These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1421 - 2014-08-20 10:43:52 UTC
If you nerf logi, the game just reverts back to the previous Alpha over sustained DPS crap. I doubt that this is any better.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1422 - 2014-08-20 10:45:49 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
If you nerf logi, the game just reverts back to the previous Alpha over sustained DPS crap. I doubt that this is any better.


It is a lot better than having smaller fleets completely unable to even cause any damage to a larger one.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1423 - 2014-08-20 11:05:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
If you nerf logi, the game just reverts back to the previous Alpha over sustained DPS crap. I doubt that this is any better.


It is a lot better than having smaller fleets completely unable to even cause any damage to a larger one.


You mean sniper tornadoes? Because smaller fleets in closer combat would get blapped off the field with a couple of Maels. Or Tengus, Apocs, Mega, Ishtars, Muninns, ...

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Anthar Thebess
#1424 - 2014-08-20 11:19:41 UTC
Logi can be nerfed by many many ways.
Like suggested :
- repair amount affected by highest resistance
- stacking

Game without logi , this could be interesting, but CCP will never go into this direction.
Think how many people will be angry, as their pure logi alt ... is now worthless.

One of the ways CCP could go is making logi ships more vulnerable to ECM in any form, but this again will be abused by blobs.

Do you think that making Scorpion more usable is a valid approach?
What i mean , is to make this ship usable again , create for it new ewar modules that will affect all fleets on grid.

Example modules ( they affect every one ) :
- module that will limit effectives specific links on field ( this should be very interesting )
- module that will scramble fleet communication , eg: broadcasts
- module that will make combat probes unable to acquire direct location of ship so no rewarps on field possible *
- remote repair prohibiter , affected ship ( including super capital ) cannot receive remote repair
- cyno displacer - ship affected can light a cyno, but it will be unusable by any one ; 50 % chance on each cycle

* of course this have to be very hard to use , unless it will be abused. Fuel requirements , something like a siege cycle , etc

Every of those modules is just suggestion, but it could be very nasty when used in a proper way.
Currently Scorpion is worthless on most battlefields , but this could open new way battles could be fought.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#1425 - 2014-08-20 11:46:41 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Game without logi , this could be interesting, but CCP will never go into this direction.

No it wouldn't. Nerfing logi would serve almost no purpose.

Saying "but my fleet of 10 have no chance against a fleet of 100" is a statement of fact irrespective of whether logi are in the game or not.

Engaging a fleet of 100 with a fleet of 10 is suicide however you look at it, generally speaking. It's all about picking your fights. If you attack a fleet you have no hope of winning you screwed up, tactically. Nerfing logi has no affect on tactical screwups.
Anthar Thebess
#1426 - 2014-08-20 12:06:20 UTC
Those new Ewar modules for Scorpion could be very interesting.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1427 - 2014-08-20 14:03:45 UTC
An Eve without logi would be great. You'd still need a way to..uh, discourage huge fleets alphaing smaller fleets.

Hm. Maybe a passive ability built into each ship...whereas if any ship takes a HUGE amount of incoming dps (the kind of dps of say an entire fleet focusing its fire), its resists automatically increase dramatically (ie 99%), making the ship very hard to kill for a short time.

A mechanic like this would 'encourage' that huge fleets spread their fire to not reach this threshold. The absence of logi might also bring a desire to have local repping capability. What you might get, is Eve battles that actually do look like the trailers.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1428 - 2014-08-20 14:19:51 UTC  |  Edited by: WarFireV
Removing logis wouldn't have a great effect on the game. I don't even know where people came up with the idea that removing logis would even be a good idea. Fleet battles would become all about long range sniping battleships/T3s trying like hell to dodge bombers.

Oh my god would removing logi buff bombers to the extreme.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1429 - 2014-08-20 15:16:21 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
If you nerf logi, the game just reverts back to the previous Alpha over sustained DPS crap. I doubt that this is any better.



EXACT the opposite. Logis make alpha strike important. With no logis total DPS is the most important factor.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1430 - 2014-08-20 15:41:43 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
Removing logis wouldn't have a great effect on the game. I don't even know where people came up with the idea that removing logis would even be a good idea. Fleet battles would become all about long range sniping battleships/T3s trying like hell to dodge bombers.

Oh my god would removing logi buff bombers to the extreme.



The resutls would be less one sides. As of now one fleet is unharmed andthe other decimated. BEfore logis were used (becuase titan AOE weapons) victorious fleets would go home with deep scars as well.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Gavin Dax
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1431 - 2014-08-20 15:53:43 UTC
The problem with logi appears to be the inability to do ANY damage to a larger fleet. In "reality", if a fleet of 10 engaged a fleet of 100, the fleet of 10 would very likely be able to inflict some damage - how much damage dependent on a few things, but largely on how fast the fleet of 100 can kill the fleet of 10 (the faster, the less damage the small fleet can do).

