on-grid boosts are such a terrible idea that anyone who seriously thinks they should be implemented clearly has never taken more than a few seconds to think about this.

on-grid boosts are such a terrible idea

Another whine post about the training time for command ships. Great, back in line with the others my friend.

Another whine post about the training time for command ships. Great, back in line with the others my friend.

Another whine post about the training time for command ships. Great, back in line with the others my friend.

.. It would need to be a T2 hull, both for justifying the command ship level learning skills needed, ...

Yeah.
Off-grid boosts are better - 8km/s condors and 11km/s garmurs should clearly be the standard for pretty much any form of relevance in this game. And why cry about it? All it takes is to learn a bunch of skills and have an alt. And in the meantime you can just dock up and station trade, or not play at all.

#eveiseasy

The basic premise of this idea is simple and narrow:

Tech 2 Destroyers that are geared towards fitting and efficiently using Warfare links while "holding their own" in skirmish combat.

Whether they are slower/faster, lighter/tougher, defensive/offensive etc. than normal destroyers I'll leave up to you guys and the developers.


Why?

- there are people grumbling that with the upcoming about warp speed changes and the much talked about nerf to off-grid links (coming SOON (tm)) complain that skirmishers and fast flying fleets won't have a reasonably viable option to look towards without significantly slowing the whole fleet down.

- It gives Faction Warfare players an option to bring into the smaller complexes (may or may not be a good thing).

- it does fill a gap and won't step on too many toes.
--- Regular Battlecruisers will remain as the relatively "cheap but beefy" option for "kitchen sink" fleets that want links.
--- Command ships will remain as the "big fleet" ships (due in large part to their tanking and extra link abilities)
--- Tech 3 Command Ships will be better suited for HAC/Cruiser/Attack Battlecruiser gangs (due to their mixture of mobility and tank... and they're going to be rebalanced at some point anyways).
--- It won't replace the Orca as link support as it won't have mining link bonuses or the extra "bells and whistles"... but will provide a relatively cheap link-support platform for small, less wealthy mining groups.

- it provides a clear line of progression for budding Command Ship pilots.

No boosts is the ideal scenario, but if on-grid boosts are a reality then guess what?

The solo pvper who normally has a chance flying 1v70 because he has that 11km/s garmur now has 0 chance because only the blob can afford to protect on grid boosts.

Good job on killing small-gang pvp with your minimal intelligence.

Could both of you get a room, cause you are jsut short of kissing range flailing your arms wanting to touch ... and nothing you said is relevant to the discussion in the manner you present it. THX, here are 10 bucks.

1v70 because

It's very relevant because all the talks about making changes to links are all based around grumblings of off-grid links and moving them on-grid in some form or fashion.

on-grid boosts are such a terrible idea that anyone who seriously thinks they should be implemented clearly has never taken more than a few seconds to think about this.

70 people are going to go out without even someone having links and making themselves a clear target to those "heroes" who do bring links?

Mkay.

...and yet CCP is working on this exact thing. Prepare your orifices, sir.

Could you please stop derailing the thread with your on/off grid obsession, its neither the core of the suggestion nor relevant to the ship suggestion at all ... it is a possible side note.

"You can wear red or blue socks to this suit, if you like ?" "NOOOOOO he wants to ban all red socks, blue socks are sooo bad!" - Its about the suit guys, come on -¦-¦

The ISD obviously disagrees with you.

This topic is clearly about the nature of links in general, it's even mentioned in the OP that his preference is removing off-grid links entirely.

The problem here is people who have never seriously engaged in PvP from the perspective of a small gang of 1-5 duking it out with 30-70 enemies at once. You can't even fathom doing that, it gets mocked because you have no idea how to do it.

Pro-tip, it will NEVER be done again if links are moved on grid without other changes, because 1-5 people can't support links, but 30-70 people can.

So maybe you feel better about yourself because when someone who can fly 1-5v30-70 kills you (because believe me, I can kill you with or without links, but the very existence of links necessitates that they be used by the small gang looking for every advantage/equalizer to roll with the blobs) does it without links, but now you've killed content for small gang pvpers. Congratulations.

This is honestly a very similar conversation to logi. Logistics ships can't be supported in a small gang of 1-5 people because you have too many more important roles to fill, such as point-holder and dps. Should logi be removed entirely? Nah, but logi, much like links, needs to be approached VERY differently than it is currently.

This topic is clearly about the nature of links in general

No, they're not.

What's your point?

to have any sense of balance to this ccp would have to look at what is brought up for even cs...and that is a balancing in sig radius penalty for links.


As while ogb still a thing...ccp removed pos boosting so it has to be in space. Ergo probes can find them if so inclined to hunt them down. A cs off grid not hard to find with probes. Some would like this even easier....I'd be among them. Issue I see with frigs/dessie is they are real low profile.


So I see 2 paths:

you have my above idea I have borrowed from others and the links create the sig bloom.

Or this here dessie/frig link boat gets a massive sig radius on hull. BC sig at least.

The latter has this boat when not running links a big fat target. I am just putting it out there as an option. I think its crap and for this and the CS ships...I would not kick sig bloom on link use out of bed as the better choice.

The goal of this simple...I can right now run a HG talon clone in this boat if it existed. As not combat spec...throw in eccm and sensor boost array (would change this the day ogb fixed....but that day isn't here now yet lol)

Small enough sig radius and I disappear. Not unprobable...just really hard to to find. If you so happen to bring the virtue'd, max skill, sisters gear fit prober to find me. As this is not common on thrown together frig roams...I may as well be invisible most times.

I understand the concept of trying to ensure that if this t2 dessy was used as an OGB it would be harder to scan down. Sig bloom with links running would not be ideal, as it is the intent to get this boat switching systems with a fleet (ideally ongrid with fleet) and a sig bloom on a ship that would already be considered for primary attention would be tough. This ship is intended for small ship boosting only, so the use of normal command ship/T3's would be for bigger fleets. For small gang warfare, fleets are very mobile between systems. I would assume as well, that the design would be limited to a single link. It wouldn't be worth the effort to keep it OGB, as you get better bang for your buck with a T3 - as you could fit 3-4 links and be nearly unprobeable.

boosts are such a terrible idea that anyone who seriously thinks they should be implemented clearly has never taken more than a few seconds to think about this.

The whole "removing offgrid links will ruin it for those who use links to fight bigger groups" hinges on the sole occasion where the bigger groups don't bring links too.