These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Remote Rep Tiericide and Falloff

First post First post
Author
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#101 - 2015-11-29 16:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Ariz Black wrote:
Fozzie what about the Nestor? And T3 logi?

We had originally planned to leave the Nestor's bonus intact since it could use an additional range buff without getting out of control. However after giving it a bit more thought we've decided that 43+4 would be a bit too extreme so we're changing the Nestor range bonus to +100 optimal and falloff. This will still be a significant Nestor range buff but will leave it at a more reasonable 29+8.
This is also a significant range buff to T3 Cruiser logi. We are happy to let people play with the new range and observe how it changes T3 logi use on TQ.
Both the Nestor and T3 logi will also feel the slightly increased cap use, but both of those ships tend to already jump through some hoops to get the cap they need.

Carthereon Crust wrote:
Will current Logistics ships be receiving a buff to their base targeting range?

Some of the ships (namely Minmatar) already deal with only having a few km between their max rep and target range. With falloff I imagine there's going to be a discrepancy between potential range and targeting range on some of these ships.

With these changes it will be quite possible for logistics cruisers to repair (at lower than full rates) beyond their unfit targeting range. We have no current plans to increase targeting ranges for them, as they are free to use modules, implants, rigs and gang links to increase that range if they plan on operating at extreme distances.

MeBiatch wrote:
Any chance we will also see Ancillary remote repair mods? .. increase the rep amount then add a 40 second reload

This is something we've considered before and we may very well add in the future. The trick would be ensuring that they're balanced (in different fleet sizes) and provide fun gameplay. We're still looking at the idea from some different angles to decide if those goals are achievable. One option we're considering is limiting Ancillary RR to one module per ship.

Acobar wrote:
How about getting logi on killmails, CCP Fozzie?

Still something we'd like to do, but it's not a simple problem and as always putting engineering time on one project would mean taking it away from other ones.

Lewich wrote:
Why is T2 large remote rep is using 40 more PG now? WHERE'S my damn bonus PG on Guard/Oneiros? Basi/Scimi have their fitting adjusted to new shield reps. Why is armor doesnt?Evil
X

It's a good point. We had been looking to emphasize the choices between fitting meta or T2, but 700 would have made fittings too difficult on T2 Logi Cruisers. We've adjusted the T2 large rep powergrid back to 660.


As a general point, it's nice to see about equal numbers of people commenting that we're shifting the balance too far towards either armor or shield. Probably a good sign. :)

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2015-11-29 17:29:16 UTC
Thank you for the update Fozzie!

If I may be so bold as to ask, are there any plans in the works to adjust (repair amount) bonuses on T1 logi? I may be alone in this, but those bonuses make the T1 logi pretty...powerful. And I'd like to see a bit of a bigger gap between T1 and T2 logi.
RcTamiya
Magister Mortalis.
#103 - 2015-11-29 18:46:52 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Thank you for the update Fozzie!

If I may be so bold as to ask, are there any plans in the works to adjust (repair amount) bonuses on T1 logi? I may be alone in this, but those bonuses make the T1 logi pretty...powerful. And I'd like to see a bit of a bigger gap between T1 and T2 logi.



t2 resists, better sig. resolution, more targeting range, more sensorstrenght, more raw hp, more pg/cpu, better cap efficiency = more difficult to neut, smaller sig......

What else do you want?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#104 - 2015-11-29 18:54:41 UTC
But still why such a heavy handed nerf to the shield logi?
Faren Shalni
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2015-11-29 19:31:50 UTC
those shield changes are awful...... In most situations you do not have time for the UI to update to see what HP they are at. you have to turn on your reps asap and hope you catch them on time (usually a server tick is the difference)

8 seconds is far too long to cycle

So Much Space

Sumeragy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#106 - 2015-11-30 00:47:56 UTC
Faren Shalni wrote:
those shield changes are awful...... In most situations you do not have time for the UI to update to see what HP they are at. you have to turn on your reps asap and hope you catch them on time (usually a server tick is the difference)

8 seconds is far too long to cycle



whit boost you are around 6s bevore it was 3.3s...... well double it !!
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#107 - 2015-11-30 02:18:37 UTC
I feel that the range for large remote shield boosters is too short.
In organized small fleets being at around 30km means being within scram range or at least web range basically making it impossible to get 100% out of your reps since you are forced to stay in falloff and as a result making armor reps just better, I feel like this will limit the ship choices for small gangs too much, heavily favoring armor fleets.

Same thing for frigate logi having to go into scram/web range on the shield ones vs being able to stay outside as armor is just not balanced, yes ofc I can stay at range too but then i will loose 30% of my reps at which point armor is just better.

If you really want to keep this massive range discrepancy then make the shield reps better in optimal then the armor ones are, enough to make being that close worth it.

Side note: Scimitar powergrid feels a bit too low having to fit 4 power grid mods/rigs for 4x LRSB II LSE MWD CB while the basi only needs one
Its fast, for that it has one less rep and has to rely on cap boosters already no need to have it fit so many fitting mods as well
oh yeah it has worse cap and cap recharge too.

On a general note id like to see more of the t2 logi power shifted to fitting, more fitting space also means more different modules that can be fit = more fun.

