Warfare & Tactics

While your concerns about who would control the effect are valid, I'd say it's not the more important question. That would be:


Is a mechanic that allows you to decrease the effectiveness of specific compositions a positive benefit to the game?

If you know that your side like to use slower armor ships available, and the enemy likes to use faster kiting shield ships, how does being able to set it so all ships take a penalty to shield resists, speed, and an increase to armor resist an whatever weapon they use benefit the game?

It's an advantage for the defender, but it also adds disincentives to flying a variety of ships, encourages bland doctrines where you have to follow the rules laid down by the system or face ship penalties.

You talked about Wolf Rayet. Or as they are sometimes known, a great cockblock for impromptu fights. The defenders who have a fleet optimized for WR effects don't have an incentive for leaving the WH with the effect, and unless the attackers have a fleet that also gains benefit from the effect, they know it's a really bad idea to follow the enemy into or onto the WH that leads to the WR system.

In WH's though the next step is often for everyone to reship into something more effect neutral and arrange a brawl at the sun in a system between the two sides.

Overall I'm just not seeing the point. Each side would pick a system effect that benefits their most common doctrines, and negates their enemies most common doctrines, and then set and leave it for all their systems. All it does in the end is inhibit the types and varieties of fights that are likely to occur.

-1 from me unless you can elaborate on what the change is supposed to accomplish and why it's a good idea.

P.S: Probably should have gone in Features and Ideas Discussion instead of Warfare & Tactics, but not a big deal.

I have also been in favour of some change to how the FW I-hub bonus's work.

In addition I think the system upgrade level should be bound to the i-hub more solidly and appear as 5 hard points that can be attacked and destroyed (in order 5>4>3>2>1). Rather than the level being reduced by plexing, use a method to bring more ships into space to another combat driver. Much the same as null-sec station services being attacked and set inoperative.

HP would be nominal (not negligible) to not require too much dps (unlike null-sec station services).

The FW model would allow their destruction and perhaps a small amount of repair would be required before the LP donation could be made for the system upgrade level.

Oh hey Valentina ;) 'sup

Anyways, as for who 'decides' the ihub upgrades in a FW system, I think it'd be an interesting concept having it free for all. That way there's more incentive for militia pilots to unite and actively ally, and make agreements what sort of upgrades branches to focus the LP donations into per system.

Maybe make citadels merge with and become the iHub. Makes for easy Intel of ownership and control of system bonuses. Creates incentives for smaller groups to carve out their own niche. Provides an object to shoot when the system goes vulnerable that is more exciting than a chunk of debris that serves no other purpose than the place where you sacrifice your LP and children.

Was brought up in the newfw channel, not sure there was any traction for it though with CCP Affinity.

The militia gets higher tier for overall LP donations, not sure they need any more than that. I'd like to see something given to the individual pilots who donate LP rather than system wide buffs that apply to anyone in militia whether they donate or not. I'd also like to see some way for dedicated fw corps to get income from their players doing fw so maybe a percentage of lp donations at ihubs could be rebated to corp wallets, or the ceo's personal wallet.

Or maybe they could just change it so instead of donating LP which has value players would donate a new currency that has no value or use apart from upgrading ihubs and is earned in the warzone through pvp.