open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Remote Repair
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 17:47:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Dinta Zembo
This does not fix capital spider tanking because, like you said, capital mods affect capital ships. Also, logistics have the less powergrid usage bonus because they have to fulfill their role.

The result of this will be that battleship gangs become more powerful and smaller gangs less powerful because the small ship gangs would simply require more logis to have enough reps to keep the gang alive.

Also, what do you consider a 'small gang'? A 5-man frigate gang does not have logistics in it.

Even with a medium-against-medium kind of engagement, the bigger gang still wins because they have more guns and more reps. Size unrelated. So what's the use of this change? I can say from experience that a well-coordinated small gang does beat a bigger gang where nobody is following orders.



This is a very flat view, and please I don't mean to offend I appreciate all constructive comments however I get the impression you don't do much small scale PvP.

If you again read my original post, I only agree with capital reps if a capital ships is in triage doing so making themselves vulnerable to attack since a carrier in triage cannot be remote repaired itself or field drones/fighters.

With regards to BS's beating smaller ships, yes if its up close and personal, if you match the stats however this is what it was like previously and speed could often counter battleship gangs, smaller ships should rely on fast movement and mobility, larger ships should put out more damage and take more punishment but are slow and clumsy and struggle to hit smaller ships.

If you nerf large remote reps on medium sized ships yes people could bring more but it would have to be a lot more to keep a proper full reps to their current extent. What is more likely is the amount of RR would be reduced, still keeping logistics useful in that they can offer reps and prolong a ships life but most importantly they do not make a gang invincible.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 17:52:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Desire X
Gimping ships with a clearly defined role, like a logi, should never be a means to give lazy people a better chance of killing some ships....

A 300 man gang is not a small gang so that argument is redundant and bears no relation to your original post about making it easier for small gangs to get the upper hand. In fact, well piloted logi do precisely the opposite for actual small gangs.

0.0 is a mess, full of massive alliance blobs intent on blobbing everyone out of existence so that they can rmt their mortgages. Make it harder for these napfests and blueblobs to happen and you will get your small gang warfare.


I agree totally but just like fixing lag that wont happen, CSM is supposed to represent the people and most of them like things as they are.

I think RR damages large scale PvP and this was in my original post, but as I keep saying its small that needs fixing. If a 10 man gang cannot fight a 15 man gang because 4 of those 15 are in scimitars that is bad for the game. Logistics do have a role yes, and im not saying remove them but everyone has gotten far too comfortable not dying, PvP is supposed to be risky, dangerous and exhilarating that has for the most part gone.

Ships should and need to die, logistics should not be the be all end all, and remote repairers should be only available to the appropriate matching class just like with EVERY other modules in the game. The fact that a single tech 3 ship with a brilliant buffer tank can jump into a gang of 30-40 people while being followed by several logistics and win the fight is a clear demonstration of how remote reps are broken.

Trixie Min
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:01:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Darknesss
Originally by: Desire X
Gimping ships with a clearly defined role, like a logi, should never be a means to give lazy people a better chance of killing some ships....

A 300 man gang is not a small gang so that argument is redundant and bears no relation to your original post about making it easier for small gangs to get the upper hand. In fact, well piloted logi do precisely the opposite for actual small gangs.

0.0 is a mess, full of massive alliance blobs intent on blobbing everyone out of existence so that they can rmt their mortgages. Make it harder for these napfests and blueblobs to happen and you will get your small gang warfare.


I agree totally but just like fixing lag that wont happen, CSM is supposed to represent the people and most of them like things as they are.

I think RR damages large scale PvP and this was in my original post, but as I keep saying its small that needs fixing. If a 10 man gang cannot fight a 15 man gang because 4 of those 15 are in scimitars that is bad for the game. Logistics do have a role yes, and im not saying remove them but everyone has gotten far too comfortable not dying, PvP is supposed to be risky, dangerous and exhilarating that has for the most part gone.

Ships should and need to die, logistics should not be the be all end all, and remote repairers should be only available to the appropriate matching class just like with EVERY other modules in the game. The fact that a single tech 3 ship with a brilliant buffer tank can jump into a gang of 30-40 people while being followed by several logistics and win the fight is a clear demonstration of how remote reps are broken.



Gimping a ship isnt the only way to take it out of a fight. ECM, sensor damps, the 'overpowered' ecm drone, alpha ships, neuting. And even if all that fails maybe just shooting them until they pop?

Oversized mods on ships is more and more common and I dont have a problem with that, not that I use them myself.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:07:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Trixie Min
Originally by: Darknesss
Originally by: Desire X
Gimping ships with a clearly defined role, like a logi, should never be a means to give lazy people a better chance of killing some ships....

A 300 man gang is not a small gang so that argument is redundant and bears no relation to your original post about making it easier for small gangs to get the upper hand. In fact, well piloted logi do precisely the opposite for actual small gangs.

0.0 is a mess, full of massive alliance blobs intent on blobbing everyone out of existence so that they can rmt their mortgages. Make it harder for these napfests and blueblobs to happen and you will get your small gang warfare.


I agree totally but just like fixing lag that wont happen, CSM is supposed to represent the people and most of them like things as they are.

I think RR damages large scale PvP and this was in my original post, but as I keep saying its small that needs fixing. If a 10 man gang cannot fight a 15 man gang because 4 of those 15 are in scimitars that is bad for the game. Logistics do have a role yes, and im not saying remove them but everyone has gotten far too comfortable not dying, PvP is supposed to be risky, dangerous and exhilarating that has for the most part gone.

Ships should and need to die, logistics should not be the be all end all, and remote repairers should be only available to the appropriate matching class just like with EVERY other modules in the game. The fact that a single tech 3 ship with a brilliant buffer tank can jump into a gang of 30-40 people while being followed by several logistics and win the fight is a clear demonstration of how remote reps are broken.



Gimping a ship isnt the only way to take it out of a fight. ECM, sensor damps, the 'overpowered' ecm drone, alpha ships, neuting. And even if all that fails maybe just shooting them until they pop?

Oversized mods on ships is more and more common and I dont have a problem with that, not that I use them myself.


We're talking small scale PvP here, gangs of 5-10-15 people, ECM is unreliable not to mention with ECCM very easy to counter itself and neutrilizers are all well and good however how many people are you supposed to bring with you just as a counter for logistics, and where is the DPS supposed to come from.

Oversized modules is not common at all, there are Large remote reps and 100mn AB's thats really it.

Can anyone really say that PvP has improved over the last 2-3 years, I'm sorry but it has not, it has gotten progressively worse, blobs are a big factor but by no means are they the only factor, everyone wants to take the risk out of PvP which is unfortunately making PvP very stagnant and very boring.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:13:00 - [35]
 

If people think the capital RR nerf is a step too far however I would be happy to remove that part of the post - it doesn't really affect me but I do believe its a problem.

More importantly though I want to have small PvP make a come back, so if you would support the initial point but dont support capital rr nerf let me know and I will adjust it if significant numbers approve.

Dinta Zembo
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:19:00 - [36]
 

Ok, so let's say capital reps only work with a carrier in triage. Now the triage is vulnerable. BUT: you still need 30+ ships to break a triage's local tank. Bring the blob!

No, small ships don't tank with mobility. That's why even battleship blobs have support like loki's to web stuff down. Battleships can have target painters. There you go, battleships now counter cruisers. Frigates against battleships is retarted. You'd need dozens of frigates to break a battleship that is being remote repaired. How do you fix that? A battleship can have 200k ehp and a frigate has around 200-250 dps. It takes 10 seconds max for a guardian to finish the first rep cycles on a battleship; you now need 80+ frigates to kill a battleship before a guardian gets repping. Your suggestion does not fix this; battleships can get repped by large reps while the frigate gang now has to use smaller reps. Conclusion: the frigates are the one suffering from the nerf that is actually supposed to make them stronger.

