These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfing energy transfer and infinite cap creation

Author
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2015-03-29 21:43:56 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Maksim Cammeren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Actually I think an even better variation or addition of this mechanic would be to make it such that receiving cap transfers causes heat.


Interesting. But, as mentioned elsewhere, how about only generating heat when your cap gets over-filled? The amount of heat should depend on the percentage "overflow" from your capacitor.

This will let you "defend" from enemy cap transfers to some degree by running all your cap-intensive modules and, in general, gives more opportunities to benefit from good cap management. This still heavily punishes afk cap chains that don't manage the cap much.


For all the people who are worried about instantly burning out modules from hostile transfers: it is a question of balancing the numbers.


Cap intensive mods on fleet ship are weapons (already close to covered by pasive regen) and prop mod. Would be fun to see who would burnout between that and a logi telling his cap buddy to cut him off the chain while keeping his repper running on anything in range just to burn cap.



Absolutely nobody would be able to use the cap they were being given by, say, fifty large transfers.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-03-29 21:47:25 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Absolutely nobody would be able to use the cap they were being given by, say, fifty large transfers.


Chargeless dual (or even triple) ASBs would be up there.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-03-29 21:55:53 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Absolutely nobody would be able to use the cap they were being given by, say, fifty large transfers.


Chargeless dual (or even triple) ASBs would be up there.


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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-03-29 21:57:44 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:



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


What are the chance if this happen to see "logi" doctrine consisting of 0/6 fits or throwing ospreys/agoror at the enemy lfeet as a new "e-war cruiser" wing?
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#45 - 2015-03-29 21:58:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Personally, I've thought about escalating cap requirements for consecutive logi transfers within a particular timeframe, and making them not auto cycle. That doesn't really fix capital reps though, so heat may be a better avenue.


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.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-03-29 21:58:59 UTC
The overheating for receiving cap idea is just bad, because the person causing the heat can't see the heat, and the person seeing the heat (and dying to it) can't turn it off. It'd be used for PVP more than anything else.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2015-03-29 22:15:00 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:



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


What are the chance if this happen to see "logi" doctrine consisting of 0/6 fits or throwing ospreys/agoror at the enemy lfeet as a new "e-war cruiser" wing?



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.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2015-03-30 15:14:05 UTC
I would say the counter to logi in general is alpha, however is there a fit out there that uses Arty and isn't absolutely **** at every thing else?
Kesthely
Mestana
#49 - 2015-03-30 15:34:38 UTC
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.
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
Safety.
#50 - 2015-03-30 16:01:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Juan Mileghere
First The Drake, Then The Ishtar, Now THE GUARDIAN
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#51 - 2015-03-31 00:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Cartheron Crust
Kesthely wrote:
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.
thatonepersone
Black Jack 0-1
#52 - 2015-03-31 02:02:44 UTC
Cap chains are not broken, so there is no reason to try and fix them. Op should have posted hear instead: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=272809&find=unread

Imagine burning out all of a sub caps mod with capital transfers. Lol.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#53 - 2015-03-31 04:34:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Actually I think an even better variation or addition of this mechanic would be to make it such that receiving cap transfers causes heat.

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

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#54 - 2015-03-31 09:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
What does that have to do with my statement? I am merely in agreement that logistics should have it's sustainability nerfed severely. That is one of the major mechanical problems facing the game today, that logi is functionally infinite.

Your suggestion to nerfs for Scimi/Oneiros? They work without cap chains, indefinitely. They already have weak tanks to achieve a reasonable level of cap stability. Or is this only to nerf Guardians and Basilisks? Roll

I'm also in total agreement with Danika Princip here. Such a mechanic would be abused beyond the abuse of Ishtars, Svipuls and Wrecking Balls. Roll

Unrelated:
Juan Mileghere wrote:
First The Drake, Then The Ishtar, Now THE GUARDIAN

Funny, isn't it? Funnily enough you also do not see nearly as many people cry about the Svipul although total kills by Svipuls on zKB have surpassed total kills by Ishtars at their height in a given time frame. Double standards deluxe.

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.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#55 - 2015-03-31 11:01:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Like what?

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.
DarkCloud Cesaille
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-04-01 13:42:10 UTC  |  Edited by: DarkCloud Cesaille
Clearly you've never brought a pair of falcons to a guardian party. Oneiros' are more resilient to ECM since they can fit 2 eccm comfortably and do not require a cap partner in order to rep. So we should probably make eccm create heat too right? **** lets just put all mods on 99% heat damage and you can yolo heat stuff.

My point is 3 guardians cap chaining you can take out with 1 falcon, jam 2 and the third is useless. Or jam one and put all dps on one of the one's who isn't jammed since he can now receive only 1 reps. Or just jam one and start overheating damage on the primaries.

-1 It's not OP especially when they are completely useless without the cap trans
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-04-01 13:48:01 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I would say the counter to logi in general is alpha, however is there a fit out there that uses Arty and isn't absolutely **** at every thing else?


WHy use arty when you can use a slightly bigger ball of rails or sentries?
Tykonderoga
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#58 - 2015-04-01 15:41:54 UTC
I'm not even sure people who post this garbage play the game. Go play another game and ask for those devs to nerf everything you don't like.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#59 - 2015-04-01 15:47:23 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
If cap transfers become capable of offensive abilities, make cap batteries act as a counter.
Make the cap transfers only cause heat on the target if the transfer puts the battery at over 100%. By stacking cap batteries you can make a fleet harder to overcharge, nuet and vampire.


They already do, m8.

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

gg


http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#60 - 2015-04-01 17:28:13 UTC
Neuts cant counter cap chains? Trolololol please fly a Logi maybe.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog