CS and T3 command bonus changes will not be included in Odyssey, although they are still on our roadmap.

When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about.

When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time.

When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about.

Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?

Discuss away.

Is it beyond the point where it's worth the player's time discussing options on the forums? Or would the devs still like us to drag our opinions out in to the harsh light of day and have at it like civilised gentlebeings?

:) so what is the hold up with offgrid boosting?..... surely putting a range on links would solve the problem ... like a bubble effect

:) so what is the hold up with offgrid boosting?..... surely putting a range on links would solve the problem ... like a bubble effect

A little bit of input from a former Rorqual pilot:
**********
Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
**********

So, whenever you make an adjustment to off-grid boosting, that is something to adjust as well.

Why?
In contrast to Carriers and Dreadnoughts which are (mostly) supported by a sub-capital combat fleet,
Rorquals only have mining barges and exhumers as support.
Hence, requiring the "deployed mode" might lead to Orcas providing gang boost in fleet,
instead of the ship designed to that best.

From my point of view:
Dropping the "deployed mode" will improve the chances of Rorquals boosting on-grid of asteroid belts.

Just my 2 cents ... no argument pro/contra off-grid boosting

I imagine that the difference is that a bubble effect only has to be checked every time a player tries to warp but links are a persistent effect and would have to be constantly checked to ensure range. This is probably okay for small numbers, but once you get 500 ships on a grid (or even in a system) then you have to check range for every ship at some high rate, meaning lots more operations that have to hit the server.

I also imagine they've thought of this, but maybe it could work sort of like a smartbomb effect but with a bigger effect radius and just happen once every 15 seconds or something.

Or maybe the check could happen upon landing on a grid or when a booster activates or deactivates (including when initiating warp) the link and then persists until the next check.

The guys at CCP are smart and I expect they'll figure it out in time without causing time dilation in systems with only 2 ships in space.

When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.

So I do honestly welcome people's cool ideas about what form gang links could take. Don't limit yourself to small changes to the status quo, because it turns out with this system small changes aren't necessarily any faster to implement than off the wall changes.

When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about.

Your thoughts and words are correct and intelligent.

Once the underlying code finishes getting rewritten from the ground up we'll have plenty of options for how to apply links in interesting ways that create interesting gameplay experiences. At the moment we don't have any of those options.

So I do honestly welcome people's cool ideas about what form gang links could take. Don't limit yourself to small changes to the status quo, because it turns out with this system small changes aren't necessarily any faster to implement than off the wall changes.

It's a performance optimization problem. We could turn on range-based boosting in Odyssey but it would melt all the servers.

And this isn't being delayed by Odyssey, the team working on the underlying code that will make ongrid boosting possible (along with many other things) isn't releasing anything in Odyssey. It's just that big of a project.

So like I said before, at some point CCP Veritas will make all my ganglink-related dreams come true but I honestly do not know when that point will be. When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.

It's a performance optimization problem. We could turn on range-based boosting in Odyssey but it would melt all the servers....

At the very least, CCP should at least buff All CS boosting to 5% per level instead of 3%. It's flat out ridicolous that a max boosting alt = T3 pilot that also benefits from MUCH MUCH LESS TRAINING REQUIRED FOR THE SHIP.

Discuss away.

Your thoughts and words are correct and intelligent.

Once the underlying code finishes getting rewritten from the ground up we'll have plenty of options for how to apply links in interesting ways that create interesting gameplay experiences. At the moment we don't have any of those options.

So I do honestly welcome people's cool ideas about what form gang links could take. Don't limit yourself to small changes to the status quo, because it turns out with this system small changes aren't necessarily any faster to implement than off the wall changes.

As a temporary solution, you could increase cap usage of command links. Up to a level that makes it impossible to run 3 links cap stable on a sub-capital ship.

how about we do this.

make a general command mind link. one link bonuses all ships. that way we can have a boosting clone and a combat clone instead of 5 clones dedicated to armor, skirmish, shield, intel and mining.