So I'll give you some feedback on your opening post..

Quote:
Realism - If there are several hundred people in a fight it SHOULD be chaos with people dropping like flies.

This is already happening. 50 vs. 50 battleships = everything gets alpha'd, or dies with the correct target switching. Learn to FC.

Quote:
Supercapitals - With their significant buffer will still be tough but more will die, given the volume being pumped in to the game this again is a good thing.

A supercarrier has 80 million ehp. You're not going to kill that before a triage gets its reps on it. No way. You'd need to alpha it. Again, nothing changes. Triages can still fulfill their RR role.

Quote:
Capitals - Will now have a significant weakness to mobile support fleets and will no longer be invulnerable, hopefully bringing back a bit of tactical thought provoking warfare. People would be less inclined to throw 5-6 carriers at a 10-15 man roaming gangs.


Again, cruisers against well fit carriers that have their own support like battleships and tacklers is not good. Not to mention that a single triage carrier can actually be the deciding factor that gives the small 10-man battleship gang the ability to beat the 40 man gang. Why would you nerf this? The 10 man gang now has to bring its own 6-8 guardians. Bigger blob created.

Quote:
Capitals Part 2 (Dreads) - Since DPS will be more important than repair you would hopefully see an increase in the use of Dreads as anti capital ship weapons which as a class have severely declined in usage.


A single dread can't take out a triage carrier, and multiple dreads would be useless after the carrier is destroyed. Now you have a bunch of completely useless 2b-isk capital ships sitting on the field, vulnerable to counterdrop. Now, after this nerf, carriers would also be unable to provide further assistance to their smaller friends apart from fielding a couple of drones which can also get popped by sentries. Now both capital classes are useless when the hostile caps are off the field. Confused

Quote:
Battleships - Will become a widely used ship again, with their higher buffer and ability to have large remote repairer modules used on them they will be back in fashion. Remote repair battleship slugfests were possibly the most enjoyable combat in the game, I and I'm sure most people would love this to happen again.


I suggest you fly down to amamake and watch the amarr militia, they fly gangs with battleships + guardians and drop in triage if hostiles are getting too big in numbers. Battleships are popular. They kill battlecruisers which is what most other people fly.

Quote:
Helping the economy - More ships will die - decreasing the amount of ISK going into the game and helping the economy (ISK is really inflated).


Plenty of ships die already.
Ín the end, good FC'ing and a fleet that follows orders is still a deciding factor. Small scale pvp is what I do.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:26:00 - [37]
 

Supporting this as although 2000 man fights look nice in screen shots, there is no exhilaration here like in a 3-10 man roam.

I like the idea of signature radius playing a part so logistic ships can still field their large reps, but they are not 100% effective on medium sized or lower ships.

Logistic ships and triaging caps should have some exceptions (or they'll end up like dreads), but do need some changes.

i.e. the modules could also have some optimal/fall off as well

All the same, agreeing completely with the premise that PVP is pretty dumb at the moment and needs to change now the game is truly Capital-ships-online.


Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:42:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Darknesss on 28/08/2011 18:43:20
People in arguments tend to speak in extremes, I'm not talking about frigates vs battleships, and yes mobility is a tank, burning out and warping off the field still counts, you have speed you can get away dip in dip out keep transversal if things are bad you bail then come back in, battleships have no such luxury.

Not many people use frigates on large scale so I do wish you wouldn't keep referring to them. Frigates have a use as a tackler but above that are pretty weak, but thats ok because that is their role.

Battleship fights do happen, but they are not very common, particularly in 0.0.

