Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Absolutely nobody would be able to use the cap they were being given by, say, fifty large transfers.

An XL ASB with no skill covers for 4 large transfer and some change. Triple that is 1500 PG used to counter a wopping 13 or 14 of them. Meanwhile, you are still overheating like crazy at the rate of about 1/4 of a battleship cap pool every seconds.

If energy transfers were to not be able to auto cycle then so should every other module. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to set it to auto cycle if things like guns, boosters, and hardeners can auto cycle.

The CFC have a doctrine built around sensor damps, used as a support fleet for our other stuff.

I think we'd have one dedicated to burning out modules with a change like this, and it would be used en masse, like everything we do.

Appearently the OP has never played near critical mass fights when in logistics. The hardest part of keeping people alive in some fights is already managing your overheating. If you already generate heat by normal transfers (either by sending or receiving) you will be damageing your modules a lot more rapidly wich will have a lot of undesirable effects.

If you generate heat by transfering, you actually have created an extremely overpowered electronic warfare, by beeing able to put transfers on hostiles, building up their heat so they cannot overheat anymore.

Also if you feel that you do not have enough counters to energy transfers (ECM / DAMPS / NEUT) you should check your fleet compositions if you are packing enough of them for what your doing.

Energy transfer relient ships / fleets one of the weak points IS the fact that they need transfers.

Please, it is you who apparently need to do some research about what you would like to **** on. I can assure you I and my corp know about on the edge of breaking point RR fights and overheating. Now that the shiptoasting is out of the way. . .

I am not advocating the proposed mechanic of some in the thread of the receiving ship taking heat damage from being targeted by Energy Transfers. As that (to me at least) seems like a blatently overpowered mechanic with no real counter.

Someone also mentioned the idea of removing the cap activation bonus and replacing it with a cycle time bonus. As it is with all V character you already gain cap from transferring without bonuses. Obviously egress rigs can gain you more cap but it would be no where near the same amount as the -75% activation cost from the hull as it is now. You would also have to sacrifice tank/fitting (as the current Guardian/Basilisk FOTY versions are rigged/fit) to gain this cap stability. This is more choices to be made and I think is beneficial to the game. As it is there are two ways to fit a guardian atm, a cheap way and an expensive way. Not good gameplay imo.

... and have a switch on/off for each ship to accept such cap transfer, defaulted to off.

Like pretty much all PvE, especially group PvE which is the most desirable form of PvE to exist since it forms social groups and contacts which work to keep new players inside EVE and not quitting.
It also actually reinforces the blob because it removes a way to out play a large F1 blob via good use of logistics (Obviously if the blob achieves the same skill level N+1 is always likely to win out). And just heads towards promoting two fleets smashing at each other and seeing who survives.

Sure it would kill ships on both sides, but it's not exactly interesting and tactical game play for the most part.
Saying that, I'd be in favour of stacking penalties for reps on a target, as long as similar stacking penalties for DPS also exist. I can make up five fluff lore excuses for DPS stacking penalties just off the top of my head currently. So we can certainly make an excuse in game, and DPS stacking penalties would make wing & squad commanders far more involved in target calling and tactics, rather than just the FC calling a global primary for the whole fleet.

So.... basically if you want a tactical game, you need potentially sustainable logi, and to introduce more tactics actually requires DPS stacking penalties so the F1 blob can't alpha everything and not have to bother.
The exact level of sustainable logi is debatable obviously, but for tactics the standard DPS needs to be a low fraction of a targets EHP, so there is time to respond to a situation, even if 1 for 1 logi can't keep a target alive full time. Which we currently don't often have.

WHy use arty when you can use a slightly bigger ball of rails or sentries?

They already do, m8.

Medium Cap Battery II:
Capacitor +420.
EnergyLeechReflectAmount: -20%
NeutralizerReflectAmount: -10%

gg