All that said, using links shouldn't be risk free... I would say that giving the links themselves a noticeable downside to the link ship, such as increase signature radius + decreased sensor strenght by % per link, enough to make them much easier to scan down... combined with links not working within a radius of stations, gates and pos's... would fix the situration people have been complaining about from the off grid boosting...

wtf? why would they ever do this? EVE is about choices and trade offs.

Imo boosts are a powerful advantage and you shouldn't get all boosts at full for free on a single clone.

A single mindlink would be amazing.

Offgrid boosting makes small gang vs big gang a bit easier (Easier isn't easy, it went from "Very hard" to "Moderatly hard").

If you remove offgrid boosting, you have to implement at least one boosting platform per ship size.

If you remove offgrid boosting, please make it so that boosting ships have a good mobility. You can't boost Vagabond/Cynabal gangs with a Claymore, it's just way too slow.

If you remove offgrid boosting, make it so that the boosting ships still are good combat ships. Having to bring and manage a boosting ship shouldn't mean -1 DPS. Else you're promoting big gangs.

Don't forget that a boosting ship isn't hard to bring in a big gang. A boosting ship in a 5 man gang is 1/5 of the fleet already.

Whatever you do, don't make it pro-big gangs, please.



Yes.



Boosting requires a massive amount of skillpoints, is a very boring activity, and requires at least 2 jumpclones to be efficient, along with 2 expensive implants. Oh, and you only have 2 ships to boost from. Very slow Commandships that you can't use in anything but BC/BS fleets, or cloakynullifier T3s that won't ever see the grid.

This is why.

I think that ganglinks should be a targeted module - you lock someone and activate the module on them, giving them a bonus like an RSB or Tracking Link. This means that whoever is in the bonus ship is reacting to who is taking damage, or who is trying to burn in for that fast point. It becomes a coordinated activity requiring focus, and not just something someone throws an alt into.

i for saw this discussion 5 months ago and posted this back then..

I for one have been a huge fan of skirmish links when flying tackle ships... I would have been sad to see off grid boosting removed completly if thats ever the plan... Off grid boosting in my mind gives an advantage to the smaller number players vs larger gangs, if the larger gang hasn't brought links, this is why you can see videos with a single person skirmishing outnumbered :), that would become a thing of the past if off grid boosting was removed completly, as only the bigger fleet would have the defence to have their links on grid... (extreme case)

I was also thinking about targeted operation. But instead of upside-down method you suggested, I think lower ranked should lock their commander. Most probably, once in grid, fleet boosters would have a lot to do to survive. And as long as they can fit weapons and EWAR - they dont need some special activities on top of that.

So how it could be implemented? Fleet commander activates his links, but they are useless for his fleet yet, they only affect himself. Then a wing commander locks and activates a "command uplink" module on him. Now the wingcom also recieves boosts from FC, as well as from his own links (if any). Next, a squadcom lock his wingcom and establishes uplink. The squadcom passes the bonuses accumulated from FC, wingcom, plus his own - to his squaddies. Squaddies dont need to set up the uplink, as it would ruin too many established gameplay, they just recieve boosts for free - of course if their squadcom is in range and alive.

Why locking and module activation is important? Provided the uplink has visual effects, an enemy can counter by disrupting your command chain with usual methods. They can aim for FC himself, but he's always good tanked, has ECCM, SeBos, recieves cap from logis. Countering wingcoms is generally easier, but gives less effect. Squadcoms most times are just ordinary grunts, and can be killed (jammed, damped, neuted) as easy as anyone - but they are numerous. So interesting trade offs are here.

One thought I'd had was instead of removing off-grid boosting entirely, simply drastically reduce the effectiveness of boosts received if the pilot is not on the same grid as the booster. Say, by 50-75%. Maybe even add a high-rank skill (whatever Fleet Command is, plus one or two?) that reduces the off-grid penalty by a few percent per level....