I never said you would kill a Supercarrier before it got triage reps, what I said was that when that carrier goes in to triage to rep that supercarrier you could target that carrier in triage, please read my post properly, eventually if they keep throwing in carriers in triage to rep the supercarrier a few things will happen, they will run out of carriers or support will come in and push the hostiles away, my point is that by forcing reps via triage you make that carrier offer a weakness to exploit in smaller ships.

Again you comment that you need a blob to kill a carrier in triage, thats fine I'm not talking about a 10 man gang killing a carrier, small scale and large scale are two very different ball games.

Looking at your stats I can see that you are an empire fighter (empire PvP is great some times) you may well have the pleasure of good battleship fights but in 0.0 especially they are far more rare, battleships are slow and clumsy and are far more vulnerable to capitals. They also have bigger signature radius's and lower resists then their smaller counterparts. This results in smaller ships having an advantage over them, a well organized armour HAC gang with large volumes of guardians up close and personal can absolutely rip battleships apart.

Plenty of ships do still die, but not enough, and this is coming from experience of 0.0 fighting.

I get the feeling that me and you will have to agree to disagree, but I still stand firmly behind my proposal.Yyou've made some valid points but I feel I have countered them appropriately and if we continue I think it will degenerate in to a flame war.

I never said good PvP doesn't exist any more, but I absolutely beleive it is far less frequent.

Regards

Acier
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:54:00 - [39]
 

We as a corp have good 5 - 10 man roams, but we can not fight what we would like to on a day to day basis, i'm sure there are other small groups out there who feel the same..

- Mayb nerf the range on the RR ?

Also

- Small reps only can rep small class sips, medium to medium, large to large and cap to cap etcc.

- Supers can't be rep'd at all as there huge ehp and immune to electronic warefare etc...

That sounds good to me :D

HandofSatan
V0LTA
Posted - 2011.08.28 19:34:00 - [40]
 

X for small gang combat

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2011.08.29 07:43:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: foksieloy on 29/08/2011 07:45:24
I disagree with your suggestion because it is very arbitrary. Limiting something with made up rules that are not based in current mechanics (powergrid/cpu/ship role...) is bad design.

So I give you a counter proposal that could work well:

Have repair systems neut the ship they are repairing, at certain strength based on size of module.
The neut strength should be tweaked in a way that using large armor reps on a batlleship would not interfere much until too many (6+? 8+?) are on it.

That same number of large reps on a medium sized ships would neut it very quickly, and lower the ships mobility and tackling.

Problem with this version: gives more power to weapon systems that do not require cap to fire.


Alternative 1: have the repairs increase the mass of the target instead (armor) or sig radius (shield). This will increase damage received from larger ships due to drop in speed or larger target. Also the drop/bloom will be much worse for smaller ships.

Problem with this version: gimps the AHAC metagame, which is a nice alternative to BS blobs.

Any more ideas that do not involve solutions outside of current metrics?

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.29 10:33:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: foksieloy
Any more ideas that do not involve solutions outside of current metrics?



How about not ****ing things up for PVP and PVEers alike? RR is fine.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.29 11:00:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: foksieloy
Edited by: foksieloy on 29/08/2011 07:45:24
I disagree with your suggestion because it is very arbitrary. Limiting something with made up rules that are not based in current mechanics (powergrid/cpu/ship role...) is bad design.

So I give you a counter proposal that could work well:

Have repair systems neut the ship they are repairing, at certain strength based on size of module.
The neut strength should be tweaked in a way that using large armor reps on a batlleship would not interfere much until too many (6+? 8+?) are on it.

That same number of large reps on a medium sized ships would neut it very quickly, and lower the ships mobility and tackling.

Problem with this version: gives more power to weapon systems that do not require cap to fire.


Alternative 1: have the repairs increase the mass of the target instead (armor) or sig radius (shield). This will increase damage received from larger ships due to drop in speed or larger target. Also the drop/bloom will be much worse for smaller ships.

Problem with this version: gimps the AHAC metagame, which is a nice alternative to BS blobs.

