GeeBee wrote:
There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.
The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue.
I disagree. I defend the bonuses and I think they add interesting gameplay choices. Removing them is your solution, and while I respect your views, I still think you are 100% wrong. They have redeeming qualities, they aren't just extra skills to train, and have little effect on CCPs revenue. It's not like you stop paying CCP once you learn all the skills in the game... you'll be paying regardless. (Even that guy who made a fresh character and spent trillions of isk on injectors to max out all the skills is still paying to play the game, he just has nothing left to train)
I disagree with removing choice and depth from the game, which is what you propose by saying boosts should be removed.
for example:
ECM has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. ECM should just be removed!
T2 weapons don't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. T2 weapons should just be removed!
Cloaking has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. Cloaking should just be removed!
Assertions, without evidence, and conclusions about motives, which are pulled out of thin air, are not effective ways to argue your point and effect change.