CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW?
I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers.....
How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?

I don't think it's a bad thing if complexes that only allow frigates/dessies/cruisers will stop allowing these ships to be significantly stronger as a result of off grid boosts.

I do think it is a bad thing.
A lot of people have put a lot of isk, time and real money into those boosting characters and now they become useless? .

Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop?

Yes, but the overall performance of mining links will be the same or decimal points better.

how did that work out? something else get changed that i missed?

The funny thing is, they are not useless, they still boost, and can boost almost as well as they could before.

CCP Fozzie, you said you guys are working on disabling off grid boosting, how is this gonna work in FW?
I know a LOT of FW guys have boosters (me including) and 90% of all the fights are INSIDE gated complexes that only allow frigates, dessies and cruisers.....
How are we supposed to get our command ships in there?

I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"

Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.

Reasonable?

If by fair you mean one more combat hull vs a booster....yeah sure.

I think the short answer is, "You're not going to get your command ships into the plexes. You're going to be forced to fight fairly so you need to learn to deal with that and (perhaps) work on your pvp skills"

Of course the lack of command ships will affect everyone equally, so no-one will have cause to complain, unless they used to be pirates who enjoyed trolling FW folk while they went about their daily business of racking up LPs.

Reasonable?

So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for?

I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char.

So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for?

I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char.

So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for?

I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char.

So you think its reasonable that I trained an alt for over a year, paying subscription for it and paying billions of isk for training and ships, and now I cant use it for what it was intended for?

I bet you would talk differently if YOU where the one that invested all that into a boosting char.

Apart from OGB, an idea to boosting bonus application in general:


Reading that small gangs get nerfed more than large fleets by the decrease in fleet booster strength, what about the following idea:

The fleet booster bonus could be coupled to the amount of fleet members. The more members in fleet, the smaller the bonus for the single ship. See it a kind of stacking penalty.

This way small fleets could get maximum bonus or minor boost penalties per ship than large fleets. If large fleets want higher bonus, they would have to divide the fleet and/or install more ships with boosters.

The fleet leader could give his bonuses to, say, 50 members, each receiving only a bit of the original bonus. The wing commanders and squad commanders could use ships that "refresh" the bonus or add other bonuses.

This way a large fleet has to take significant efforts to keep their bonuses up.



Another thought is that only the booster ship and the hierachie level below gets full bonus, each sub-level down the ships gets, say, half of the upper level.

- A fleet commander boosting wings boosts each wing commander with 100% of the original bonus, the squad commanders get 1/2 the bonus and the squad members get only 1/4 of the fleet booster bonusses.

- The wing commanders can give their own boosts to 100% to the squad commanders and 50% to the squad members.

- A single squad with 10 ships plus squad commander could have full boost bonuses without penalty.


It might become challenging to predict the concrete bonus to your ship in that large fleet but hey, fleet is a complicated thing (overhead, computing power) and blob is uncool anyway, right?

How is that?

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the guy who suggested we just get rid of gang links.

They're actually silly and generate unrealistic and indefensible effects.

Arnour does not get harder because people are communicating, engines do no generate more thrust because there are other ships in your fleet.

In a scenario involving on-grid boosting, you could argue that targeting may become more accurate if there is a central command centre co-ordinating the data from the entire fleet's sensor arrays, but none of the command links actually do this (increasing tracking or missile explosion velocity would be a reasonable proxy for this effect).

The information warfare links are probably the only reasonable (in terms of realism) ones available - and they're the last ones I choose in a small fleet, being nowhere near as useful as the ridiculous armour or shield hardening ones.

Having a good human FC (a commander) does already increase a fleet's power many times over.

Bin them and use the SP for something more creative.

It honestly would make more sense if ganglinks increased the effectiveness of offensive weaponry. Better tracking formulas, firing solutions, more prcise missile hits, and coordinated launch/firing times.

Would be the opposite of how links work now and probably bad but it does make more sense.

E: also drones. ESPECIALLY makes sense for drones to have a more centralized, efficient hub

I dont think your thinking about this right, think of it like this, If you have 20 warships in a fleet with set weaponry, the abilities of each ship is determined by their captain's and crew's ability. When a comander is there he would coordinate the ships so as to mean the least casualties, he does not get involved in the firing and reloading/aiming of weapons.

Yeah, dps increasing gang links is a bad idea :/

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the guy who suggested we just get rid of gang links.

They're actually silly and generate unrealistic and indefensible effects.

Arnour does not get harder because people are communicating, engines do no generate more thrust because there are other ships in your fleet.

In a scenario involving on-grid boosting, you could argue that targeting may become more accurate if there is a central command centre co-ordinating the data from the entire fleet's sensor arrays, but none of the command links actually do this (increasing tracking or missile explosion velocity would be a reasonable proxy for this effect).

The information warfare links are probably the only reasonable (in terms of realism) ones available - and they're the last ones I choose in a small fleet, being nowhere near as useful as the ridiculous armour or shield hardening ones.

Having a good human FC (a commander) does already increase a fleet's power many times over.

Bin them and use the SP for something more creative.