Any more ideas that do not involve solutions outside of current metrics?



Very interesting ideas and definitely welcome comments. I would say though that going by my rules (ignoring the capital RR) logistics ships would still be playing their role, they could still use large remote reps, just unable to use those reps on medium or small sized ships.

For your first suggestion, I would love the idea of the neutralizing affect however as you already pointed out this would put ships less dependent on cap at a massive advantage, not only that I believe it would further damage small scale PvP which is heavily reliant on speed, MWD obviously being a very cap intensive module.

Your alternative option I believe wouldn't work as the idea that it increases sig radius would almost nullify the point in having reps at all. I do however think that AHAC is more of a problem than it is a solution to PvP, I love hacs but they should not be able to stand toe to toe with bigger stronger ships, I don't believe that fits within the role for which they were designed.

I'd love to hear more ideas if you have them, I don't pretend to be the know it all of how to fix this problem, but I believe there is definitely a problem and if it gets fixed somehow then I'll be happy regardless of whether or not its my idea that gets us there.

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2011.08.29 11:25:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Danika Princip
How about not ****ing things up for PVP and PVEers alike? RR is fine.


I do not see how this trashes anything. It is merely a theorycraft and would apply to everyone, so no side is left with an advantage.
Also I do not agree that RR needs a change, but I do enjoy debates.

Originally by: Darknesss
I do however think that AHAC is more of a problem than it is a solution to PvP, I love hacs but they should not be able to stand toe to toe with bigger stronger ships, I don't believe that fits within the role for which they were designed.


Actually that is exactly what they were designed for. Very specific and narrow situation in which they are superior. And a lot of broad situations where they are not. Easy to counter, yet brutal when you are unprepared for them.

Anyway, basing it on ship class is very arbitrary and breaks the flavour of the world.

Ok here is another idea: Have each RR module a "scan resolution" for shield or a "mass resolution" for armor. If your target is smaller than your RR modules scan resolution you repair it for a reduced amount. Same for the mass resolution.

That way larger modules can repair smaller ships, but they repair them for a smaller amount.

grazer gin
Posted - 2011.08.29 15:23:00 - [45]
 

ADAPT OR DIE

You chose die

Now you come on here and cry

Its damn sad seeing eve these days its full of whiny crying carebears that are just too fing lazy to adapt to a given situation so they cry there widdle eyes out on the forums

ps. "pvp once" IM SORRY but eve is changing what once worked dosnt anymore the skill in eve is to adapt as you fail miserably at this please just get out save yourself the time and the tears

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.29 15:46:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Darknesss on 29/08/2011 15:50:30
Originally by: grazer gin
ADAPT OR DIE

You chose die

Now you come on here and cry

Its damn sad seeing eve these days its full of whiny crying carebears that are just too fing lazy to adapt to a given situation so they cry there widdle eyes out on the forums

ps. "pvp once" IM SORRY but eve is changing what once worked dosnt anymore the skill in eve is to adapt as you fail miserably at this please just get out save yourself the time and the tears


What tears? I'm still a succesful PvPer, what I'm saying is its harder than its ever been, and I can see it continue to get harder.

If anyone here seems angry its you, and this 'adapt or die' thing that gets thrown around so much is normally a shield for people too inept to PvP properly and who are scared of change.


HandofSatan
V0LTA
Posted - 2011.08.29 16:29:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: HandofSatan on 29/08/2011 16:45:05
Grazer must be one of the players who happen to enjoy the max fleet blob gangs. It is enjoyable to some to rely on piloting skill and tactics vs lining up or mass warping to some point in space and hitting f1 to engage the enemy pos or counter blob.

Adapting is what everyone continues to do. Pvp is not dead, but larger and larger gangs are forming everyday and most of the time the only way to engage them is to set a trap or pick off the odd ship or two. I've seen countless FC's wait to lead a fleet until they had "enough" logi. Losing ships is part of the game and if there is no risk of dying then it is not nearly as fun :) WTB good fights.