I imagine that the difference is that a bubble effect only has to be checked every time a player tries to warp but links are a persistent effect and would have to be constantly checked to ensure range. This is probably okay for small numbers, but once you get 500 ships on a grid (or even in a system) then you have to check range for every ship at some high rate, meaning lots more operations that have to hit the server.

Just make it so you cant activate links inside of a pos.

Just make it so you cant activate links inside of a pos.

I'm trying to condense some arguments that have been presented in a discussion on Twitter:

First, there is the opinion (from e.g.: Liang Nuren) that links as they stand are massively overpowered. In my experience, the classic example is the Mining Foreman Link - Laser Optimization: this link will reduce the cycle time of a mining or ice harvesting laser by 35% or so, meaning that all mining ships in the fleet get 50% higher yield over time. Similar things happen with Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers, you get massively improved range on webifiers and points (from memory, a boosted Arazu can get a long point out to 100km). To some this is massively overpowered. To others it's just an advantage of getting warfare links.

Second, there is the opinon that warfare links boosting from behind POS shields is unfair. After all, if you want to destroy that ship you first have to go through the POS. Suddenly your 6-man roaming gang needs to do structure bashing to get a "fair" fight. So to some, POS-OGB is unfair and overpowered. To others, it's "home field advantage".

Third, there is the consideration that almost by definition, link bonuses are an exclusive feature of blob warfare. To some, a blob is any fleet that beats you which has 1 more ship than your own fleet. To others, a blob is a fleet larger than some arbitrary N. The upcoming command ship bonuses make the existing T2 command ships more combat-worthy, but to some this isn't enough: why fly a claymore when you could fly a proper battlecruiser or battleship for more DPS?

Fourth, there is the consideration of Titan hull bonuses in general and the Rorqual bonus being tied to the industrial core: if warfare links can only buff fleetmates on the same grid, the Rorqual will no longer be used for mining fleets. Do titan hull bonuses need to be reviewed at the same time as warfare links?

All that said, the warfare link (on/off-grid) issue was brought up at fan fest and the answer was "that's a lot of code to rewrite" much like the answer to questions about the POS overhaul. As much as almost everyone wants both new POSes and a change to warfare links, it doesn't sound like either will be a near future change.

According to CCP Fozzie, CCP Veritas is looking/will be looking at squad boosting code, so it's on the cards. Hopefully CCPs Fozzie or Veritas can let us know what's going on.

. . .one of the biggest remaining performance bottlenecks on Jita.

The rewrite that's needed to do new stuff with gang links will also affect a number of other things, including breaking one of the biggest remaining performance bottlenecks on Jita and big fleet fights. Unsurprisingly that helps raise its priority.

The rewrite that's needed to do new stuff with gang links will also affect a number of other things, including breaking one of the biggest remaining performance bottlenecks on Jita and big fleet fights. Unsurprisingly that helps raise its priority.

Third, there is the consideration that almost by definition, link bonuses are an exclusive feature of blob warfare. To some, a blob is any fleet that beats you which has 1 more ship than your own fleet. To others, a blob is a fleet larger than some arbitrary N. The upcoming command ship bonuses make the existing T2 command ships more combat-worthy, but to some this isn't enough: why fly a claymore when you could fly a proper battlecruiser or battleship for more DPS?

This would be an EXCELLENT start!!!

blobs are inherently not as good at coordinated attacks as smaller and more tightly knit organizations.

The beauty, if you will, of the blob is that you don't have to be coordinated or tightly knit. In fact, the pilots by and large don't even have to be that good. All the blob relies on is numbers. If N pilots are capable of locking the target and pressing F1, then the target will die from alpha. Smaller and more coordinated groups, while I of course agree are better from a gaming/fun standpoint, just aren't needed when you can amass 750 low skilled mouthbreathers to press a button.