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.

Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#108 - 2015-11-30 04:12:00 UTC
Quote:
Rep drone bonus now applies to all rep drones
HULL TANKING VIABILITY CONFIRMED BOIS!
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#109 - 2015-11-30 09:17:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Don't like the change.

The player base care too much about fighting battles they can't lose, more logi means more barriers to pvp, just like the amount of Ewar we have in the game.



Firstly E-war greatly lowers the barrier to entry as it only takes a few hours for a new player to hop into a damp frig and provide a huge advantage.


Secondly these changes nerf logi so it's not adding more of it


1 That's the problem. A T1 fit griffin jamming out 7 year old BS pilots... That's wrong. Before you start with the "get prepared" argument it;s more the opposite. People want to fight but dock up if there are logi and ECM in fleet.

2. Leads me here. Logi and ECM kill content. They force people to do one of 2 things.

A. Bring more DPS ships leading to, when they can't
B. Not fight

Since this is about Logi ships I will concentrate on this aspect of the game. They need a bigger nerf. When the AOE Doomsday was nerfed it was becuase they were I-Win buttons. Logi is the same. They can burn away from the fight and sit at relative safety. Same happens on low sec gates where the gate guns are not powerful enough to destroy a logi who is sat repping a suspect whilst also receiving reps. Not only that but if they are primaried they have a big enough tank to survive making any fight about bringing the most logi or 2/3 times more DPS or dock. Especially crap game play in War decks and neutral alt reppers.

I don't know what the fix is but if you haven't noticed the game has lost 40K active players and a big chunk of those is becuase the content is dull boring and predictable. I feel these changes are not enough to bring content back to the game. There aren't the regular 500 vs 500 man fleets, these days, its the 1 - 25 man gang roams which means logi should be synchronized with todays game play. e.g. I think it's wrong needing at least 4 BS to out DPS the reps of 2 logistics. Before the crash in numbers I think it was still slightly over balanced to the logi side. Today even more one sided. Logi forces you to bring more to the fight or the fight doesnt happen. In a game where there is so much put on ensuring not to lose, having more logi should not be the reason why content is abandoned.

Please think more about today's new eden and adjust accordingly. ie the 1-25 man gangs are the things that drive content.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2015-11-30 13:29:05 UTC
Are there any plans to reduce optimal/falloff to make room for a skill in either of those areas? I'm thinking we could tie "Long Distance Jamming" and "Frequency Modulation" into also effecting rep modules, giving logi training a bit more to work with.
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#111 - 2015-11-30 14:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Are there any plans to reduce optimal/falloff to make room for a skill in either of those areas? I'm thinking we could tie "Long Distance Jamming" and "Frequency Modulation" into also effecting rep modules, giving logi training a bit more to work with.


Personally No.

Logi's have too much power already with regard to being able to rep 60k off fleet with quite nice tanks.

why do you want to increase their range? You make close range boats pretty much redundant because they don't have enough DPS to out rep a solo scim sitting 60k away. You also make long range boats useless to because Scims have nice tanks.

I tend to play the game solo - small gang. I see the game moving in this direction since its large fleets only really happen in the stagnated boring null sec.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2015-11-30 15:31:23 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Personally No.

Logi's have too much power already with regard to being able to rep 60k off fleet with quite nice tanks.

why do you want to increase their range? You make close range boats pretty much redundant because they don't have enough DPS to out rep a solo scim sitting 60k away. You also make long range boats useless to because Scims have nice tanks.

I tend to play the game solo - small gang. I see the game moving in this direction since its large fleets only really happen in the stagnated boring null sec.


Read it again, because you missed the very core of what I said - which was that I want to *reduce* their current ranges, with the option to make it back up to current proposed ranges by training skills. You know, give logi pilots more things to train for.
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#113 - 2015-11-30 15:43:35 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Personally No.

Logi's have too much power already with regard to being able to rep 60k off fleet with quite nice tanks.

why do you want to increase their range? You make close range boats pretty much redundant because they don't have enough DPS to out rep a solo scim sitting 60k away. You also make long range boats useless to because Scims have nice tanks.

I tend to play the game solo - small gang. I see the game moving in this direction since its large fleets only really happen in the stagnated boring null sec.


Read it again, because you missed the very core of what I said - which was that I want to *reduce* their current ranges, with the option to make it back up to current proposed ranges by training skills. You know, give logi pilots more things to train for.


I don't need to read it again, i understood the first time and my question still stands, why do you want to help increase range to what it is set at at the moment when the range at the moment is already a safe distance. we just get back status quo.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2015-11-30 15:48:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
Hilti Enaka wrote:

I don't need to read it again, i understood the first time


You're right, judging by your statement. I found the problem....

Hilti Enaka wrote:
why do you want to help increase range to what it is set at at the moment


Quote:
Why do you want to change things to make them the same as they are?


You didn't misunderstand my question, by god, you misunderstood your own. You sir win a special cake of some kind, because that takes talent.
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#115 - 2015-11-30 15:51:00 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:

I don't need to read it again, i understood the first time


You're right, judging by your statement. I found the problem....

