Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Edited for clarity and to reinforce the idea of the suggestion over the exact details

I've posted this idea before in the "old forums" but can't find it. I've also looked back about 15 pages and didn't find anything like it. Since we've got Warfare bonuses and links and CS changes happening soon(ish) i figured I'd throw my two cents in on the idea.

Currently, warfare bonuses are:
Shield
- %resists
- remote/local rep speed
- cap reduction

Armor
- local/remote rep speed
- armor % resists
- cap reduction

Info
- increased strength for ewar
- increased range for ewar
- increased sensor strength for ships

Skirmish
- decreased sig radius
- MWD/AB speed boost
- web/scram range bonus.

Proposed changes are good in that now CS will have a hull bonus (shield or armor bonus) AND and "utility" bonus (either info or skirmish).

What I propose is adding two classes of bonus so that each race has its own version of warfare bonuses as such:

Caldari - Info - bonuses to ewar stuff
Minmatar - Skirmish - bonuses to speed/buff and debuff

No changes there. These lines fit very well with the race traits. Whats missing are warfare lines that fit with the race traits of Amarr and Gallente. I'll list a few suggestions that serve as examples of what COULD be bonuses, so that people have an idea of what I'm talking about. Obviosly, these wouldn't be the finalized version of any bonuses...only suggestions and ideas.

So, for example
Gallente - Drone control
perhaps bonuses could look like this
- increased MWD speed for drones (including ewar/logistics drones) OR,
- increased tracking/range for drones OR,
- increased HP/resists for drones OR,
- increased damage for drones (or rep amount for logistics, or ewar strength for ewar...) OR,
- decreased bandwidth for drone control


Amarr - Cap Warfare
- increased range for Neut/Nos OR,
- decreased cap use for Neut OR,
- cycle time bonus for Neut/Nos OR,
- increased cap transfer amount for Neut/Nos OR,
- decreased cycle time or increased cap boost amount for capacitor booster modules.

To reiterate: the above are only suggestions to show what my idea is: warfare link bonuses to the traits of warfare that Amarr and Gallente have a reputation for.

The idea is that each race has a trait that shows with their ships. Caldari is ewar/missles, Minmatar is speed/agility, Gallente is drones/warp jamming and Amarr is cap warfare (and a bit of tracking disruption). I think it fits well with the new scheme that CCP is offering to allow CS to boost shield or armor, then also boost the specific flavor of each race.

The pro's of this are that it allows more specialization of fleets, magnifies ship roles in the fleet/wing/squad and gives that many more options for pilots/corps/alliances to focus efforts on.

Edit: removed warfare link ideas regarding turret/launcher buffs

those are not. Other than that i fully agree with you.

OP, in case you are still wondering why adding more bonuses to weapon systems is a bad idea:

There is, at any given time, such a thing as "enough tank." At some point, adding more survivability won't make any difference.

There is never any such thing as "enough damage."

Not quite following how that is pay to win.

Just throwing out Ideas.

Obviously I'm not the guy that invents all the stats and programs them into the game, but I am a player that has wondered why for 10 years there have only been 2 "Utility" warfare link module lines, but 4 races... and also why Gallente got the shaft w/ Information warfare links, the only ewar modules they have bonused ships for is Sensor damps, and thats only on the Recons and EAF.

The big point is that each race has a chosen "ewar" they favor, whether its Paint-matars, Caldar-ewar, Amarr-Nos or Damp-ente, the game should have 4 Warfare link lines that support the flavors of each race.

Maybe add on a cap-booster cycle time bonus for Cap Warfare links, or bonus JUST ewar/utility drones for Gallente, or whatever other good ideas are out there. Now seems like the time to work this into the Warfare Link equation.

1.)

Iam's contributions to this thread have been very constructive! Just because he pointed out parts of your post that are poorly thought out, or show a lack of insight, doesn't mean his post wasn't constructive.

2.) Warfare links that decrease fitting requirements don't make much sense... Imagine your setup needs the fitting reduction to meet your ship's PG/CPU attributes.... Anytime that warfare link person switches systems, warps, etc... you end up with an offline module that you need 95% capacitor to actually put back online. Furthermore, the module that goes offline will be random, and too often it will be a plate, a weapon, or a prop module... all of which are important to keep online during combat. This type of bonus just doesn't work well with the Warfare-link mechanics.

3.) Drone Warfare Link bonus should effect drone HP, drone speed, and perhaps drone control range, but not tracking/optimal/falloff. Anything that boosts tracking/optimal/falloff is essentially a damage bonus, and adding any form of Damage bonus to warfare links is simply too potent! This is why I agree with Ian, and consider your "final additional bonuses" simply overpowered. Warfare links are already stupidly powerful, and they don't need to be even more potent!

Finally... Nerf OGBing...

I'm noticing that people are missing the spirit of my post. So, I'll see if I can clear the air.

The point, the WHOLE point of my entire discussion here is that each race in this game has a set of traits that their ships utilize and have a bit of specialization with. What I'm suggesting, regardless of the exacts of the specific module and buffs, is that there needs to be a race-trait specific warfare link system that follows that race.

I haven't thought out the in game mechanics, the effect on specific ships, the effect on specific fittings, on specific pilots or on specific modules that each of my "suggestions" would produce. I'm not the balance guy, so stop railing me about OP stats!

Please stop reacting to the specifics of the examples that I've listed, because its not about that. Its about filling what, in my opinion, are some holes in the warfare link system. If you disagree about the need to fill that system, I'd be happy hear those arguments. If you like the system the way it is, I'd like to hear that. If you agree or have other suggestions, I'd like to hear that.

One more time, just so its clear to everyone: The idea here is to add two warfare link lines, one that follows the Amarr Doctrine of capacitor warfare, and one that follows the Gallente doctrine of drone warfare. The examples I gave were examples, certainly not the fully researched, tested and developed end-product that could come of this.

I hope this clarifies things and facilitates a discussion on the pro's and con's of such a system, rather than focusing on minor details.