*edit: If pvp was always so perfect then why did ccp ever nerf any ships? Sometimes you can not counter things that are too unbalanced.

grazer gin
Posted - 2011.08.29 17:29:00 - [48]
 

HandofSatan YES OF COURSE i must be musnt i because i dont agree with this idiotic idea

And pvp is getting harder well GOOD lets all enjoy the challenge a self appointed "good" pvper like yourself should relish this

HandofSatan
V0LTA
Posted - 2011.08.29 17:42:00 - [49]
 

I never said I was any good at pvp. I do enjoy small gang roams and have joined countless large gangs as well. I've played long enough to notice the difference in pvp is all. Eve constantly changes but atm 0.0 is sort of lame and so are small gangs. Using more people to counter something im sure is not what ccp intended for pvp.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.29 21:25:00 - [50]
 

You know, there's one thing the OP hasn't mentioned, and none of the replies.

This ENTIRE issue can be fixed by fielding ECM. And you only need 1/2 to 1/4 the number of ECM ships as they have logistics, and boom. Problem solved.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.29 22:52:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Feligast
You know, there's one thing the OP hasn't mentioned, and none of the replies.

This ENTIRE issue can be fixed by fielding ECM. And you only need 1/2 to 1/4 the number of ECM ships as they have logistics, and boom. Problem solved.


ECM is a possible counter yes but it can also be unreliable and is in its own right counter-able with ECCM. I'm not saying there aren't ways to counter logistics but its becoming harder to counter due to the sheer volume and while a repper will always be dependable it isn't rare for a jam to miss every now and then, especially if your trying to jam multiple ships, and one missed cycle allows ships to rep back up fully.

One example was this evening, there was a 40 man roaming gang, roughly 25 drakes, several hurricanes, some support and twelve scimitars.

A drake is a 30m ISK ship. I don't have calculations on damage required, but with a drakes already heavy tank + 12 scimitars repping it makes a drake insanely tough meaning that our well equipped expensive gang couldn't even attempt an attack.

My point is this sort of invulnerability should not be available, you would need probably 100+ people in decent ships to destroy a 30m ISK Drake in the above situation. I don't understand why people think this is right?

With regards to PvP getting 'harder' by the flamers post, its not getting harder as in requiring more skill, its getting harder as in bring more people, if skill could counter logistics I wouldn't have a problem.


Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.30 18:49:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Darknesss
One example was this evening, there was a 40 man roaming gang, roughly 25 drakes, several hurricanes, some support and twelve scimitars.

A drake is a 30m ISK ship. I don't have calculations on damage required, but with a drakes already heavy tank + 12 scimitars repping it makes a drake insanely tough meaning that our well equipped expensive gang couldn't even attempt an attack.


I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with you. To counter that fleet, I would bring roughly an equivalent number of battlecruisers and/or battleships, 9-10 logis of my own. and just 3-4 falcons/blackbirds. Primary the scimitars, suddenly you win. Admittedly, it takes some thought and fleet comp awareness to defeat massed logistics, but to call them overpowered is a copout to the FCs failings.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.30 20:00:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Darknesss
One example was this evening, there was a 40 man roaming gang, roughly 25 drakes, several hurricanes, some support and twelve scimitars.

A drake is a 30m ISK ship. I don't have calculations on damage required, but with a drakes already heavy tank + 12 scimitars repping it makes a drake insanely tough meaning that our well equipped expensive gang couldn't even attempt an attack.


I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with you. To counter that fleet, I would bring roughly an equivalent number of battlecruisers and/or battleships, 9-10 logis of my own. and just 3-4 falcons/blackbirds. Primary the scimitars, suddenly you win. Admittedly, it takes some thought and fleet comp awareness to defeat massed logistics, but to call them overpowered is a copout to the FCs failings.