Now, before anyone gets offended and tells me to train up or buy my own warfare link alts: I am running three purrrrr-fect skilled warfare link alts from within a POS right now. I've got it covered.

Hmmm, the actual context for the blob argument was that you're blobbing when you bring more people than there are people in the rest of the region combined. But on a slightly more serious note: the problem here was stated earlier in the thread. Large static fleets that dramatically outnumber their opponents are free to bring the large and heavy static command ships to the field and reap the massively overpowered bonuses while smaller fleets that are based around skirmishing are literally **** out of luck.

Thus, what I'm objecting to is that on grid only links pretty much hits a delete key on skirmish based warfare.

My objection really boils down to the fact that links that provide 50%+ bonuses are amazingly overpowered in a game where people train for 60 days for a 2% bonus. In a very real sense, a set of links provides you and everyone in your fleet with a snake set, a nomad set, a grail set, a slave set, a crystal set, an armor crystal set, and a full rack of deadspace/officer gear. For free.

When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about.

What does this mean for the Command Ship changes that were originally planned for this xpack? Can we expect to see a balanced group of CS in the near future? AKA, sleipnir and claymore should not magically get 1 more slot.

Thus, what I'm objecting to is that on grid only links pretty much hits a delete key on skirmish based warfare.

My objection really boils down to the fact that links that provide 50%+ bonuses are amazingly overpowered in a game where people train for 60 days for a 2% bonus. In a very real sense, a set of links provides you and everyone in your fleet with a snake set, a nomad set, a grail set, a slave set, a crystal set, an armor crystal set, and a full rack of deadspace/officer gear. For free.

I tend to approve of the directed module solution (making gang mods be more like Remote ECCM and Remote SeBo and Shield Transporters etc). However, my personal solution is a bit more heavy handed because I feel that the bonus provided is just outrageously over the top:
- Delete combat gang mods and mindlinks in entirety. Hard programming problem: solved.
- Leave or don't leave the mining gang mods. I really don't care. Let the miners hash that **** out.
- Keep the base leadership skills and their effect intact (Leadership, Armored Warfare, Siege Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, Info Warfare)
- Make the leadership Spec skills enhance the more basic leadership skills.
- Give Fleet Commands another role. I suggest BC sized logistics or something.

Now, before anyone gets offended and tells me to train up or buy my own warfare link alts: I am running three purrrrr-fect skilled warfare link alts from within a POS right now. I've got it covered.

-Liang

Command Ship changes were never announced for this expansion. We revealed a medium-term plan last year to get feedback, that's not the same as promising it will be in the next release.

When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships.

I'm sure people--myself included--were thinking CS changes would make it into Odyssey based on what CCP Ytterbium stated in his Dev Blog "Back to the Balancing Future" on Nov. 6, 2012. He said:

Since BSs were of the last of the T1 hulls needing fixing (save for Capitals), its only logical that we'd see Command Ship changes coming in Odyssey unless the tiericide initiative is going to take some time off.

we make command ships all nice and tough to kill, but who is going to wanna take a group of fast roamers through null with a slow command ship behind them.
we need a SubCommand ship. a destroyer based command. descent resists, and he ability to run links. or one link..maybe 2. whatever.

I'm sure people--myself included--were thinking CS changes would make it into Odyssey based on what CCP Ytterbium stated in his Dev Blog "Back to the Balancing Future" on Nov. 6, 2012. He said:

Since BSs were of the last of the T1 hulls needing fixing (save for Capitals), its only logical that we'd see Command Ship changes coming in Odyssey unless the tiericide initiative is going to take some time off.

The rewrite that's needed to do new stuff with gang links will also affect a number of other things, including breaking one of the biggest remaining performance bottlenecks on Jita and big fleet fights. Unsurprisingly that helps raise its priority.

The rewrite that's needed to do new stuff with gang links will also affect a number of other things, including breaking one of the biggest remaining performance bottlenecks on Jita and big fleet fights. Unsurprisingly that helps raise its priority.

