no 100mn MWD cruisers with 1600 plates. Ditto range and damage. More capacitor lets you field much more potent active tanks, or perma kite with an oversized prop. Faster warp speed would make many mods redundant. Local bonuses to over-heating and/or link like effects make t3s and D3s even more of a hassle to counter in 1v1 or fight off as an ambush.

If it exists, then this is either duplication, which is bad because bloat for the sake of multiple mechanical paths to the same overall end is bad. If it does not, then it cheapens an asset that is precious to many people in a way which is unsatisfying. A second account is easily available to anyone who is willing to grind a little isk now and again, so it isn't even that hard to keep up via maintenance costs once you have it.



As lovely as your idea that this is the same argument, there are 3 critical differences for the gang.
1: Unless camping, it is an additional setup cost and failure point with every jump.
2: No one is getting kills from off-grid in this argument.
3: Organizing a fleet, and especially one with people who have the talent to effectively multi-box without software support (RIP ISboxer) takes effort and usually assets (even if the assets are intangible, like having a rep as a good FC) and should be rewarded.


And it doesn't take much to break the game at this point. Adding a fleet in a box is a bad plan in part because it is so nebulous. If you had a more complete idea, with proposed ranges of specifics beyond the no RR, no EWAR support, no fleet, I would be going through and attacking each point where I can break the game in a critical way, rather than trying to chop at the fog and cloud of bad ideas.

It is intended in part to be a duplication of the effect of boosters as an alternative to using boosts. Balancing gameplay with extra accounts in mind is bad game design, and it breaks the game for newer or poorer players. A second account is not trivial for all players of this game, the subscription and plexing costs alone may be prohibitive, as is the cost of buying a boosting toon outright for many people. In any event basing a rebuttal on the availability of 15b isk toons or multi-year investments is a sidestep of the fact that this module doesn't in any way lessen the strength of already powerful mechanics.



Again, the setup cost of a boosting alt isn't always a detractor for the gang. There's a reason that in dangerous areas of space t3s are used for links, namely that their movement from gate to gate is extremely safe compared to command ships. Travel with virtual impunity not only lets you boost with a degree of safety, but it also lets you scout extremely effectively. That's an often ignored upshot of the t3 class of links in general and one that people are quick to dismiss.

It's worth pointing out that I've not indicated to anyone that links should be made on grid or not, instead I'm saying that the argument of setup cost producing a certain advantage doesn't necissarily mean that a certain mechanic should persist, be unmodified, or otherwise unchecked. In the case of t3 boosts, or command ship boosts, an advantage is given by an asset off grid, and though killmails are not gained by the command link ship, the bonuses do generate kills. I don't think that links impart the degree of unfairness that skynet did, but there's still plenty of room for examination of the concept of off grid supporting on grid as a whole. Again, this doesn't need to mean that I want links on grid.



Yes, it is nebulous, I purposefully didn't include my own biases in any numbers that I would have fabricated for a potential rough draft of the module, it's just a concept, a bug that I'd like to plant in CCP's ear. So far, I haven't seen any argument strong against it other than those that surround warfare links, because the idea is no more game breaking than links, or other support denying modules like bastion.

They don''t give a damn about the solo player, its all about blobbing with numbers and serving as much to the masses in null sec.

Planning is an important part of being successful.

You can unequip it if you desire. If you're worried about not being able to dock carry a mobile depot like anyone else that wants to refit when they can't dock. The point of the module is to set a person along a path to a certain play style. This doesn't make the game any harder than choosing one ship or module over another, it's a choice with it's own unique benefits and consequences.