Bringing similar to what they have is not what I'm talking about, with an increase in the volume of people entering game, there is an increase in the volume of people in fleets. If all large gangs can fly around invulnerable to smaller groups of well skilled pvpers then that is essentially removing small PvP from the game. Its bad at the moment but I believe it will continue to get worse.

It may not be goons play style, but goons play style is not the same as everyone elses, and there needs to be more than one plays style.

HDRA
Posted - 2011.08.31 00:41:00 - [54]
 

I support too

I also have a consideration what if the resistant that you have on your ship shields and armor also resists repairs the same way it resists damage it makes total sense

James Arget
Caldari
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
Posted - 2011.08.31 16:21:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Darknesss
Helping the economy - More ships will die - decreasing the amount of ISK going into the game and helping the economy (ISK is really inflated).
No. Any time a ship is destroyed, it is an ISK faucet. It is a material sink, but new ISK is created from the void with every insurance payment. The ISK you paid for that ship was not destroyed, merely moved to another player. Faucet, not sink.

These changes would require a complete rebalancing of the Logistics class of vessels, and that's really what you're after. I can't remember the last time I saw an RRBS blob... which is exactly what would be allowed under your changes. So, you cut the balls off the Logistics class, which can already be defeated by ECM, Damps/webs, or capacitor warfare. Yep, totally impossible to kill. If you're in a small gang that wants to fight the blob, bring your own Logistics. I've been in this situation once or twice, where a small gang takes on a larger and powers through because of proper support in the form of ECM, Neuting, and Logistics.

As for your capital changes... *sigh*. Triage only became viable because of the reduction in timer. Whenever I pop Triage, I am nervous, because I can't receive any remote aid. That is HUGE. Kill the capacitor, kill the capital. With the capacitor recharge mechanics, once you're neuted out you're helpless until you coast out of triage. This is enough a penalty. Now, only allowing capital modules to aid capital vessels/structures.. good god, do you want me to fit LARGE remreps to my CAPITAL ship? It is a capital ship; by design it is big and obnoxious and does things that regular ships just can't do. It is difficult, but they will still die. HTFU.

Quote:
Spider tanking carriers/supercarriers have so much repair ability that grows exponentially as more join the gang, and are in many cases (not all, but many) practically invulnerable to support gangs.
Nope. Situation: four carriers are spider tanking. The primed ship receives 3 remreps. Now, a fifth carrier jumps in and joins. The primed carrier now receives 9 (3^2) remreps? No, it gets 4 (3+1).

I get the distinct feeling that you're trying to recapture the "Good Old Days" of RRBS gangs. Things have changed, adapt or die. I was honestly expecting more from a Darknesss thread.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.31 18:29:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Darknesss

Bringing similar to what they have is not what I'm talking about, with an increase in the volume of people entering game, there is an increase in the volume of people in fleets. If all large gangs can fly around invulnerable to smaller groups of well skilled pvpers then that is essentially removing small PvP from the game. Its bad at the moment but I believe it will continue to get worse.

It may not be goons play style, but goons play style is not the same as everyone elses, and there needs to be more than one plays style.


Ah, okay, I see where you're going with this now. James Arget has it right.. this is the "Go back to the BoB days where our 10 would beat your 150 cause we're 'ee-leet pee vee pee'"

Not that that reflects badly on you, everyone has their preferred style of playing, and their opinions on what the game SHOULD be. But just as the "goonstyle" of playing is not the same as everyone, neither is yours. So please, refrain from pushing your playstyle as "needed change" to game mechanics.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.08.31 19:01:00 - [57]
 

I think your suggestion of only allowning medium reps to work on medium ships, and likewise for other sizes is a poor idea. It severely limits fleet types.... As BC's and AHACs can no longer receive large rep support. It makes logies much less effective in sub-BS fleets, and I think this pretty much removes logi pilots from small gang combat.