Fleet boosters having to sit off-grid to provide boosts is a consequence of having to neuter your ship to fit the boosters in the first place. Forcing them to have to sit on grid won't address the root of the problem.

Give command ships the ability to fit a full rack of gang assist modules and still perform like a T2 ship in fleets and this would make people actually want to fly these ships rather than just put an alt in them and hide it somewhere in the system.

That's not right at all. We still might have capitals, industrial ships, mining ships, etc. They're all T1 and we haven't a word about them.

And the battleship tiercide is coming with Odyssey. So for the most part yeah, T1 tiercide is done. That doesn't automatically mean Command Ships are coming at the same time. It means "Okay, T1 are done, time to start on T2"

The problem is that people think it's necessary to fit all the links to a single ship instead of choosing between them. If ships off-grid didn't affect the fight, then people would learn to choose which links they actually needed the most, make a choice and fit an effective ship to fly them on-grid. I know it's crazy. But for now, they can have their cake and eat it too, along with a handful of other cakes.

I hope it's not "old CCP" rearing its head again...

When we have any timelines to report we'll report them, in the meantime all I can say is that it will happen sometime between now and the end of time. Very likely closer to now than to the end of time, but those things are hard to be certain about.

If you keep misusing that phrase so badly, it will lose all meaning.

"CCP only rebalanced or added 40 ships this expansion, let's shoot the monument!"

Throwing my hat in the ring for gang links being targeted modules, essentially turning them into remote reps.

For this to be effective, you'd have to combine all of the same type of bonuses into one module. So, you would have one 'skirmish link' remote rep that gives all 3 skirmish bonuses to one targeted ship. 8 highs = max 8 ships w bonuses. The pilot would have to pick and choose who to give bonuses to and when, so its a much more interactive experience - but also doesn't limit the number of command ships on the field giving out bonuses like the current system does (FC, WC, SL)

This makes command ships behave like logi, needing them ongrid, while maintaining their unique role and getting past technical issues. You could even keep the vulture as a link ship and nighthawk as a brawler w fewer links to offer choice.

Love it.

...Give command ships the ability to fit a full rack of gang assist modules and still perform like a T2 ship in fleets and this would make people actually want to fly these ships rather than just put an alt in them and hide it somewhere in the system.

If you keep misusing that phrase so badly, it will lose all meaning.

"CCP only rebalanced or added 40 ships this expansion, let's shoot the monument!"

Removing OGB is still a bad idea.

If you keep misusing that phrase so badly, it will lose all meaning.

"CCP only rebalanced or added 40 ships this expansion, let's shoot the monument!"

Get bigger servers?

hold on we'll buy some more RAM on ebay

Command Ship changes were never announced for this expansion. We revealed a medium-term plan last year to get feedback, that's not the same as promising it will be in the next release.

Removing OGB is still a bad idea.

I would urge CCP to remove all the remote rep bonuses from gang links especially considering they have said they want to reduce the prevalence and effectiveness of remote reps thus the ship resistance thread.

So I do honestly welcome people's cool ideas about what form gang links could take. Don't limit yourself to small changes to the status quo, because it turns out with this system small changes aren't necessarily any faster to implement than off the wall changes.

No, because your suggestion has no relation to how fleet boosting is actually used.

Yeah, what will all the terrible PvPers do that have to rely on the advantage OGB gives them to have a remote chance at winning against anyone but newbs?

Problem is your flawed assumption as to their use - while no doubt there are people who use them to get an advantage in that way - but then when has eve ever been about playing fair? - the majority of people who use them are the people who go to the effort of planning a fleet composition, getting organised and finding interesting fights not just quick and easy ganks.

You are so wrong here. Everyone and their mom use at least loki as booster nowdays for almost any PvP activity. I even saw "solo" PvPer in blarpy boosted with everything he could find and 3 falcons that decloaked once he start to lose fight.

Honestly I ...

