1st? its a possibility...

Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)

Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)

Ferox: we would like to reinforce the sniping nature of this ship, most likely by replacing the shield resistance bonus with a hybrid damage bonus. Nothing is set in stone yet, as we need to find ways to ensure it doesnGÇÖt compete with the Naga.

NO DO NOT MAKE CAPITAL SHIPS REQUIRE {Race} BATTLESHIP 4.

Capital ships are not the same as sub-caps, DO NOT CHANGE THAT, it should require the extra month to get into.

I have nothing against new players who want to get into them, i was the same. But they just are not the same as all the subcaps and should be treated differently.

Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.

Reimbursement details:

Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.

No, i disagree on the multi bonuses on the races for command ships, its not even distinct.

If you are going to do that, then AT LEAST the specific race have better bonus over the other. Like vulture gets 5% shield bonus and 3% skirmish. I mean come on, 3% across the two race? :(

GÇóHarbinger: assuming direct control.

we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid.

Amarr get Amor and Skirmish for their command ships? Seriously? I think we are playing a different game.

so rather than leaving the bonses to boosting at 3 and 5% but swapping them around, you feel like nerf'ing what we already have.

so much for what you have today yourll have tomorrow.

5% for commandships and 3% for tech 3's is the way forward.

"Brutix: this ship role conflicts a bit with the Talos, mainly because the latter is more mobile and packs more punch. We want to explore options on how to turn the Brutix into a more reliable close-range brawler, while the Talos keeps a kiting advantage."

I think the active tank bonus should be replaced with a passive armor bonus.

we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid.

To infinity and beyond!

Want to make this clear to everyone, the stuff in this blog is not coming on the 4th with Retribution. This blog covers some of what we are going to be working on in the beginning of next year.

As for the gang link nerf discussion. It's extremely clear that the addition of the 5% bonused T3s combined with the T2 gang link modules created a perfect storm with gang boosts. These have become far too powerful and it has become almost impossible to compete without a booster alt. We're not switching command ship and T3 bonuses straight up because 5% links are overpowered, so everyone should probably start getting used to that idea.

Prophecy: expected to be changed to a drone boat. This is a role revamp that will radically modify its slot and fitting layout. It will most likely have less bandwidth but more drone bay than the Myrmidon.

Basically Gallente sucks because the game mechanics suck. Can we just get fixes to active tanking and drones? Drone UI needs to be completely redone.

Your current plan for the Ferox is doomed. Short range shield brawlling is the key here.

Brutix should have a utiliy high and active armour tanking bonuses should diaf. Otherwise, please proceed.

Reimbursement details:
GÇóLet us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
GÇó With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.

With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.

Want to make this clear to everyone, the stuff in this blog is not coming on the 4th with Retribution. This blog covers some of what we are going to be working on in the beginning of next year.

As for the gang link nerf discussion. It's extremely clear that the addition of the 5% bonused T3s combined with the T2 gang link modules created a perfect storm with gang boosts. These have become far too powerful and it has become almost impossible to compete without a booster alt. We're not switching command ship and T3 bonuses straight up because 5% links are overpowered, so everyone should probably start getting used to that idea.

Those are going to be a different dev blog

we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid.

So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

i agree...

though personally for racial flavour i would prefer caldari adopt a ROF instead of a damage bonus...

as this would make caldari higher DPS and make Galente Higher bust damage.

also i would not get rid of the tanking bonus for the brutix just increase to 10% per level and make it also affect incomming external armour RR. i would also make the bonus affect the effectiveness of ERNM...

This would allow a brutix to either setup for small pvp (active tanking)

or passive fleet setup using ERNM... instead of armour plates which slow the ship down and make it harder to turn...

CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes.



That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance:

If I have currently:

BC to V
Gall Cruiser to V
but Caldari Cruiser to IV

Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get:

Gall BC to V
but
Caldari BC to IV

?

So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.

Oracle, Naga, Talos and Tornado: are mostly fine, except for the mobility which is a little too high, and signature radius, which could be increased a bit. Apart from this, little needs to change.

Very good news overall, but it sounds like you guys don't want to tiericide the larger hulls. The devblog doesn't mention giving all 'combat' Battleships and all 'attack' Battleships the same amount of slots and roughly the same fitting stats.

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.


This is correct.

Also, I hope more Caldari ships moving over to damage bonus for hybrids doesn't start to step on the Gallente's "TONS OF DAMAGE" motif they have going on.

oracle has a double gun cap use bonus. This is is a wasted bonus compared to the other three. Cap use bonus should be a role bonus, since its the role of the ship to be able to use that large laser guns. The BC bonus should be something which makes the ship special.

wasting one bonus attribute just to be able to fire the guns is not cool at all.

