Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Broken

Lots of people have been asking me what I think about the upcoming command ship changes.

It's kind of a long story, and to tell it, I'm going to have to back up a bit.

Up to this point and continuing into the work they're going to do next year, CCP has been very systematic about their ship re-balancing: T1 frigates, then destroyers, then cruisers, then battle cruisers, then battleships.(1)  This is very different from CCP's past approach where they only touched on a few ships here and there and mostly stuck to ships that people were actually flying, ignoring the others.  In the distant past, CCP has been reluctant to iterate on ships that weren't getting flown.  For the longest time, for instance, destroyers were pretty terrible for anything but L1 missions... and ships that used rockets were worse.  But CCP didn't show any interest in re-balancing rockets because "nobody used them."

As a result, we had a nice chicken-egg problem going on that everyone except a CCP developer could see.  ;-)

I kid, but the serious point here is that CCP didn't want to use development cycles on ships or weapons that players weren't using while there were other priorities in the queue that were just as important or more important.  That's how software development works.  Of course, in time players made enough of a stink about it that the obvious problems with rockets and with destroyers were at least partially fixed.  Sometimes, that's how software development works, too.

By now, it's reasonably clear that CCP wants to at least look at every ship in the game.  But that's a hell of a lot of ships.  And they're trying to be systematic.  Once you're done with the basic T1 sub-caps, what do you do next?  There are several options:
  • You keep climbing the ladder.  There are other T1 ships, after all: carriers, dreads, super-carriers, and titans.
  • You take a side trip into industrials: haulers, transports, blockade runners, the Orca and Rorqual, and the freighters.
  • You can skip both of those and work on the T2 frigates: interceptors, stealth bombers, covert ops, assault ships, and EAFs.
  • Or with T1 cruisers soon to be so over-powered compared to their expensive T2 counter-parts, you could jump ahead to them: recons and HACs and HICs and logistics.
Each of the options has its pluses and minuses.  Lots of people fly capital ships and heaven knows all four of these ship classes are laughably broken.  All the recent dread iterations did was render that class even more imbalanced, and the less said about the most recent titan and super-carrier iterations, the better.  CCP has been promising an industrial expansion for several years now and what happened with the mining barges and exhumers wasn't it.  Even if it was, it's ridiculous how easily the current industrial-class ships are blapped these days.  While AFs are looking pretty good, the other T2 frigates definitely are not.  EAFs are still a joke, for instance.  I've already covered how many of the T2 cruisers are being made irrelevant or obsolete by their T1 counter parts, or the tier 3 BCs.  It's hard to find a role for any HAC other than the Zealot, for instance, and obviously the logistics ships are going to need a close looking at.

So it would be easy to make a case for any of these four options: other than EAFs, there's lots of people flying all of those ships and all of them are pretty broken to one extent or another.  To me, the capital class ships are the highest priority of broken, but maybe I'm just too close to that problem to see it clearly.  Still, it's hard to argue with just how bad the Phoenix, Chimera, Wyvern, and Leviathan are.  And the Minmatar capitals are all arguably worse.

But that's not exactly an easy problem to fix, is it?  So it's understandable that CCP would want to save those problems for later.  Maybe much later.  Other than making them require about 28 days less training, I don't think we can expect to see a lot of changes on this front in 2013.  If you were going to go for something relatively easy, then the T2 frigs or cruisers are the logical choice instead.  I'd go with the T2 cruisers because they're the most broken of the two.


Of course, we now know that CCP has decided on none of these four options and are arguably going straight to something that's going to be even harder to balance than capitals: command ships.  Now that I've laid down the context of past iterations, I think you can see how interesting a choice this is.  What we've got here is a class of ships that relatively few EVE players fly and a class of ships that's going to be notoriously difficult to balance.  It's jumping in the opposite direction of logic, and the opposite direction of past behavior.

Hell, it's quite arguable that command ships were the class of T2 ships that were least in need of iteration.  Think about it.