As a completely off the wall idea maybe they should add a NOS like high slot module that allows you to tap into a targetted ship's active bonuses (for your own use) for a short period of time. (Cycle the module you inherit any active bonuses they are recieving for say 30 seconds). Even maybe make a function of NOS modules.

See my Warfare Link Reflector idea. It's pretty close to what you're suggesting.

Ah didn't see that but I prefer my take on it as it has the potential for an on the ball pilot to level the playing field for solo and smaller self contained engagements without significantly changing the dynamics of bigger fights.

So you have a similar beef with the one-trick pony Logistics, the ECM hulls, the CovOps, the Interdictors et al.?

Their purposes are also easily identified and as a result often have a prominent place in the heart of target-callers everywhere .. consider the reasons why link ships might be even higher valued targets, and thus what will need to be looked at as part of the on-grid move.

I'll give you a head start: It has to do with their impact on the battlefield and not their tank (or lack of) nor their ability to bite.

That goes into a more deeply flawed aspect of eve PVP than links themselves. Besides if everyone and their mom used loki links it would all balance out and everyone would be a on an even playing field.

...My point was that a ship that is clearly identifiable as the one that is providing links will be primary unless their tank is vastly superior to the other things on field, and you can't have a ridiculously tanked ship be as potent as normal combat ships lest they become overpowered for solo/small gang work.

Your point has been made, remade ad nauseum since the idea of on-grid links was first aired all those years ago:

"The game will break in X, Y, Z direction if they come on-grid!!!11".

...Logistics are already overpowered, since they allow the entire fleet to effectively carry quintuple-rep cap stable local tanks. I don't see that command ships and warfare links need to be nerfed any further than absolutely necessary. Sure, warfare links are very potent, even overpowered. But the ability to use warfare links and titan hull bonuses off-grid or behind the shields of a POS is even more overpowered. So start with the most overpowered facet of the features of warfare links and command ships, then review the case in a few months....

That's the nanoship argument all over again: "you don't need to nerf nano, just use nano yourself and you'll be competitive!" Warfare links are overpowered. Warfare links working off-grid is overpowered. Warfare links working from inside POS shields is overpowered.

It's a performance optimization problem. We could turn on range-based boosting in Odyssey but it would melt all the servers.

And this isn't being delayed by Odyssey, the team working on the underlying code that will make ongrid boosting possible (along with many other things) isn't releasing anything in Odyssey. It's just that big of a project.

So like I said before, at some point CCP Veritas will make all my ganglink-related dreams come true but I honestly do not know when that point will be. When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.

As much as I hate to suggest it, have you tried linking them with the overview? You already do the range checks to ensure a ship disappears from the overview without melting the server...

It seems that an additional check for fleet status could be the trigger for the boost.

Although without knowing the details of how the boosts mod to stats are stored... (i.e. actually persisted in the DB vs in memory, ad hoc per "grid" instance, etc... I can't really help to optimize much more than that. (If it is actually persisted to the database, I feel great pain for your database servers. No one should have to madly flip a switch on and off on those scales!)

Bools!! Bools everywhere!!!!!

The devs put out a blog on changes to the strength imbalances between of tech IIIs and command ships. Until their grand plan of removing the off-grid booster is complete surely they could just implement the proposed nerf to the power of Tech III command links.

It's very simple, and will partially fix the problem, tamp down the complaints, and maybe make command ships relevant again until the grand fix. All it would take is a simple change in one value in the database.

So, I'm beginning to believe the economic self-serving argument. Somehow they perceive the loss of accounts if they actually fix the stupidity of an off-grid I-win button.