The game doesn't always need to reflect reality, but IMO in this case it would be more fun. It's pretty boring to have logi able to completely rep a target and prevent all damage outside of alpha strikes - the scaling and small number of logi required for this is broken. It also means fleet fights just become big alpha strike wars, which is also silly and gets old/repetitive. Brawling is totally broken right now - largely because of logi, but also because of imbalanced range control mechanics and the overabundance of small, fast ships.

To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before.

Anyway, it would be a lot more fun if more fights in EVE were dynamic and risky. Since it's so hard to find an even fight, if I'm ganking a small fleet I still want to have a chance to lose my ship, and I want my actions/fit to make more of a difference - as it is now, you press F1 and might as well be AFK 95% of the time.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1432 - 2014-08-20 15:56:09 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Game without logi , this could be interesting, but CCP will never go into this direction.

No it wouldn't. Nerfing logi would serve almost no purpose.

Saying "but my fleet of 10 have no chance against a fleet of 100" is a statement of fact irrespective of whether logi are in the game or not.

Engaging a fleet of 100 with a fleet of 10 is suicide however you look at it, generally speaking. It's all about picking your fights. If you attack a fleet you have no hope of winning you screwed up, tactically. Nerfing logi has no affect on tactical screwups.



Engaging a fleet of 100 with 50 however would become viable. At the very least you would take a good chunk of them with you.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1433 - 2014-08-20 15:57:55 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:
To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before.


Already in the game and called Damps.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1434 - 2014-08-20 16:01:28 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gavin Dax wrote:
To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before.


Already in the game and called Damps.


Not viable for small alliances. You need to use them as a full secondary fleet to make them work.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1435 - 2014-08-20 16:04:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gavin Dax wrote:
To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before.


Already in the game and called Damps.


Not viable for small alliances. You need to use them as a full secondary fleet to make them work.


No you don't. Where did you come up with that idea?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1436 - 2014-08-20 16:08:23 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gavin Dax wrote:
To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before.


Already in the game and called Damps.


Not viable for small alliances. You need to use them as a full secondary fleet to make them work.


No you don't. Where did you come up with that idea?


It lacks the firepower and EHP to be used as a primary fleet doctrine. They get used as support for a primary fleet such as baltecs or railgu.
Gavin Dax
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1437 - 2014-08-20 16:09:10 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gavin Dax wrote:
To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before.


Already in the game and called Damps.


Huh? You can't possible believe that's the same thing. The requirement to fit a damp/bring damping ships comes at a significant cost for the smaller fleet. 1) your damp ship will be primary and once it dies, you have the same problem. 2) if you all fit damps, well good luck damping enough logi with enough range reduction when you only have 10 ships, not to mention shield fits (DPS fits which can be really useful in a situation like this) largely become unviable.

So no, damps are not the same thing...
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1438 - 2014-08-20 16:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pesadel0
Ccp dropped the Ball ever since they nerfed smaller gangs the so called nano they were fun and the smaller alliances and corps could and did harrass the bigger alliances.

I think That manny changes whould Shake things a bit but the aversion that all null coaglitions have now would still be present and they would continue to rule vasts amounts of Space
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1439 - 2014-08-20 17:27:54 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
Ccp dropped the Ball ever since they nerfed smaller gangs the so called nano they were fun and the smaller alliances and corps could and did harrass the bigger alliances.

I think That manny changes whould Shake things a bit but the aversion that all null coaglitions have now would still be present and they would continue to rule vasts amounts of Space


Not if we change sov to residency based and replace the primary ratting activity from anoms to missions.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1440 - 2014-08-21 10:28:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pesadel0 wrote:
Ccp dropped the Ball ever since they nerfed smaller gangs the so called nano they were fun and the smaller alliances and corps could and did harrass the bigger alliances.

I think That manny changes whould Shake things a bit but the aversion that all null coaglitions have now would still be present and they would continue to rule vasts amounts of Space


Not if we change sov to residency based and replace the primary ratting activity from anoms to missions.




The problem with missions is that the missioners will be almost 100% safe because takes longer to probe them there and they will be long docked when hunters arrive.


I think there must be some economic activity that demanded more exposure for roaming ships.

Of course.. if delayed local was implemented that would be solved ... alongside several other issues. Specially if you make local delay be correlated to the level of ownership of a system. Not owned.. local delayed 10 minutes. Fully owned down to 30 seconds. That woudl be an incentive for all systems be "farmed" so that the intel network is kept in good shape.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"