Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The goal is to make warfare links fun, skill intensive and balanced for fleets of any size in a way that's viable right now and doesn't require new technology:

• Remove Command Processors
• Command ships and strategic cruisers with the Warfare Processor subsystem can fit two links
• Warfare links trigger a weapon timer
• Replace all current warfare links with the following:

Skirmish Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to speed of fleet's afterburner and microwarpdrive modules
0.6% bonus to range of fleet's propulsion jamming modules
0.6% reduction to fleet's signature radius

Siege Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's shield resistances
0.6% reduction to capacitor usage of fleet's shield booster and shield transporters
0.6% reduction to cycle time of shield boosters and shield transporters

Armor Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's armor resistances
0.6% reduction to capacitor usage of fleet's armor repair and remote armor repair
0.6% reduction to cycle time of fleet's armor repair and remote armor repair

Information Warfare Link I:
0.6% bonus to fleet's lock range and sensor strength
0.6% bonus to range of fleet's electronic warfare modules
0.6% bonus to strength of fleet's electronic warfare modules



• T2 warfare links get a 0.75% bonus instead 0.6%
• Each of the warfare links have three scripts that boost one bonus by 200% at the expense of the other two.

After bonuses from perfect skills, command ships and mindlinks, T2 links provide a ~3.23% bonus unscripted or a ~9.7% bonus scripted.

While this doesn't remove off-grid boosting, being vulnerable off-grid due to the weapon timer, being able to fit tank and weapons with only two links, and having to be active to change scripts makes on-grid links optimal.

Disclaimer: I've got an alt with 12m SP in leadership and command ships 5.

So how does having to change scripts around force an off grid booster on grid? I could just run 2 additional boosters and gain my standard 6 boosts I normally run around with that are scripted differently from each other. Good job, you have just made it that much harder for a small organization to run around with boosts since for max boosts from 2 fields, you would need to run 3 separate boosters instead of just one. Not to mention that you need to turn a module off to script swap, so who in their right mind would turn off a module, just to swap a script around quickly in the middle of a fight?




As it stands the minmitar command ships can fit 6 links and still get the needed sensor strength.

Remove command processors +1

I could live with current mechanics, otherwise.

+1

I really like this proposal. Also, I write that as I am just finishing a link alt (whereas, making links on-grid only would disadvantage primarily the solo PVPer using links to help fight larger gangs, which is what I mostly use them for). Can't think of any significant negatives as of yet and this proposal would presumably be MUCH easier for CCP to code and implement than the mythical "making links on-grid only" proposal, among others that having deep problems with the code.

+1, a step in the right direction.

As a member of OE I should probably be against this, but as a solo PvPer, would love to see this implement.

all this does is force me to train and use an extra alt to be competitive

That's what i'm sayin for ages...

Just like Logi, make links whatever they are, wherever they are have the same timers (the highest among the members if in a fleet) as the pilots get if they engage and links are up at that moment.

With this simple thing, we don't even care about offgrid links, cause as soon as they link an engage pilot, they are vulnerable.

At least, people will tend to get links with command ship more often to prevent easy blap instead of fragile T3s links.

Even though i'm not familiar with all the technical thinggies about links, i'm Plus_Oneing this.

It doesn't matter how minor or major the boosts are, boosts are still boosts. If someone wants to maximize the performance of their ship, they will do it whether it takes 1 booster or 3. If you want to simply nerf boosts by 40%, then nerf boosts by 40% and stop trying to change things for the sake of change. This won't bring off grid boosters on grid, because why increase the risk of your boosting if the boosts still work off grid? In fact it would probably makes off grid boosting even more safe because it opens up more fitting on their ships which would make them harder to hunt down and kill then it already is now.

Scripts might be the easiest, but just because it's the easiest solution doesn't make it the right solution.



Do you feel a need to not have a ship performing to it's maximum the game will allow?



Not to mention it will simply increase the barrier to entry for having perfect boosts.

Lastly, I am not trying to say that boosts couldn't be in a better place, but I believe that this will not improve boosts, which is why I am defending the current system until someone comes up with a better solution.

We certainly need a more mobile form of skirmish links.

If we didn't have the current system, with the legacy fleet code holding us back, I'd favor even a T2 destroyer with fitting bonuses. However, in terms of role analysis, an exploration frigate would be a better option since it has to be on grid with other ships in order to use its other abilities.

What I really don't like is these ultra-specialized ships having all these abilities in addition to staying out of the fight. It would be much better if links were a common module, giving tiny bonuses and maxing out at 10 users in the same squad. They might simply take the place of a salvager or offline remote repairer on most fits.

Ideally, they would be easier to squeeze onto the more generalist T1 hulls rather than specialist T2 hulls, but PG/CPU mechanics are all out of whack thanks to oversize tanks and propulsion even being a possibility. Maybe all the cruisers should get +50PG, and then add 50 PG as a fit requirement for both 10MN ABs & MWDs. Either that, or scale out the tank buffer mods and nerf MAPCs, but I digress.

Perhaps gang link fitting bonuses could be role linked. A griffin might only be able to fit a lightweight version of an info warfare link, while a condor could only fit a lightweight skirmish link.

Seige and armor links seem to suggest statary roles though, which would almost suggest that the bonuses should be conferred by larger ships to smaller escorts. It would be interesting if frigates could only get defensive bonuses from support destroyers, or they in turn only from cruisers.

There is also a blob vs solo dynamic for links. Off grid links support a whole fleet, but they also provide an equivalent bonus to a single pilot. If we adopted the mass form of links, the blob would naturally benefit more. I think the best compromise is limiting standard bonuses to a single squad, and restrict statary wing or fleet boosting to bonused ships, like command ships or capitals. Squad level restriction tends to frame things more in reference to small squads, which is a reasonable compromise.

With the new structures in the offing, it would seem that there is also room to play around with defensive system bonuses linked to sov. Perhaps these could be channeled through link modules in some fashion. This would ensure that the ability could be attacked directly, while still focusing attackers on the periphery of alliance suzerainties.

Argueing with skill time and accessability in general is going to get us nowhere, thats why we have the Supercarrier and Titan problem.
Also snake sets are becoming cheaper as we speak, with mid grades already being cheaper than some of the more advanced boosting setups.
I think the strength itself is balanced by the fact that you dedicate a whole character (theoretically a second person) to do that job, certain links are already on the verge of barely useful (Im looking at you sensor strength link).