These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[IDEA] Warfare Link ideas

Author
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-04-23 19:18:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Cedric
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

Cedric

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#2 - 2013-04-24 07:19:36 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Turrets
- decreased (energy/projectile/hybrid) sig resolution
- increased (energy/projectile/hybrid) tracking

Those are the same thing.

Dr Cedric wrote:
Armor
- local/remote rep speed
- armor HP
- cap reduction

It's actually armor resists, same as shields. If you don't even know how it works now, how can you possibly make it better?

Dr Cedric wrote:
Amarr - Cap Warfare
- increased range for Neut/Nos
- decreased fitting for Neut/Nos
- cycle time bonus for Neut/Nos
- increased cap transfer amount for Neut/Nos
*pick 3

You are focusing on a single form of warfare, out of about 5. That's not healthy, useful, or good.

Dr Cedric wrote:
Launcher:
- increased rate of fire
- Expl. velocity or radius bonus
- flight time or velocity bonus

CCP dismissed the idea of weapon-bonusing warfare links, ESPECIALLY ones that increase damage, a long long time ago. It's a terrible idea and would lead to horrible unbalances. Are you really going to make all missile PVE that much more effective than it already is? Or are you going to nerf missiles across the board to balance it out, thus making some people's fits no longer work for their moneymaking activities unless they invest in maxed out links?

Same for drones. And guns. Leave it alone, it's a bad idea. Weapons are finely balanced as they are, we don't need to have players divided between Links Tier / Crap Tier. Affording a link ship to follow you around everywhere just so you can run missions effectively is paramount to pay-to-win.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#3 - 2013-04-24 07:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
Turrets
- decreased (energy/projectile/hybrid) sig resolution
- increased (energy/projectile/hybrid) tracking

Those are the same thing.

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

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#4 - 2013-04-24 09:26:13 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
Turrets
- decreased (energy/projectile/hybrid) sig resolution
- increased (energy/projectile/hybrid) tracking

Those are the same thing.

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

They have precisely the same result on every ship class other than Titans. If you disagree with that, don't worry, I promise I feel a little bit bad for you.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#5 - 2013-04-24 12:33:07 UTC
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."

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-04-24 16:40:04 UTC
Well, I'm glad Iam is passionate about dismissing me, rather than constructive criticism and adding to the talk. I was hoping to foster ideas here, not have mine completely dismissed or shot at or blown out of the water.

As for Turret/Missile buffs, did anyone notice I said "it might be overpowered"? lets read things before we assume things. My mistake on the armor HP/% resist, but lets not focus on that.

Instead, lets look at the idea of making Command ships, bonuses and warfare links something that really makes a difference for fleet doctrines, ship choice and FC decision making.

More than simply needing your offgrid (hopefully that gets fixed!) booster for more HP/resists/web range/whatever, lets have a system that allows ship roles to be magnified, fleet composition to become specialized, and encourage people to fleet, make decisions about squad/wing composition and find some new parts of the sand box.

In regards to the Cap Warfare Link idea
Quote:
You are focusing on a single form of warfare, out of about 5. That's not healthy, useful, or good.


Are you saying that CCP should boost all Amarr recons to have bonuses for all 5 types of warfare (what are those 5 types anyway?) Or for that matter, since you don't want ships to excel in any one thing, lets just have every ship w/ the same slot/turret/launcher layout, even stats and bonuses to everything...

Specialization to get 5% better at one thing than the next guy is what the whole skill system of Eve is about, not homogenized ships that all do the same thing, just look different doing them.

So, I'll say it again, to follow the traits of each race, lets add two more Warfare Link systems to the game along the traits of Amarr and Gallente. If you have a better idea of what those specifics should be, post them.


Cedric

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#7 - 2013-04-24 16:57:06 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Affording a link ship to follow you around everywhere just so you can run missions effectively is paramount to pay-to-win.


Not quite following how that is pay to win.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#8 - 2013-04-24 17:10:01 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Amarr - Cap Warfare
- decreased fitting for Neut/Nos

Decreased fitting requirements as a Warfare Link?
Have you gone mad, sir?

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.

Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-04-24 17:54:20 UTC
Felsusguy wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
Amarr - Cap Warfare
- decreased fitting for Neut/Nos

Decreased fitting requirements as a Warfare Link?
Have you gone mad, sir?



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.

Cedric

NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-04-24 19:14:52 UTC
could you come up with more "OP AS ****" bonuses plz? and the "pick 3" thing is you adding a 4th totally ******** and/or not usable ability and you just want the 3 others you listed.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#11 - 2013-04-24 20:19:26 UTC

1.)
Dr Cedric wrote:
Well, I'm glad Iam is passionate about dismissing me, rather than constructive criticism and adding to the talk. I was hoping to foster ideas here, not have mine completely dismissed or shot at or blown out of the water.


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...
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-04-24 20:29:37 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:


Amarr - Cap Warfare

- decreased fitting for Neut/Nos



S
R
S
L
Y
?

Decresed fitting costs as a Gang Link? LMFAO

What are you smoking, sir?
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-04-24 21:55:08 UTC
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.

Cedric

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#14 - 2013-04-25 11:01:06 UTC
You asked for feedback on your ideas for links, I gave you feedback. None of these ideas are particularly good or well-thought-out, so I said so.

Dr Cedric wrote:
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!

If that's the case, then you really shouldn't be posting your ideas here or anywhere. If you haven't actually thought about what your suggested changes would entail, why are you suggesting them in the first place?


Rroff wrote:
Not quite following how that is pay to win.

Perhaps that's a bit harsh of a designation, but it making links that come from another pilot's ship essential to achieving your maximum damage output is a bad trend and a bad idea. This way only the people who pay every month for an extra account will get the full potential out of their ship for PVE. When you think about the actual difference it would make, it bears an awful lot of similarity to the kind of 'premium account' bullshit that has killed so many other games.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature