i completely agree with the OP.

"everybody whining about their t3s losing boosts and saying that it will ruin small gang pvp if boosts have to be on grid, are the same guys that ruin small gang pvp because they have the alts logged in either sitting in a pos or "hard to probe" in a system."

this applies specially for solo'ers, these kind of people will have to still take a t3 with them

Quoting for amusement.

but thats the point, more mobile safer hard to probe = not the best bonus.

Balls out CS with gang = top link bonuses for the t2 specialist focused bc

Actually I agree with you. I was amused at the fact that "solo" these days means "dps ship + T3 link alt +falcon alt +cyno alt in case things go pear shaped".

It's really the combination of factors that makes it unbalanced. Mobility + nigh improbability + higher boosts and all with a lower training time is kind of ridiculous. If isk wasn't a factor with supercaps what makes these people think it's a factor with T3 link alts?

People calling for this change SEVERELY underestimate the benefits of being able to have your booster on field.

Super capitals have specific roles and were meant to be expensive right from the get go which was why isk wasn't a considerable factor during the balance discussions. The only problem with said super capitals was that it filled more roles than intended. T3 links, on the other hand, is working as it should be. It would be simply uncalled for, if CCP made T2 ships better than T3s at everything.

Not sure how helpful on grid-boosting is when how you have to do is a little grid -fu. Don't know what that is you say? Google it...

Super capitals have specific roles and were meant to be expensive right from the get go which was why isk wasn't a considerable factor during the balance discussions. The only problem with said super capitals was that it filled more roles than intended. T3 links, on the other hand, is working as it should be. It would be simply uncalled for, if CCP made T2 ships better than T3s at everything.

why are people discussing on grid boosting when this thread as got FUnK ALL TO DO WITH FUnKING ON GRID BOOSTING I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING RATS ASS ABOUT ON GRID BOOSTING.

The difference is by swapping the boost levels of the t3 and the CS you FORCE people who want the better boost to WORK for it, they DO NOT need to on grid to get them but they WILL need to keep them safe while moving etc

christ you people are annoying can you not read a single damned post.

omg swap t3 and cs boost levels LETS SPAM ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT THEY ARE ON GRID..... sigh

Tech III alt tears. It's coming.

CCP is saying - no it hasn't been working as intended. So, don't give a rat's ass what you think.

Just wish they weren't so glacial in recognizing and changing these unintended consequences with introducing new stuff to the game, even when warned about it. Tech III obsoleting tech II ships, Drakes Tengus and Heavy Missiles for a very long time topping kills by a huge margin, Technetium bottleneck, etc. Seriously, they need to get faster at fixing **** ups or things that are out of balance.

Like titans tracking AB cruisers with XL guns? And supercarriers raping everything on the field?
Ho, waaaii...

it's also an exploit, gw.

The point was, if something is OP it needs to be changed. Nigh unprobability, mobility, better bonus than dedicated T2 command ships. Pick two.

Edit fir clarification: if T3 boosters were made as vulnerable as command ships I could see only bringing the CS bonus to 5% and leaving the T3 bonus as is. As it stands now there is absolutely no reason to fly a command ship over a T3 booster. None whatsoever.

I'll give you reasons to fly command ships since you are new to the game. They are sleipnir, astarte, absolution, nighthawk, damnation, vulture and claymore... and guess what? you can buy any three of these for the price of one T3 so obviously, the reason you fly a command ship over a T3 booster is because one can't afford to acquire a T3 and it's easier to dispose a command ship ... same reason you fly a T1 over a T2 ship.

I'd like to know the T2 ships that are being made obsolete by their T3 counterparts. It's also sad that you can't figure out why heavy missiles are topping most kill mails. You definitely aren't informed.

The point was, That only makes sense if you actually plan to lose a ship. Which you never should with the current state of T3 off-grid boosters. Under the current game mechanics, there is no reason to use a CS as a booster. A more expensive ship that does a more effective job, which you never lose, is better than a cheaper ship you can lose.

That only makes sense if you actually plan to lose a ship. Which you never should with the current state of T3 off-grid boosters. Under the current game mechanics, there is no reason to use a CS as a booster. A more expensive ship that does a more effective job, which you never lose, is better than a cheaper ship you can lose.

why are people discussing on grid boosting when this thread as got FUnK ALL TO DO WITH FUnKING ON GRID BOOSTING I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING RATS ASS ABOUT ON GRID BOOSTING.

The difference is by swapping the boost levels of the t3 and the CS you FORCE people who want the better boost to WORK for it, they DO NOT need to on grid to get them but they WILL need to keep them safe while moving etc

christ you people are annoying can you not read a single damned post.

omg swap t3 and cs boost levels LETS SPAM ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT THEY ARE ON GRID..... sigh

That only makes sense if you actually plan to lose a ship. Which you never should with the current state of T3 off-grid boosters. Under the current game mechanics, there is no reason to use a CS as a booster. A more expensive ship that does a more effective job, which you never lose, is better than a cheaper ship you can lose.