The same tiericide principles apply all the way to BS, the blog was talking about roles primarily.

Fozzie: Care to comment on the implications that this devblog makes that you guys will be adding four entirely new battleships (3 disruption and an attack?)

I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve?

Give the Maelstrom comparable locking range to the Rokh.

Also strip shield booster bonus from battleships. Local reps are completely useless in blobs.

Interesting ideas. When you rebalance CS and leadership mechanics/offgrid boosting, will you be adjusting the way mindlinks interact with leadership skills? As it stands, mindlinks more or less double the strength of the corresponding ganglinks, making it much more important to have the mindlink plugged in than it is to max out the Command Ships skill or the appropriate T3 subsystem. Are there any plans to shift the emphasis such that mindlinks become less of a must-have for pilots with leadership skills?

Also, will T1 BCs retain the ability to fit gang links, or will fleet boosting become a CS/T3-only affair?

How the flying fXXk can this 'faster specialization'?

Give the Maelstrom comparable locking range to the Rokh.

Also strip shield booster bonus from battleships. Local reps are completely useless in blobs.

So if I have battlecruisers 5 and each racial cruiser at lvl 3, does that mean I'll get every racial battlecruiser skill to 5?
You're saying 'if you can fly it now you'll still be able to fly it', but I'd like to know on what level.

So if I have battlecruisers 5 and each racial cruiser at lvl 3, does that mean I'll get every racial battlecruiser skill to 5?
You're saying 'if you can fly it now you'll still be able to fly it', but I'd like to know on what level.

I think they could do the best of both worlds make one the Shield Boost and the other the Artillery Ship.

Maybe tracking, or Falloff on the Tempest, Dmg Bonus and 7 Turrets / 6 Mids 5 Lows. Or give the Shield Boost to the Tempest and make the Mael all Fleet.

Will the changes to Gang Link bonuses be made "Role Bonues" or will the second gang link bonus supplant the existing second bonus for the Command Ships skill? Ie, would the Vulture's second Hybrid Optimal Range bonus become the 3% to Info War link bonus?

To clarify, each command ship has four bonuses based on Command Ships skill level; will the bonuses to links become native to the hull, plus having four bonuses, or will we have two bonuses and two gang link bonuses?

in your current model we're losing a lot of EHP on everything due to the lack of a 5% hull

Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful.

I am disappoint. Have you guys considered the possibility of giving links an optimal range that they work inside of, rather than an on-grid/off-grid distinction.

The boost from a 5% bonused link maxed with a warfare link implant is 35.16%, the boost from a 3% bonused ship is 32.34%. I think you can live with 2.82% less ehp.

hint: on an abaddon that is dual plated with slaves and trimarks, it only loses 13k ehp from the original 340k with boosts. That's hardly anything.

As for the gang link nerf discussion. It's extremely clear that the addition of the 5% bonused T3s combined with the T2 gang link modules created a perfect storm with gang boosts. These have become far too powerful and it has become almost impossible to compete without a booster alt. We're not switching command ship and T3 bonuses straight up because 5% links are overpowered, so everyone should probably start getting used to that idea.

who said every BS should be usefull in blobs ?

The Ferox and sniper/brawler role

Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
[/LIST]

It's still a nerf to the boost itself and, in the context of everyone talking about removing off-grid boosting, it should not be taken lightly. Please don't CCP this and nerf a very important mechanic from both ends.

An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers

With the bulk of our work out of the way though, this begs the question, what are we going to do now with all that precious free time?

Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:

• Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.

yes gallente need more speed!!!! and info links need to be looked at and maybe made to amarr flavour.


• The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.

Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful.

The Ferox and sniper/brawler role

Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.

as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots

Fozzie could you comment on the boost amount issue? Why did you bring it down to 2%/3% rather than keep it 3%/5%? Are you open to considering reversing that and giving the one on-race bonus 5% on command ships?

Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:

• Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.


• The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.

as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots

Drake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull GÇô while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here.

However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?

The Claymore is going to become a missile boat? That sucks.

However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?

With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.

Um, isn't one of the facets of tiericide is that you just need level 1 of the appropriate skill to fly that category of ships (i.e. Amarr Battleship I for all the Amarr battleships)? If so, the bolded sentence makes no sense, unless the appropriate level is I.