Granted, T3 links are pretty ridiculously over-powered right now and off-grid boosts and POS-based boosts are being exploited in a big way.  But in terms of an actual large-scale problem affecting the game, it's not an easy claim to make that command ships are the highest priority to re-balance.  That's because aside from a few very specialized circumstances, the imbalances are affecting everyone equally.  It's broken, sure, but it's broken the same way for both sides of a typical fight, and both sides are taking advantage.  In terms of the difficulty of re-balancing, the ships that are avoided -- particularly the Gallente ones -- are going to need a much broader look than a simple iteration on command ships can provide.  Hell, with the Falcon being nerfed and sensor strength being buffed, there's going to be even less reason to use Info Warfare links than there is today.  The one InfoWar link that was used was the one that buffed sensor strength.

Whoops.

Now all that said, the dev-blog makes it reasonably clear that CCP is thinking a little more broadly than this.  Rather than thinking of the ships as "command ships" only, we're apparently being encouraged to think of them as more generic T2 battle cruisers that also happen to have the ability to run links if you want to.  The skills needed to get into the ship are also being reduced substantially.  I don't have a problem with that.  If the prices aren't too ridiculous, it'll be fun to see some HAC Damnations or Claymores mixing it up out there with some blaster Vultures with no links anywhere in evidence.  It seems slightly unlikely... but it's possible.  In much the same way that "Mackinaw" doesn't necessarily mean "warp to the ice belt" any more, we're all going to have to relearn that "Damnation" doesn't mean "you can ignore it until last."  The vets will have to make some adjustments to their thinking.

But initially the area everyone's going to be looking at is using these ships as link ships.  By spreading the peanut butter a little more thinly on the bread, we might see some changes in how these ships get used in this capacity.

But I doubt it.

After all, look at the stats.  As I said, nobody's going to be in a big hurry to fit Information Warfare links tomorrow any more than they are today.  Outside of specific fleet comps, you just don't see very many of them out there.  That means this "buff" isn't really giving the Gallente or Caldari ships anything of use.  Meanwhile, the Amarr and Minmatar command ships are being ridiculously, lovingly buffed to do exactly what players that fly them wish they would do.  I can't tell you how many times I've flown a Sleip with an un-bonused Shield Harmonizing link, or seen four-link Damnations with one (or three) Skirmish links.  Now those links are going to be bonused.  That's pretty huge.  Who's going to fly a Vulture with shield links if they can fly a Sleipnir with shield and skirmish links instead?  Unless the balancing is handled very carefully: almost nobody, that's who.

Meanwhile, if you have a business going in Tech3 Warfare Processor subsystems, you might want to start shutting down that business.  This has already started: there have been fairly marked reductions in the price of this subsystem for Lokis and Legions already.  EVE players insist on the highest possible bonus and now that the Tech3s won't have that, you're going to see players abandon Tech3s fit for this purpose en masse.  Unless players can figure out how to fit these ships to be unprobeable or near-unprobable again, you're just not going to see many being flown except in the smallest skirmish gangs.

And all of this leaves out the problem of breaking off-grid links.  I'm sorry to say I have no confidence in CCP's ability to do this reliably.  There are just too many variables, and all of them are incredibly fiddly.  Hell, a solid percentage of the time, I can't get on-grid links to work today.

So, other than "we're going to have combat T2 battle cruisers and it will be bad ass", why is CCP jumping to this class of ships first?  Is that enough of a reason with so many broken ship classes out there?  Is that enough of a reason with how difficult this iteration is going to be to do?  You tell me.  But that's what I think about this change: CCP has chosen poorly for the first ships to iterate on after the T1 sub-caps.  In my view, just about any other choice would have been better.

EDIT (14/Nov/2012): I'm informed in the comments that you can't target which T3 subsystems you end up with during reverse engineering the way you can with invention.  I wasn't aware of that, and I apologize for the oversight.  Means you reverse engineers are going to be left with a pile of not-particularly-useful BPCs...


(1) With a side trip into mining barges and exhumers, yes, but it's a good bet that CCP is going to have revisit them again, and soon.

48 comments:

  1. Perhaps their nerf to ECM range was a vain hope to get people to use the range info link.
    ...nah.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's important to look at pve here. Right now, if you want to be a 'battlecruiser pilot', your options are idiocy, nighthawk, suicide, boredom, idiocy, idiocy, suicide and sliepnir. That's a bit shit for the skill investment. T2 cruisers don't have that issue (because there are over a dozen T2 cruiserhulls), pirate battleships largely replace the need for T2 BSs. But BC V mostly makes you king of Drake.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Command ships, as well as T3 cruisers, are getting addressed early only because they are an integral part of the boosting problem, which is high on CCP's priority list to fix in the upcoming year.