However, to just drop the 5% link bonuses to the 2% they've already said they will do will not kill off the use of Off-grid alts, I suspect. But it would accomplish a whole lot in fixing the imbalance they create.

edit - and it would do so sooner than "soon" or "before the end of time"

I have thought that an interesting option would be to force the receiving ship to have to use a module to receive off-grid bonuses. Call it a Deep Space Antenna or something. Make it a high slot item that uses some capacitor and fitting. That way "1v1" frigates would be forced to drop a percentage of their DPS if they wanted to receive the benefits of off-grid links. But dedicated tacklers could make the compromises necessary to receive the massive bonuses links provide. Also, fleets could be designed around using or not using such a module.

To implement this, nerf the bonuses of the existing links dramatically, and use the module to "amplify the signal". So off-grid boosting would still work as it does currently, but say at only 10% of its current effectiveness without the module fitted. A mild, but hardly game changing amount. Without the module all ships in a properly set up fleet would receive this bonus as they currently receive full-strength bonuses.

However, when a player activates the module, the game checks to see if the ship is receiving bonuses and adds a multiplier to those effects up to the current amount. Give the module a long cycle time to reduce calls to the server to check if links are active.

Also, consider giving this module a visual effect when active, so pilots can readily tell if another pilot is actively receiving links. That would provide some interesting intelligence gathering opportunities.

You could even add a new skill(s) to go with the module: Deep space antenna tuning. 20% per level to antenna gain effectiveness. At level 5 and running the module, bonuses would be the same as they are now. Maybe another skill to reduce the capacitor use of deep space antennas.

Advantages:

Gives new "utility" to utility high slots
Shakes up fittings / cap stability on many ships
Allows dedicated tacklers to get the bonuses they need at the expense of DPS and cap use, making "1v1s" against links more fair
Allows the current system for applying bonuses to remain in place. Just have the percentages tweaked.

Disadvantages:

Fitting on smaller ships is penalized to a greater degree
Can be shut off with energy neutralizers.
Adding more modules to game / additional skills to train.

Can you imagine the logistics of trying to deal with this in a large scale fleet?

i stand corrected.

looks like i misinterpreted your presentation during fan fest.
i thought commands were coming out in this expansion and they are actually in the "future" part.

i just spent a bill buying the rest of them for this expansion..

ugg

I'd just like to say that off-grid boosting is bad for PvP as a whole and should be removed.
My two cents

Off grid boosting for small roaming gangs is a valid guerilla tactic, I personally feel that the TE nerf will affect the small gang roamers as well, as they tend to lean more towards fast, kiting ships. We all hate things and different playstyles in the game, but most of you dullbears wont bat an eyelid at using your own offgrid, pos'd up boosts and ganging up on players, I bet most of you fail a lot which is why you scream for all this nerfing.

In short, taking off grid boosts out of the game removes an entire play style from the game, if CCP starts down this path I doubt it will be long before all types of guerilla style play will be removed or heavily nerfed, leaving only the blob.

I may support the idea that some ships can offgrid boost (tech 3's), some able to at a pos (orca/rorqual), some only able to ongrid (combat command ships/titans) becuase ships like the damnation are really built for on grid boosting, the tech 3's are often cloaky and used for small gangs, rorq mining links only, orca reduced boosts for combat orientated links and all you large fleet players should have more reasons to shoot each others titans.

Off grid boosting is no worse for PVP than on grid boosting. The problem is that boosting is bad for PVP. The benefits are far too extreme in a game of 2% increases.

-Liang

I guess it has to be a case of risk vs reward. Currently there is minimal risk when offgrid boosting whereas it provides a massive bonus to certain play-styles.

You may be correct that current bonuses are out of hand even if they ship were vulnerable on grid.

I personally would like to see a more active role for command ships, with real time boosts that only effect specifically targeted ships. The command ship pilot would have to change bonuses and or which ships should get these bonuses depending on the situation. This would ensure that the boosts are at least earned because a player actually has to "fly" the ship in battle.

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with risk vs reward. Most roaming gangs have boosts, and their booster is risked at the safe spot and at the gates. The problem here isn't that command ships don't have an active role in fleet. The problem is that boosts are completely and utterly overpowered whether they're on grid or not. Boosts, as a whole, are the problem. Nerf them into the ground.