Very likely they will become role bonuses. Once we're done we intend all 8 command ships to be useful for blowing stuff up and all 8 command ships to be useful for gang boosting.

CCP Fozzie,

Is there any plans to completely change information links to something more useful? Currently shield, armor and speed links help every ship. 99% of the time players will choose one of those three over information bonuses every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The current fleet hierarchy only sees real use of bonuses in the fleet and wing command spots. Which is tank and skirmish. Would changing the info bonuses to be bonuses to drones, which 90% of all ships in the game have, be an option?

Also I am one of the 7 with max information bonuses on T3 and command ships.

Thank you Fozzie; looking forward to combat-oriented command ships

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.


This is correct.

Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:

• Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.


• The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.

Let's say I have the following skills:

Battlecruiser V
Caldari Cruiser IV
Minmatar Cruiser III
Gallente Cruiser II
Amarr Cruiser 0

What do I get then?

In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.

Sorry to rehash something already answered, but I'm missing something.

What happens if I DON'T have Racial Cruiser to III before the change, but I have Battlecruiser V.

Let's say I have the following skills:

Battlecruiser V
Caldari Cruiser IV
Minmatar Cruiser III
Gallente Cruiser II
Amarr Cruiser 0

What do I get then?

I trained max information warfare skills specifically for one Info Claymore fit for the AT. And then joined CCP before ever actually flying that ship on TQ.

Any thoughts on adding another level in the hierarchy so a fleet can hold 1,281. Granted I am not a fan of massive scale combat, but the game needs it. All wars are fought on a coalition level and the players have outgrown the current max numbers allowed in a fleet. This would also open up another level of bonuses where information (or a new version of it) could see use in large scale combat. Regulating them to a squad commander spot is impractical when you are only helping out ten people total. You are just better off bringing a combat ship.

why not four racial battlecruiser skills to V after patch if i have bc V?

Changing skill requirements for capital ships from Racial Battleships 5 to 4, but introducing or increasing other skills to keep the same overall training time requirements

I think this is a bad idea. Low end capital ships at the moment have very niche roles for a pretty big ISK outlay so making people still have to train forever to get into one after having a bigger grind to get to battleships strikes me as a little unfair. 30 days is a moot point if you're going for supercapitals anyway because all the other skills will take a year or more to train and the ISK investment is colossal.
It wouldn't have been so much of a problem pre supercarrier because capital ships were deployed a lot more but now it just seems like another nail in the coffin. It doesn't affect supercapital pilots or supercapital wannabes because they're going to have to invest in a year or more of other skills after they can sit in a capital ship anyway a 30 days difference isn't a huge deal if that's what they really want to do.

Especially when 16 supercarriers with a small support fleet can do the job of about seventy odd capital ships in olden times.

It won't affect me so much anyway because I am a supercarrier pilot, I just feel bad for the new people who see capital ships and think they're awesome on their first day.

However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?

Changing skill requirements for capital ships from Racial Battleships 5 to 4, but introducing or increasing other skills to keep the same overall training time requirements

However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?

It's still a nerf to the boost itself {...}

Problem with gamers on the internet--"nerf" has become synonymous with "reduction".

However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?

Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats.

You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue?

There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it.

Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)

I like this idea. Offgrid boosting is hokey, even for miners.

I like where the whole devblog was going.

Er because it means that? Maybe you're confused with a reduction being a bad/negative thing for balance, or in some way implying nerfing involves instantly bringing something below average or competitive, rather than just down from too high a place?

But how would you feel if this increased skill would be shared across the capitals? Like JDO5 and JDC4? Like the BlackOps ships have?

Er because it means that? Maybe you're confused with a reduction being a bad/negative thing for balance, or in some way implying nerfing involves instantly bringing something below average or competitive, rather than just down from too high a place?

I wouldn't mind, Jump drive operation would be a good one for it since you need it to 5 before you can train the other useful skills. It would also save the headache of zero skill carrier pilots trying to hop on a logistics chain .

Jump calibration to 4 before you could sit in the ship is a bit harsh though, although it makes sense.

designer minions lol

You mentioned technical difficulties, is this really so hard to program?

Technically they're my minions

Technically they're my minions

No, it didn't. Originally, "nerf" came from Neft bats and their other toys, referring to a reduction so severe as to make something useless.

Those are going to be a different dev blog

While I approve the the strength reduction on T3 boosts please dont make them have to be on grid. Those of us that do sub 10 man gangs and solo just plain need links for fighting 30-40 man gangs and having a chance to kill a few before having to gtfo without all just dying in a fire.