    Not surprising since virtually everyone in the game is complaining about boosting - in 1v1, small gang, and fleet combat, in high, low and null sec space.

    If it weren't for the boosting issue, I suspect that CCP would have indeed gone with one of the other ship classes, as you suggested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was able to ask CCP Fozzie during the DEVs vs Pilots cruiser live feed brawl if in fact Command Ships were going to be the first T2 ships rebalanced & he said that that is still up in the air.
      ~DarthNefarius

      Delete
  4. While your logic is sound, I'm actually really looking forward to these changes, assuming they work as promised.

    I played a Paladin in WoW, which is essentially a frontline combatant with moderate combat skills, high surviveability and strong group buffs. It's a role I enjoy, because I like mixing it up in battle, but recognize that I'll never get the mileage out of a pure combat class that other players can get.

    EvE is similar. I've flown with enough top level pvpers to know that I'm simply not on their level, and probably never will be; I'm a mid level predator, at best. However, the idea of standing shoulder to shoulder with pilots like Tsubutai or Kishin (metaphorically) while helping them do what they do best, is awesome.

    Sadly, that role has not existed in EvE, as off grid boosting makes that nothing but a job for alts. I think that's why I've been enjoying fleet ewar so much - it's the closest thing to combat support that EvE offers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm confused. You made fun of CCP for this:
    "In the distant past, CCP has been reluctant to iterate on ships that weren't getting flown. For the longest time, for instance, destroyers were pretty terrible for anything but L1 missions... and ships that used rockets were worse. But CCP didn't show any interest in re-balancing rockets because "nobody used them."

    As a result, we had a nice chicken-egg problem going on that everyone except a CCP developer could see. ;-) "


    But now when CCP is eager to address that chicken-egg problem, you call it 'illogical' ??? It's almost like your definition of 'illogical' is 'listening to what Jester says':

    "What we've got here is a class of ships that relatively few EVE players fly and a class of ships that's going to be notoriously difficult to balance. It's jumping in the opposite direction of logic, and the opposite direction of past behavior."

    Seems very inconsistent of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't get me wrong: I want them iterating on ships. The only thing I care about here is the ORDER. T2 BCs eventually? Yes! T2 BCs FIRST? Seems highly questionable to me?

      Delete
    2. According to CCP Fozzie its still up in the air if T2 BC's will be the first this afternoon when I asked him on an Eve live feed on Buckingham.
      ~DarthNefarius

      Delete
  6. That's an awful lot of words to say, "CCP are breaking my OGB!" This change has been coming for a long time, mostly due to the number of folks (ab)using POS-shielded boosters and claiming that "home field advantage" is their entitlement.

    I will agree with you that mining barges and exhumers will need a revisit soon: the tank on the Mackinaw is simply ludicrous. Not to mention that it entirely obviates the requirement for an Orca in any mining fleet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never use off-grid boosters. I'm always right there on grid, baby.

      Delete
    2. I always use off-grid boosters. Why not? CCP says it isn't an exploit.

      Delete
    3. I almost always get offers for Incursion OffGBs when I FC if I don't use them I get bitched a by the ranks & whenever I see a Damnation on gridbooster I add them for the fun of it ( but I haven't seen 1 in a month now ):
      ~DarthNefarius

      Delete
  7. The choice is for me obvious. CCP want to get rid of off-grid boosting. This is not going to work if you do not want to have ships on grid that can offer them.
    Without a re-balance of the ships that boost you can never touch off grid-boosting. CCP had no choice in this, at least if they want to put their money where there mouth is on the topic of off-grid boosting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is an interesting choice. Tech2 ships are a complex adjustment. Fozzie does offer a possibility of Gallente losing the Information link bonus altogether and having armor/skirmish both 3%.

    Perhaps because they CS by so few pilots - when tinkering with them - there will be a least impact across the game. It will provide CCP with a gauge for the other tech2 battleships and cruisers. After all there are only Fleet and Field versions.

    Looking forward to a L4 mission Eos Fitting.