-Liang

You may be correct that current bonuses are out of hand even if they ship were vulnerable on grid.

The nearly unprobable, nullified, cloaky command ship which sits AFK at a safespot, or worse in a POS Bubble, is problematic but if they can be made more vulnerable, vulnerable enough that they need a real player at the keyboard behind them then I would expect to see people fitting and flying them differently.
Real Players don't tend to enjoy sitting at safes, watching D-Scan while their mates are having a fight - if they're at the keyboard anyway then they might as well fit a tank and weapons and join in - it's probably safer to hang around the logis anyway and it reduces the risk of the command ship having to warp right at the moment that their boosts are key to victory.

Warfare links, when you have to choose one, or even two or three, could be likened to intelligence - if you know that your opponents are going to be fielding entirely Amarr turret ships and lasers then you shove on more EM resists to gain an advantage; links turn that effect into a game system, if you're prepared to field them then the advantage should be tangible - the trouble comes when there's no need to choose which links you want to use because you've loaded all of them onto the ship.

I believe its hard to really say whether the bonuses are too powerful or not in its current state....

...The primary link mechanics are very much the 2% game, and the final result of a single link is effectively a one module gain (an EANM for example)...

The primary link mechanics are very much the 2% game

Sounds like a cop-out to me, numbers don't lie and neither does the feeling of having been shafted by named module T1 ship performing like a faction fit pirate hull
These are the numbers as they look when links a fielded by commandship with spec 4 (ie. not max skilled + T1 links) and implant:
Note: I will intentionally leave information links out because they are situational and kind of naff.
Armour/Shield: -20.7% cap consumption for all repair, local and remote.
Armour/Shield: +20.7% resists across the board.
Armour/Shield: -20.7% cycle time for all repair, local and remote.
Roughly (a bit shaky on the math) a 50% increase in active tank, ever wonder why logistics is sometimes considered OP? This is a big part of it.
Skirmish - Evasive: -20.7% signature of all ships.
Skirmish - Interdiction: +31% to all non-bubble tackle.
Skirmish - Deployment: +20.7% to speed increase from propulsion mods.
Probably the primary reason for this whole debate as the complete fight control offered by these trump any other links except in massive blob fights .. signature decrease alone is worth as much (or more) tank wise as two of the shield/armour bonuses combined. Cost/benefit of using these is tallied in billions with only a handful of pilots under its wing .. all T1 pew critical mods function as if of the faction variety.

You ready for it, the reason why it is incredibly easy to say that they ARE too powerful in their current state?
--*> All the above numbers/bonuses are applied fleet wide, that is up to ~250 people all getting the on paper 'reasonable' bonuses at no cost to themselves and with no need to anything other than promise to shoot the primary (ignore the fact that some people can't even manage that for now).

The correct analogy would be an extra ship bonus as they do not stack with fitted modules. But otherwise, yes it is 'merely' part of the min/maxing part of the game .. we are all guilty of bringing the bling to gain an advantage, but that bling costs us ISK, fittings and a target on our back when it becomes known (not necessarily a bad thing ) whereas link bonuses are universally applied requiring nothing from us at all.

Links need a complete rethink. On-grid demand/requirement is a band-aid at best, a big solid one granted, but a band-aid nonetheless.

In short, boosters (especially off grid boosters), severely unbalance ships. This is something you need to watch out for when looking at PvP, as it dramatically alters the capabilities of any ship receiving their boosts.

And if everyone has them, noone has them. Then we're right back to who brought the most bling.

And if everyone has them, noone has them. Then we're right back to who brought the most bling.

Look at FW.... how does a new player, looking to get a taste of PvP, compete in the warzone that is overwhelmed with OGBs?

EvE pvp is an expensive hassle.

If the warzone is "overwhelmed" with them then he shouldn't have a problem getting into a fleet that has one.