Player Features and Ideas Discussion

(Don't worry, I'm NOT proposing changes to make it harder to use the warfare link and covert ops subsystems together.)

If we want to put fleet boosters on grid, they have to be durable. But the warfare link subsystem has some serious issues. Because the subsystem is in the defensive group, it replaces those subsystems that provide much greater defense. It doesn't increase the number of links that can be active on one ship, so you either only fit one link and throw away the versatility provided by having three link groups available instead of two, or you gimp your ship with command processors, which take up so much cpu and pg that the lows are filled with fitting modules. Since multiple high slots are used for links, your dps is gimped too. Command ships even got higher damage bonuses to account for the fact they lost guns to have utility high slots for warfare links.

My first suggestion is that the warfare links subsystem is changed from defensive to offensive, and given the three link limit of command ships (or, if necessary, a two link limit). This allows the offensive power of a t3 with links to be easily adjusted without affecting the normal offensive subsystems, and since another defensive subsystem can be used, it will have the same durability as a ship without links. The ship will make sacrifices on offensive power to fit links rather than defensive power.

Now, about Covert Ops subsystems. Right now, as an offensive subsystem, it lowers the damage that a t3 ship can do, while remaining just as tanky. A cloak is fairly defensive in nature, and a trade off between cloaking and defense makes more sense than a trade off between cloaking and offense. Paper thin tank is a trait of every covert ops ship, while only some of them have weak offense, and even recons have offense in the form of EWAR to make up for the lack of dps. Finally, with the previous suggestion, it would make covert ops incompatible with warfare links since they would both be offensive subsystems, and I think that would be a bad change. Unique combinations like covert ops and warfare links are exactly what tech 3 design should encourage.

My second suggestion should be obvious at this point, change covert ops subsystem from offensive to defensive so that it trades with defense rather than offense, and can still be used with the warfare link subsystem. It would also enable its usage with a new subsystem I am about to suggest.

We already have an electronics subsystem for each races secondary EWAR, but only one race has a subsystem for the primary EWAR. Since the electronics subsystem already has the existing EWAR subsystems, how about an offensive subsystem that provides bonuses to each races electronic warfare (the Caldari already have one, so they would get a new normal offensive subsystem). This subsystem would provide the tech 1 bonus to its race's EWAR, as well as either some kind of weak weapon bonus, or an additional bonus to EWAR, like range or capacitor use. It would additionally sacrifice 1-2 high slots for mid slots. This would bring in EWAR as an option for unique tech 3 combinations. For example, paper thin cloaky tech 3 ships using both primary and secondary EWAR that are running a 100mn ab to stay alive, and don't have to worry about their damage application because they don't have any, they are just using their EWAR to help the fleet.

TL;DR: Change the warfare link subsystem from defensive to offensive so that it doesn't gimp defense, since it gimps offense anyways, and give it the ability to use 2-3 links simultaneously, so that it can make use of it's additional versatility in link type without gimping everything with command processors. Change the Covert ops subsystem from offensive to defensive so that it doesn't conflict with the warfare link subsystem and so that covops t3 ships are paper thin with dps rather than tanky, because tanky covops is weird and not particularly interesting. A new offensive subsystem for each races primary EWAR to introduce more unique tech 3 ships.

interesting thoughts... i do think that some subs are in the wrong category and limits there versatility unnecessary.

up-to 2 links is what i thought the link changes was going to do but apparently not which kinda gimps the 3 link bonuses they have when they can only fit one .. but i think CS have too weak a bonus too links 15% ends up adding 1% roughly more than T3's do .. which is strange.... perhaps if they upped CS to 25% bonus then T3's would have more room too play with like being able to fit 3 links too match the 3 bonuses they have.

Although on the link sub i wouldn't give them the same CS like ability to maintain high dps .. i think they should lose some dps to use more than one link.. afterall CS need some advantage and are meant to be specialised towards this.

Thanks for the support!

@Harvey: I agree that the Command ship bonus is a little weak, but that's not horrible since links don't stack. You can't make up for subpar links through quantity, so that bonus is the only way to improve link bonuses for the fleet. The difference is still quite small though. Personally I think warfare mindlink implants are still stronger than they should be. Implants are supposed to be small, incremental improvements, and since links don't stack, those small improvements will be all the more important. For fleet boosting however, mindlink implants are pretty much a must-buy (At least they seem to be according to the numbers I get in Pyfa, I'm not a fleet booster so I may be wrong on that). I would decrease the bonus that mindlinks provide a bit further, and increase skill bonuses to compensate and make them more relevant.

Also, for dps I was thinking a little less dps than normal with all bonused hardpoints filled, but only one utility slot. If you use a full three links, your dps is cut down really hard.