    MT.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Focusing on the ships people don't use is exactly the point, as far as I see it. The aim of the frigate balancing wasn't to balance the Rifter, it was to give people a reason to fly all the others. Ditto with the cruisers.

    Oh and re: info links, we now use them as standard. If you want an incentive, try EFTing a post-buff Celestis or Arbitrator (or their t2 versions) with EWAR strength rigs and info links - they're basically the new Falcons.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is nothing wrong with off-grid links. If they are just in a safe, scan them down. I know some fits are harder to scan than others. POS links are completely viable. Either you have homefield advantage or you have a secure beach-head for an invasion; there is no problem with providing boosts from either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think that CCP really had a choice about choosing to balance command ships next. By changing Battlecruisers from a generic skill to a race-specific skill they break the Command Ships skill, which means Command Ships needs to be modified as well. And do we want CCP to put a band-aid on the skill and modify it again later or do we want them to fix it right the first time? And if they are going to fix the skill right then I think they need to balance the entire class of ships, which leads to the problems you've outlined.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you read through the accompanying thread for that dev blog, you'll see that Fozzie (or whichever blue bar it was, I forget) was pretty receptive to the idea of taking the Skirmish bonus from Amarr and swapping it with the Gallente Info bonus. So, a little better balanced distribution.

    Hopefully, there'll also be a Info link rebalance coming as part and parcel of this. Mind you, I thought we'd have seen a fix for active/armour tanking by this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough. We'll see if he actually does it.

      Delete
  13. Weren't you also complaining about how slow the rebalancing effort was going, prior to the T1 Cruiser rebalance? It's a bit early to moan about how little they are doing when they haven't even released the current round of changes. With Retribution they are rebalancing 40 ships. With T1 & T2 Battlecruisers and T1 Battleships thats 28 ships. Are you absolutely certain at this stage that thats all they are going to rebalance in the next expansion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See above. I'm not complaining about the initiative. I'm complaining about the order. Two different things.

      Delete
  14. I think that CCP decided to balance gang links due to the persistent complaints of the player base about them. As with all game mechanics, a balance usually touches on many different aspects of the Eve universe. In this case, gang link modules, mind links, warfare leadership skills, T3 cruisers, and command ships.

    CCP is also rebalancing ships at this time anyway. So killing two birds with one stone seems to make sense here.

    I guess what I'm saying is that it's overly simplistic to look at this decision purely within the context of the ship balancing program.

    ReplyDelete
  15. " Hell, a solid percentage of the time, I can't get on-grid links to work today."

    Still waiting for the Wing commander to get its proper bonuses which has been petitioned & bug reported for a couple YEARs now I understand
    ~DarthNefarius

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confirm. This drives me nuts, because WC is usually right where I am in Rote fleets.

      Delete
    2. As an Incursion FC that's also where I find myself too so I can wing warp from site to site. It means w/o slaves I have to makesure I'm flying a buffered BS &do less damage sometimes. c'est la gwar
      ~DarthNefarius

      Delete
  16. TBH I disagree with you that the command ships are not the next correct path to choose Jester because as an Incursion FC whose ranks alway bitch & whine " I DON'T HAVE MY BONUSES " even though we are doing VG's & don't need booster ships ( except maybe with 100% red bar ) I've seen howbadlythe poor command ships have been pushed out in favor of T3's... to the pointwhere CS's which requite a HELL of a lot more trainningthen a T3 look useless
    ~DarthNefarius

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't normally comment, but I feel the need to point out the inherent flaw in the argument of "That's because aside from a few very specialized circumstances, the imbalances are affecting everyone equally".

    That holds true today, but when the influx of noobies, and hell, even possible organized groups of EVE noobies join in with the launch of Dust 514 (at least, as per the hopes of CCP), this is easily one of the things that will hold new groups back from finding fights.

    If your fleet doesn't have a maxed out booster, and the enemy fleet does, that's a losing fight right out of the gate, assuming all other things equal (which they won't be, since they'll be down in every other regard as well, be it ISK, or SP, or what have you).

