These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T3 Warfare Links, Negative effects to grid
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
naed21
Iron Knights
#1 - 2012-01-14 03:37:47 UTC
For those of you who don't know, there are certain systems in wh space that will have negative effects on your ship.

Much like this, T3 Warefare links will effect not only your ships, but the ships of your enemies.

Basically they allow the battlefield to become much more dynamic.

I'm not very creative so I'll just mention some of the effects that you can find in wh space that would be good candidates for different types of T3 Warfare links:

*Reduction in Shield resistances
*Reduction in Armor resistances
*Reduction in targeting range
*Reduction to align time

Some things to discuss would be other types of negative effects that could be included, and if they should be considered Warefare links considering they'll work once you land on grid and turn them on, regardless of where you are in your fleet structure.

Also I'm not talking about very large reductions either. Just small enough to still make a difference, but not be game breaking.

Feel free to tell me this is a terrible idea, but if you do, please say why.

P.S. While its on, it should be a massive light show of some sort which basically yells SHOOT ME. Making it very clear that its your fault that everyone is dying
Clementina
University of Caille
#2 - 2012-01-14 05:00:43 UTC
The problem that I see immediately is that usually nerfing another ship counts as aggression even if you don't do any damage. Consider Stasis Webbifiers, Nosferatu, and Target Painters for example. So if your ship was to come onto grid with such a module on it would aggress everything on the grid; corpmates, war targets, neutrals, the gate on the grid, everything.
It would bring CONCORD on top of the pilot so fast they may as well have been running 8 faction smartbombs and pwning noobs, except since it affects the entire grid, there would be no way to fly to not hit a neutral.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#3 - 2012-01-14 05:01:08 UTC
I'd say it's a bad idea because Warfare links are already powerful enough, and negative affects to your opponents ships is the same as boosting your own. Why do both? Why not just stick to what we have?

I'm all for new modules and ships, but redundant reproduction is a bit beyond me.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#4 - 2012-01-14 05:01:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Clementina wrote:
The problem that I see immediately is that usually nerfing another ship counts as aggression even if you don't do any damage. Consider Stasis Webbifiers, Nosferatu, and Target Painters for example. So if your ship was to come onto grid with such a module on it would aggress everything on the grid; corpmates, war targets, neutrals, the gate on the grid, everything.
It would bring CONCORD on top of the pilot so fast they may as well have been running 8 faction smartbombs and pwning noobs, except since it affects the entire grid, there would be no way to fly to not hit a neutral.


+this.

edit: Of course, I would be impressed to see a Cap ship Warfare link that did something like the Sansha Incursions effect/Wormhole effects. Being a Cap ship module, of course it could only be used in Lowsec and Null. Would be neat, and aside from GCC on the Cap pilot, (which doesn't matter unless he reships in Highsec after podding and undocks); there would be no need to worry about Concord.

edit2: ..and then, I think "What happens if there are two ships on grid applying different effects?" Okay, so the servers would go crazy, multiple bonuses would be applied to all ships, stacking with every new ship that deployed them; and we all know how much Nullsec alliances love their Carriers and Supercarriers, so it would just stack, stack, stack.

Bad idea.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
naed21
Iron Knights
#5 - 2012-01-14 05:38:39 UTC
Clementina wrote:
The problem that I see immediately is that usually nerfing another ship counts as aggression even if you don't do any damage. Consider Stasis Webbifiers, Nosferatu, and Target Painters for example. So if your ship was to come onto grid with such a module on it would aggress everything on the grid; corpmates, war targets, neutrals, the gate on the grid, everything.
It would bring CONCORD on top of the pilot so fast they may as well have been running 8 faction smartbombs and pwning noobs, except since it affects the entire grid, there would be no way to fly to not hit a neutral.


The Easy solution to this problem would be to make it like bubbles and make it 0.0 only.

Mars Theran wrote:
I'd say it's a bad idea because Warfare links are already powerful enough, and negative affects to your opponents ships is the same as boosting your own. Why do both? Why not just stick to what we have?

I'm all for new modules and ships, but redundant reproduction is a bit beyond me.


Let me put it this way, Technology isn't always implemented with grace. I mean, just look at the Minmatar. Big smile

"Reverse engineering how systems in wh space negatively affect your ships has lead to the development of systems that can affect ships in a similar fashion in an area upon activation. Getting these devices to tell the difference between friend and foe has proven less successful"
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#6 - 2012-01-14 05:53:50 UTC
naed21 wrote:
"Reverse engineering how systems in wh space negatively affect your ships has lead to the development of systems that can affect ships in a similar fashion in an area upon activation. Getting these devices to tell the difference between friend and foe has proven less successful"


And so we end up with an explanation for Incursions, and how the Sansha got the technology. Doesn't mean it will work in the hands of players. We'll just get massive server spam from multiple ships cycling grid changing warfare links. The effect on a Blob would be predictable and immediate: Everybody would disco as the node crashed.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
naed21
Iron Knights
#7 - 2012-01-14 17:28:44 UTC
Well, I can't really see this having such a massive impact to latency as you are saying it will. I mean really, all you have to do is have a few single single variable checks.

Is it on? Yes. Is there already one active? Yes. Ok, then don't do anything.

You're also implying that over the years, CCP has learned nothing in reducing lag and that by adding anything to this game that does, ya know. Anything. Will result in epic server fires and wide spread panic...