Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I see some of us have not grasped the concept of "Brainstorming" ideas.

And you my good Sir is exactly the kind of person who would have prevented us from flying in the first place

While incredibly unpopular, I think we might at least take a look at what CCP wanted in the first place with Capitals: They were meant to be flagships for fleets. CCP saw them as rare ships, not the mandatory ships they are now for Null operations.

The vision is good...but the players wrecked their execution with superior play.

If you made them incredibly effective PVP ships while in leadership role positions within the fleet, Wing Commander and Fleet Commander slots, but having them outside that fleet structure would greatly diminish them, you would get something resembling what CCP really had in mind.

Of course this would rage-quit off a lot of Super owning accounts, but meh...at least you would have a lot of backup flagships for a few wars.

I know that no one will take this post serious since all of Null is too invested in capital game play, but I think its the only real course of action. Even Manny's mode system (it has been proposed before) will be gamed endlessly. This isn't a bad thing - gaming the system - it's just not what TomB and Co. had in mind when they were thinking about Capitals in Eve. They had the instincts, just not the design capability to foresee what would come of things.

Serious reply incoming: So basically just **** everything and let irrelevancy sort it out?

-1

On the contrary, I think this is an interesting concept. It's true that Null is invested in capital gameplay, however with the Jump changes to projection of power, this isn't necessarily the status quo in all occasions for all of Null at any given moment. Folks cant just travel wherever they want without risk anymore.

Of course this is only brainstorming, so Building on your Idea, and the proposed flagship role that CCP envisioned: I would venture one step further and rather than limit the flagship(s) to something like wing commander and above, (and all the bonus skills required to make a difference in the role of WC or Wing Booster), why not add a Flagship slot to wings and/or Fleet?

@ Gemini Tordanis: great ideas.

Carrot for the Carrier pilots: SC/Carrier get mega-bonus to warfare links (give supers 10%, carriers 5%, Command ships get 3% and put 2% on the Tech3's). If the Carrier/SC pilot is in a Squad/Wing/Fleet command position bump it up an extra 2%. (also...remove the option for non-command fleet members to give the boost... FC, WC, or SC only)

Stick: Carrier/SC pilots can only launch/control 5 fighters/fighter bombers, and make the Drone Control Unit a mod that allows delegation of fighters to a properly skilled fleetmate. Heck... if we want the mode thing, make the Drone Control unit similar to triage in that it allows more control ( in the AU range maybe?) of the fighters, but still cap the number of remote-controlled fighters/FB's at 5.

This makes the Carrier choose whether to be a DPS helper (Drone Control), Logistics buddy (Triage) or Link-bunny (normal)

As for Dreads/Titans, not sure, but I posted on page 10 or 11, maybe some of that is still viable?

so you're basically suggesting that warfare links become completely irrelevant for most scenarios and almost irrelevant for cap blob warfare? did I get it right?

there's a suggestion from yet another idiot who knows nothing about warfare links.

Warfare links and Capitals needs to be like a chair missing a leg. If you don´t put the right leg under it, it will wobble and fall.

Like Incursions, you need have optimal fleet to gain maximize reward.

So if you have too many Capitals and not enough sub-caps in your fleet, then you don´t gain Max bonuses from Warfare links (could gain negative bonuses).


Also, there needs to be direct gain from having Capital in fleet and on the field when they are in Fleet, Wing Command, or Squad positions. Increased fleet size or bonuses to Logistics, drones... range, tracking... !!! ???

a few things are wrong in your post there. first of all:


you seem to have the wrong idea of what off grid boosts are. which, by the way, can be on-grid, it's just that it's better to have them away because then they would not be removed and your fleet doesn't lose them.

secondly:


the "levels" will never be "manageable" because those who can will use so many of them that they'll never be taken out of the picture, while small groups that do exist lose their ability to use warfare links, rendering them with less power, and therefore more vulnerable in situations where they would be able to fight a larger force if they stick to capable ships and appropriate tactics and strategies, something that is made easier with warfare links. they contribute to the fight of the few against the many, who, by the way, use warfare links as well. and with your suggestion such larger groups will be able to use warfare links while the smaller group cannot.

thirdly:


The only one I see crying here is you. it looks to me like all you're saying is "herpderp warfare links derpherp remove them! NERFWARFARELINKS"

WHOA.

WHOA.

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

slow down.

Actually I do. Where as I don't think that you have actually taken your time to read what has been posted on the last 14 pages.

So let me recap for you:
Fozziesov does not make much allowance for Capitals as we see it, we want capitals to stay. OP suggested MODE for Capitals (carriers), and people have been putting there variation on the idea out, and how they see Capitals evolving or being relevant in the future. Most admit that Capital BLOBs are not good for gameplay, you get TiDi, you get lag.. ect. So whatever will happen there needs to be balance. If Capitals will become "smaller" then there could be need to nerf how warfare links work with Capitals, to discourage capital blobs. Also if Capitals will become "smaller", then - why should you not be allowed to dock it ?