    It smells like yet another step by CCP to level the playing field for noobies, although a better hidden one. Which I don't have a problem with myself, but I can see why bittervets would.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I suspect it's because they already have "nuke OGBs" high on the to-do list, and figure that if they're doing that, they should probably make link ships fun to fly at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I disagree. Battlecruisers are one of the most flown ships in both pvp and pve. By making the t2 versions more accessable, they will also rise in usee IF they are fixed correctly. Logically to me, they would have finished t1 subcap ships and then started back over at t2 frigs working up the classes that way. But this is CCP we're talking about.

    I hope they plan to give a damage bonus to the Damnation missiles because I will be using that ship more than anything come the changes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You didn't mention that Fozzie has threatened mindlinks with a nerf.

    His operating assumption is that boosting is so effective a force multiplier that it's no longer optional. As he put it, "it has become almost impossible to compete without a booster alt." Someone on the boards mentioned a Damnation with 640k EHP after boosts. 640k EHP.

    Also, see [https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2145868#post2145868]. CCP is still flexible about which ships get bonuses to which links.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't mention it because I didn't know it. Interesting!

      Delete
    2. Fozzie might not like boosting, but CCP accounts receivable does.

      Booster alts mean more accounts, which means more money for CCP.

      Delete
    3. Here's the relevant post by Fozzie:

      https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2153406#post2153406

      Delete
  21. Hi Jester. Did you know that Fozzie is leaning towards changing Gallente command ships to be armor + skirmish, and Amarr command ships to be armor + info warfare bonuses? I think that will alleviate some of your concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Meanwhile, if you have a business going in Tech3 Warfare Processor subsystems, you might want to start shutting down that business."
    I really enjoy reading your opinions on anything combat related, but that sentance just made me laugh.
    There is no such thing as a "Warfare Processor subsystem business". When reverse engineering all of the subsystems have a 25% chance. And warfare processors are pretty much the zonk in the defensive category, they are not nearly used as much as others. You can gladly have several of these bpcs if you wish, i consider them to be merely exquisite toilet paper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, interesting! I didn't know that. I really need to learn T3 manufacturing but the WH guys have it pretty locked up so I haven't bothered.

      Delete
    2. ok Anonymous however you are forgetting something in a larger sense-Jester is right about eliminating one role for Tech 3 ships and yes of course that will impact WH economies.

      Yes Jester got it technically incorrect by saying Warfare Processor subsystem business and it's an RNG style reverse engineering probablity, however WH nanos and gas only go into Tech 3 ships and parts so he's on the right track in his thinking it will impact.

      Don't know about you but selling a few of the more duddy warfare processors was better than none and certainly and more importantly having more Tech 3 ships out there in that function that WH nanos and gas goes into was good.

      So yeah this link and tengu missile nerf...not unrecoverable but remember WH economies are a one trick Tech 3 pony and easy for CCP to kill even accidently.

      Give Jester a break he was in a sense more correct than you, just not technically in that particular part but economically overall.

      Delete
    3. Ok, initial anonymous is back.
      Bullshit.
      Nerfing warfare processors wont put a dent into tech 3 sales. How many booster ships are used compared to combat and pve ships?
      I guess its pretty fair to say its less than 10%, so thats the most you will be missing out here. Add the fact that off-grid boosters die less often.
      Sure the missle nerrf will hit tengu sales for sure, but that wasnt part of the discussion. On the other hand the infusion bays and power core multipliers might see more use.

      Delete
    4. And 10% of your business is nothing? I call BS on you actually "initial anonymous". If it's nothing can you go ahead and send me 10% of your sales right now?

      Jester is in fact correct with the overall concern despite your lower level technical correction.

      And yes this combines with the Tengu nerf effect of the missiles which also results in Tengu sales being hurt does effect indeed the economies even more even if you chose to be in denial and brush it off. Taken a look a the price history of nanoribbons lately?

      And this is before they even "re-balance" Tech III cruisers.

      My guess is you once lived in a WH and manufactured said parts but don't currently or are beyond monetary caring otherwise you would be concerned about WH nerfs and how vulnerable the economy is to Tech III nerfs and agree with Jester's correct overall point. Anyway on behalf of someone who actually does currently live in a WH, and to whom ISK is important to support PvP habits, thanks Jester for pointing out the connection with WH and tech, something which I fear, (though I hope I'm wrong of course), CCP just doesn't care about or has forgotten, after all CCP ccp Fozzie lives in Null, not a WH.

