Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I've already made a substantive response.


Several of them, actually.

A 'Warfare Link' is also a Module. Grats.


A Booster is a role, which requires a lot of Pilot SP and ability to fly...

GG again.




And you're skimming over posts.


A slave set can give it's maximum effect to any ship. It doesn't matter. It will maximize the armor on every ship. All a ship has to do is fit some armor buffer and it'll notice a huge boost in it's armor value as compared to nonslaves.

A mindlink can only achieve it's maximum effect on a very specific set of ships. You can't just fit links on any ship. And within the ones that can even fit them, only a few can maximize those bonuses.



And yeah... Links are fine. GG. You don't appear to fly anything larger than cruisers. You have a problem with links because other people bring them, you do not. This is the equivalent of freighters complaining about getting ganked while taking nothing in the way of precautions to avoid it.


CCP is already working on bringing links on grid. Sit tight, or whine some more.

Hint: A personal attack would be me calling you an ignorant noob, not merely commenting on the amount of complaining you're doing.



@Daichi:

I didn't say booster pilots should have to do all that. I was commenting on the concept behind what or how a command ship might work.

The AFK/Alt tabbed/safed up/orbitting a POS bit CCP has already spoken on, made their intentions clear and given some explanation as to why it's not been done already: It's a mess to code.


The AFK/Alt tabbed bit is in the process of being fixed.... in the Soon*TM way of CCP. We don't need to keep coming back to that, it's been addressed. It's in the process of being fixed. That should not be the focus of links discussion anymore. It's a bit of old code we just have to live with until it's fixed, kinda like POS code(another nightmare), as links have been stated they will be. Once this is fixed, command ships will have to be 'on field' as it were, and cloaky T3 boosters will be.... significantly reduced in effectiveness. The Current T3 cloaky booster is very silly ship, though I do have a few as necessity dictates. I personally don't like them. But they are not links.... they are T3's. And they have been targeted for a future nerf bat in the moving Links on grid bit CCP has expressed desire to see done. This change is already on the way *TM. On field command ships don't get the luxury of being 100% alt+tab-able. Like every other ship, they are vulnerable, and must be flown accordingly. Having such a ship just be a links and links only boat is a waste of a ship. But flying them in that fashion is not dissimilar from dual boxing any two other ships. As an example, dual boxing Moros. Activate Siege and lock target x2, F1 x2, kill POS x2. After you hit that F1 button, unless either ship is attacked, or the target changes, they require the same ability to fly as pure links command ship, which doesn't require too much less than standard fleet ' Orbit anchor, Lock target+Press F1, repeat.' And as any other dual boxing, once that command ship is attacked, you respond accordingly, whether that be OH hardeners, OH AB/MWD, Cap boost, w/e.

The 'Links' discussion is going to continue to be skewed as long as people continue to treat the current state as the way links will remain. CCP has stated that this is not their intention, and are working on it, again *TM. I spend the greater sum of my fleet time in a logistics ship or command ship. A properly combat+links fit command ship, with specific support roles in fleets is not a 100% afk-able ship, and requires as much attention as a standard combat ship, though you rarely see what it's actually doing because it's support role isn't really DPS. This is the direction CCP is pushing links into, on field support ships(or on field DPS), though you can be sure there will be ways around it which will be used. But that is Eve. 425 Rail guns as material transfer is a thing to get around moving bulk minerals. Eve always finds ways around things.


I'm NOT saying there isn't a way to improve on the current system. I AM saying that it is functional, and does work, and the biggest complaints have been addressed, with fixes 'Being worked on.' Should a better system appear that doesn't inordinately punish leadership skills and links(which are, for the most part, a sensible part of Eve strategic choice and availability, though admittedly the capacitor reduction links are a bit odd and the sig rad one to an extent), that makes them a more active system but doesn't spite them for the sake of soothing a few whines and groans, I'd probably be very interested in it, though I'd have to see it first.


Going back to the OP and idea in this thread, a system wide 'Negate all the Links!' is bad for the same reason off grid boosting isn't ideal, plus a few more. A limited range, deployable structure is closer, but shares the same problems that CCP are having in 'what defines a grid, and what is an ideal range for links to function, given grid stretching, and large battles.' A targeted 'Links Disruptor of sorts' could be an interesting concept, but it would have to require a similar amount of restriction that links themselves require, in terms of ship classes and SP. But any and all of these can't just be thought about in the current state of boosting(which again, has been marked for correction), but also has to be considered in the 'short/mid term' when CCP is able to sort the mess of re-coding links/boosts. A targeted module is kinda useless with Cloaky T3's.... where a deployable structure is great. But remove cloaky, safed T3's from the equation and add in on field command ships, a targeted module becomes ideal so as to not negate your own fleets links. This idea, while it has the potential to really screw over people like myself heavily invested in Leadership SP, also has the potential to add alot of strategic choice. THIS is why I like the idea. But it can't really see the light of day, nor can the real 'Nature' of links be determined, until CCP takes a step with links, by either pushing them on grid or giving a time frame for when they think they'll be done. Kinda frustrating like that....


I'm not on a 'Defend my Hax!' Crusade.... that's saved for Vindicators ;)


But a Command ship, fleet bonuses/boosts, is a viable mechanic, and has a fair bit of sense behind it. AWACS, GPS targeting systems, and battlefield information systems found in today's modern army's are the basis on which these in game systems build. They gather, analyze, and distribute battlefield information to optimize an military force's performance. What is in Eve is not too far a stretch, certainly not when you start considering nano-tech, warp drives, and spaceships.

How about a T2 destroyer hull that acts as a support interdictor. The ship role would negate the effect of enemy warfare links for those ships on grip based upon the jamming pilots warfare skills. In this way an equally skilled leader could negate the enemy booster. Since they are on grid they can be hunted and would need protection, but this could introduce an interesting tactical choice between concentrating fire or splitting your force to chase down the jamming ship.

In this solution a pilot of equal skills (therefore equal time investment) would be required to negate an enemy fleets boosts. They would also need to be on grid in a relatively fragile ship (though tougher than tech I dessie)