A couple of thoughts:

1.) Adding a drawback to RR like neuting the Repee is a very interesting idea... Potential Drawbacks: Neuting, webbing, painting, ?damage resistance reductions?... these should be explored!

2.) If your goal is to benefit small scale PvP'ers, then stacking penalties to RR seem like a much better option. That way, once you bring that 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12th scimi to the field, your not improving the overall repping power of the fleet.

-- Thoughts on RR stacking Penalty: To prevent abuse, this would have to be size dependent (That way you can't neutralize enemy logies by using a bunch of Small RR modules on your target). It seems implementable, as all RR mods have about the same duration (4.5-5s), and skills and bonus' effect cap usage rather than duration! This will also negate a huge advantage of SC's, as increasing the number of SC's will NOT increase their ability to sustain damage. Finally, an RR penalty will essentially create an optimal number of logistics. Should this number be catered to small gang (5-10), medium gang (10-30), large gang (30-50) or Fleets (50-100, 100-200, 200+)? This is not a trivial decission!

As per the Null-Sec Design Goals Blog, CCP would like an envirnoment where FC's sub-delegate reponsibilities/goals/targets to wing/squad commanders. As long as game mechanics require Full Fleet DPS to Alpha or Grind down a target, this will NOT happen. As such, expect something dramatic to change, probably both to RR and in the application of fleet DPS.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.09.03 09:29:00 - [58]
 

I do get so tired of this 'adapt or die' rubbish, which is exactly what it is. I still PvP a lot, and I'm still successful at it, I can adapt however I don't think the adaptions that I and a lot of small scale PvPers have had to make are for the better, small scale PvP has gotten worse since this game was brought in through various changes.

Forget the capital proposal, i'll remove that after this post.

Material sink is good for the economy, yes it does create ISK but less ISK is created than the value of minerals and build parts required to build the ship which are permanently removed from game, overall I feel helping the economy, but I'm not economist and thats not even the primary point I was trying to make.

My point is that RR is currently overpowered, If you are in a 10-15 man gang, yes you can bring logistics, a lot of the time we will, but more often than not any larger gang will have even more logistics rendering you useless resulting in the majority of PvP being ganks. Unless you know what you will be fighting before you come across it then it is very hard to counter every sort of logistics gang you come up against.

With regards to spider tanking, I just realised my choice in words was poor but that does not change the fact that spider tanking carriers and supercarriers are a real issue, they get thrown at small roaming gangs all the time and just sit there and smile while you can do nothing.

There are whispers at CCP about changing remote reps believe it or not, they WILL be changed in the future.

With regards to the expected goon troll, I'm not trying to ram my PvP style down your throat, I'm trying to make it viable, and yes I do want smaller groups to be able to punish 150 man gangs if those gangs are poorly led, poorly fitted and poorly flown. Why shouldn't skill be rewarded and lack of skill punished.

Clearly people don't like the idea of RR being used only on the class for which their module size would suggest, perhaps there is another answer, some suggestions on here have been good.

But for those wanting to keep no risk cheap PvP with their drake fleets and dozen scimitars I hope your days are numbered and I hope CCP will do the sensible if unpopular thing.

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.09.03 09:39:00 - [59]
 

Also thankyou Gizznitt for your post and link, I would just like to highlight some quotes from the blog which will hopefully show why I'm even making these proposals:

Quote:
Decisions beat numbers

* It should always be the case that inferior numbers can win with superior decision-making. Large fleets should be much less about who has the most ships and much more about who has the smartest commanders and sub-commanders.


Quote:
Constant

* Small-scale combat should be going on all the damn time. Set in the context of ongoing nullsec struggles, it's one of our strong points as a game, and we should be trying hard to enable it as much as possible.


CCP want the same thing I do, they just don't quite know yet how to get there, I believe remote repair is one of many problems with combat in the game that needs addressing.

Also I have changed my opening post to reflect points and suggestions from posts in this thread.




Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only