      Delete
  23. You forgot one last problem with it.

    Wormhole Economies.

    Tech 3 is the only thing they produce and nerfs to those can kill a whole subsection of the game.

    As if we needed yet another section of the game under pressure especially one where there are still some smaller gangs still surviving.

    Knock knock CCP, everyone does not necessarily want to be in PL/Test/Goons and many will probably just leave if you try to force them by killing off or damaging their economy.

    Tech 3 nerfs without giving WH's anything else to produce just makes the game that much less interesting and diverse and in the end played.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When I read the devblog and forums I read it like this...

    "We just boosted Tech 1, to make Tech 2 be worth the extra increment it's going to have to be ginormously powerful. But we don't want it too powerful, so before we begin the work on Tech 2 in mass we're going to nerf links so we have less severe peaks and valley's in Min/Max to balance around."

    But that was my bitter vet reading of it, with less swing it makes CCP's job easier. Now, if I wanted to go full tinfoil hat in this direction I'd foresee an incoming nerf to pirate implants not long after this goes live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This all causes pirate implant sets to be nerfed I gotta ask: AINT CCP BASICALLY GOING DOWN THE ROAD TO NERFING EVERYTHING INTO ROOKIE SHIPS? I hope they don't desend that far down the rabbit hole!
      ~DarthNefarius

      Delete
  25. i agree with that, that off grid boosting is viable for both sides, so I don't see a particular problem here. Also I see a point in having home advantage but it's not that big - a lot of times the first ship from the opposite gang that comes into the system is a boosting nullified T3. So you can scratch that. :P

    On the argument, that new players can't compete, there is various limitations to that, SP, ISK one of them... erm? Only what might be wrong with this, that thses boosting ships are to much accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  26. o/
    i dont see how capitals are broken. carriers are probably the best balanced ship in eve.

    carriers have multiple roles only a carrier can perform
    they are perfectly balanced to subcapital ships
    they can be used successfull in fights from small to epic lag fights, but only when used in the right way.

    dreads maybe have some kind of racial imbalance. the moros is the state of the art dread and all other dreads are not the best choise.
    but dreads are also very well balanced towards subcapitals and other normal capitals.

    titans and supercarrier are no longer a stand alone force. you could call them broken. but on the other hand the HBC vs -A- fights show that supers still some kind of most importent thing for sov warfare.

    heavy tanked battleships with triage carrier support or with tons of spider tank carrier support need heavy damage as counter.
    you could bring close range battleships, but if you do that, the enemy will drop dreads on your battleships and that will kill them within seconds.
    you could bring your own dreads, but in this case enemys will bring titans and doomsdays all your dreads within seconds.
    if you bring your own supercapital fleet the enemys bring their complete supercapital fleet.

    if they have more suprers, you cant use your supers. that means you cant stop them from using carrier and dreads and that means you cant use battleships, dreads or carriers.
    as broken as supers are, they are still the most importent part for large scale fights

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yay!

    That takes some talent on the part of CCP, to make Gallente Tech II Battlecruisers, one of the biggest jokes in the game already, actually worse.

    I laughed when Jester pointed correctly out how much Gallente links are actually nerfed by rebalancing since ECM got nerfed. I didn't think it was possible for the EOS and Astarte to go downhill, yet again I underestimate some of the talent involved.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Regarding unprobable boosting T3s...

    Won't the new sensor strength skills once again render them unprobable?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I realize this post is kind of dead but as I read all these comments, I thought back to when I was a miner… and how much of a nerf requiring boosters to be on-grid or outside of a pos would be to miners. Who is going to be first to Siege a Rouq in a belt, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think they should keep the fleet vs. field distinction. Keep the skill requirements the same too. The Fleet command ship requires logistics and warfare link specialist skills. Okay give it the same bonuses as that race's logistics ships along with the ability to field gang links. Change the link bonuses to skirmish and information even go so far as to only allow them to mount skirmish and information links. Field commands require HAC skill they might as well require warfare link specialist too. Give them bonuses to armored (Ammar and Gallente) OR siege (Caldari and Minimatar) links.

    As far as on vs. off grid boosting, make it so Mindlink implant effects only apply when on grid.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.