We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.

I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category.

The one thing I did not see here that I dearly wanted to: Off grid boosting removed.

Is this not being done right now due to time / code complexity, or is this bad mechanic going to remain forever?

Ok update time!

Thanks as always to everyone providing constructive feedback. There are several changes we're making to the proposal thanks to issues you brought up. I posted these changes to the CSM yesterday and got positive reception so we're ready to send them to you.

I'm going to go over the changes to the 1.1 proposal, as well as talk a bit about later changes we want to make, that won't be in 1.1 but can potentially come fairly soon. Anything mentioned there is unconnected to the technical project for removing offgrid boosting, so does not need to be connected to that project's timeline.

Changes to the plan for 1.1!

We're moving the link bonuses on the command ships back to the command ships skill and away from a role bonus. They'll be a 3% per level third bonus for that skill.

We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus.

We're reducing the base strength of the Interdiction maneuvers link to 8% for T2 (6.4% for T1). This gives it a maximum strength of 34.5% as opposed to 38.8% in the earlier proposal and 53% on TQ currently.

We're dropping the change that would have given all gang link bonuses to capital local reps until we have the testing bandwidth to deal with some interactions with wormhole effects that the CSM correctly pointed out would become a problem.

We're changing the LP store offers for the Navy Mindlinks, so that they require 100k LP, 100m isk, one of each of the T2 mindlinks that they combine. (This adds about 150m to their price total)

Near future stuff

We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1.

We're planning to fix the issue where Wing Commanders don't get the fleet level bonuses. There's a few gnarly bits of code to get through before we can tie a bow on this, but the way it works now is stupid and in general we want to reduce the number of stupid systems in our game.

We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long.

Expanding the link bonuses to local capital tanks is something we still want to do, because we want the bonuses and effects to as much as possible behave in a logical and consistent manner. Special cases should only be used when absolutely necessary. This is dependant on us figuring out what we want to do with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet wormholes first.

I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category.

Obviously the usual disclaimers apply to future stuff, but the timeline for these kinds of things would ideally be either Winter or earlier.

I'm gonna update the OP, then go post updates into the other threads.

I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side.

Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot.

EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones.

The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.

It can be used inside a pos field.

Weapons timer looks like a good idea, removes some of the safety from gates and stations. I think something still needs to be done to add some risk to safe spot boosting. I don't think to viable to remove it completely but we need a little more risk.

I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.

[quote=CCP Fozzie][quote=Grarr Dexx]

snip

Oh and anyway we could have some sort of icon, or ship effect to show they are reciving bosts? I hate when I see a lone frig and try to engadge only to find they are linked AFTER they point me at 30kms. THat way we can make more informed decisions if we want to fight the linked solo pown mobile. it also might discorage so many off grid bosting alts if their "lol solo" main isent getting any fights because people say F-your-links.

A 60 seconds weapon timer seems like an awful solution to me.

If you're in a fight you don't turn off your hardeners 60 seconds before you jump a gate.

The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.

Do you think it could be a plausible solution to add a lesser aggression timer (say, thirty seconds) to links, or at least omit the idea until performance-related issues are out of the way? I'm of the opinion that you're underestimating the collateral damage done here. I thought you wished to entice bringing your links with you.