What should happen is:

Command ships be able to give better bonus to the whole fleet but have to be on field

T3 be able to off grid boost but only be able to give bonus to a squad (10 people) and provide less bonus

No command bonus from inside a pos what so ever.

These chances would mean that solo and small gang people still have a chance and command ships still have their role in medium to large War fair.

While I approve the the strength reduction on T3 boosts please dont make them have to be on grid. Those of us that do sub 10 man gangs and solo just plain need links for fighting 30-40 man gangs and having a chance to kill a few before having to gtfo without all just dying in a fire.

What should happen is:

Command ships be able to give better bonus to the whole fleet but have to be on field

T3 be able to off grid boost but only be able to give bonus to a squad (10 people) and provide less bonus

No command bonus from inside a pos what so ever.

These chances would mean that solo and small gang people still have a chance and command ships still have their role in medium to large War fair.

fleetboosters working like warp bubbles is cool stuff.

but not with the current grid mechanics, there should be a default grid of at least 1000km around all places where fights might happen

If you're looking to make info links more useful, give us some neut/capacitor bonuses with them.

Guess what, those 30-40 man gangs exist in part because 10 of the same players cannot compete with your 10 man offgrid boosted gang in the first place. You're part of the problem.

I meet all the requirements for flying field command ships but never trained for the fleet command ships (missing information link specialist). After the change will I still be able to fly my sleipnir/absolution or are you going to require the terrible fleet command skills for all CS?

There is a lot of talk about boosting from behind a POS shield. I actually think this is fine (and should be possible) IF boosting is changed to ongrid boosting. So if you defend a POS, you can have the booster inside the shield, makes perfect sense.
Obviously it is broken at the moment with Offgrid boosting, so a temporary fix might be in order that at least removes this ability for now, in other words: put it back once boosting is changed to be ongrid only!

To me it would be very sad if even people defending a pos couldn't boost from inside.

There is a lot of talk about boosting from behind a POS shield. I actually think this is fine (and should be possible) IF boosting is changed to ongrid boosting. So if you defend a POS, you can have the booster inside the shield, makes perfect sense.
Obviously it is broken at the moment with Offgrid boosting, so a temporary fix might be in order that at least removes this ability for now, in other words: put it back once boosting is changed to be ongrid only!

To me it would be very sad if even people defending a pos couldn't boost from inside.

I might be thinking too simple but can't you just set the boost range to the mining links to systemwide and the others to "on-grid"? Or are people going to complain that people mining should have a booster in their belt because boosting mining from a POS also gives the miners an unfair advantage? This eliminates the discussion rolling back to mining where I think it has no relation.

The genuine issue here has nothing to do at all with the hulls. It's AC's. Fall off makes no sense in any logical analysis. Combined with dial in damage selection, no cap use, and to a lesser degree tracking enhancers, there is little incentive to fly any other race of gunship. This is the root cause that you need to be addresing, not hull changes.

We want to explore options on how to turn the Brutix into a more reliable close-range brawler, while the Talos keeps a kiting advantage.

Technically they're my minions

significant boost should have significant risk... its how to balance things

You cant do a single thing inside a pos, cant lock let alone shoot/point even agro with smart bombs. Giving bonus from inside a pos is a broken mechanic, and leads to zero risk for the ship itself. T3 links can be scaned, commands on field can be killed, everything in this game should have risk.

not sure what you mean by neut bonus to a link but certainly cap and fittings need to be looked at.

Danish Imperialist!!

Using innocent icelanders for your gain, the danish never change...... <.<

However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?

Regarding the Ferox, if we're trying to keep it advantaged as a sniper, I feel like there's really only one way to think about it. It's not a large Moa, it's a smaller, faster Rokh. The tank bonus is needed for durability, I'd expect, and giving it range/damage will make it just a smaller-gunned version of the Naga, whose problems other people have covered here. (I agree with the people saying that "Large Moa" will make one or the other insufficiently good. The same goes for the Naga comparison.)

I'd really like to see a properly snipey Ferox, now that I might actually have T2 medium rails soon, but it needs to be able to hold up under fire to compete with things like the Drake, even if that's an extreme example which may be getting a tanking nerf to go with its damage nerf.

Well there is still a risk, but only if you defend the POS when coming out of reinforced (grated, the risk only comes into play once you fail to actually defend it). I kinda glanced over when the POS is being put into reinforced, but how often is it actually defended in that case? (Yes, I'm really asking, how many % of attacks to reinforce a POS actually encouter direct resistance?)