Hilti Enaka wrote:
why do you want to help increase range to what it is set at at the moment


Quote:
Why do you want to change things to make them the same as they are?


You didn't misunderstand my question, by god, you misunderstood your own. You sir win a special cake of some kid, because that takes talent.


Whatever pumpkin.

Logi already has a safe range.
you want to decrease that base but give people ability to skill up.
resulting in .....

status quo...

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2015-11-30 15:57:34 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Whatever pumpkin.

Logi already has a safe range.
you want to decrease that base but give people ability to skill up.
resulting in .....

status quo...



First off, ranges are already getting nerfed to a debatable degree. They're going to be less effective to a shorter range than they currently are - so the status quo is already "nerfed range". Second, the reason you didn't understand your own question is because I am not the one responsible for the status quo or the proposed ranges. The only thing I was asking for was another (existing) skill to be tied into logi training, regardless of current or proposed rep ranges. If you have a problem with the current or proposed ranges, you direct your comment to CCP Fozzie, not me.

Also, you decided upon pumpkin cake.
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#117 - 2015-11-30 16:14:02 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
Whatever pumpkin.

Logi already has a safe range.
you want to decrease that base but give people ability to skill up.
resulting in .....

status quo...



First off, ranges are already getting nerfed to a debatable degree. They're going to be less effective to a shorter range than they currently are - so the status quo is already "nerfed range". Second, the reason you didn't understand your own question is because I am not the one responsible for the status quo or the proposed ranges. The only thing I was asking for was another (existing) skill to be tied into logi training, regardless of current or proposed rep ranges. If you have a problem with the current or proposed ranges, you direct your comment to CCP Fozzie, not me.

Also, you decided upon pumpkin cake.


This isn't a nerf of any sort you're still looking at providing a good amount of HP at a safe range.

All that's going to happen is:
1. Fleets bring more logi
2. Content doesn't play out.

You said
"Are there any plans to reduce optimal/falloff to make room for a skill in either of those areas?"

To which I asked why should there be.

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2015-11-30 16:28:38 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:

This isn't a nerf of any sort you're still looking at providing a good amount of HP at a safe range.

All that's going to happen is:
1. Fleets bring more logi
2. Content doesn't play out.

You said
"Are there any plans to reduce optimal/falloff to make room for a skill in either of those areas?"

To which I asked why should there be.



Now you're misrepresenting what you said. You asked "why do you want to increase their range?".

In other words, you didn't question my suggestion, you questioned a false premise I never proposed, of introducing more range to the changes laid out by Fozzie. I corrected you on that, twice.

It is only now that you're putting forth that question "why should there be (additional skill training)". That is the first valid question you've posed so far and I will answer it thusly: because other aspects of ship operations and module operations have set a precedence for this type of skill training, and I think it would be good for logi to get the same treatment."

To refer back to my original post that you replied to, I cited the skills that effect EWAR optimal and falloff. There's a direct comparison to what I'm asking for. Indirectly, we've had other aspects of the game altered to "nerf, but skill back to normal" in the way of sensor strength skills. Between those two precedents, I think it's entirely fair to ask CCP if they would like to consider altering the optimal and falloff ranges of reps whatever they decide them to be, a choice not made by me and do not make me correct you a third time, to make them akin to training other ship roles.

That's it. I just think it makes for a more interesting game. It doesn't make it or break it for me. It's just an idea I was bouncing off the Devs.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#119 - 2015-11-30 16:39:14 UTC
I have a proposal that may be a bit off the wall, but I feel this change gives us more opportunity to add variation to the hulls.

As they sit now, the only difference is armor/shield and cap chain/no chain

Proposal

Amarr - Shorter logi range, cap chain, heavier tank, higher sensor strength, faster cycle time
Caldari - Shorter logi range, cap chain, higher velocity/agility, higher sensor strength, higher remote boost (in exchange for cap)
Minmatar - Longer logi range, no cap chain, higher velocity/agility, faster cycle time
Gallente - Greatest logi range, no cap chain, heavier tank, higher boost amount

I can't think straight right now, so I'm likely missing something here..

Having said that, this would give variation to each ship and would introduce situational aspects to the ships.
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#120 - 2015-11-30 17:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:

This isn't a nerf of any sort you're still looking at providing a good amount of HP at a safe range.

All that's going to happen is:
1. Fleets bring more logi
2. Content doesn't play out.

You said
"Are there any plans to reduce optimal/falloff to make room for a skill in either of those areas?"

To which I asked why should there be.



Now you're misrepresenting what you said. You asked "why do you want to increase their range?".

In other words, you didn't question my suggestion, you questioned a false premise I never proposed, of introducing more range to the changes laid out by Fozzie. I corrected you on that, twice.

It is only now that you're putting forth that question "why should there be (additional skill training)". That is the first valid question you've posed so far and I will answer it thusly: because other aspects of ship operations and module operations have set a precedence for this type of skill training, and I think it would be good for logi to get the same treatment."

To refer back to my original post that you replied to, I cited the skills that effect EWAR optimal and falloff. There's a direct comparison to what I'm asking for. Indirectly, we've had other aspects of the game altered to "nerf, but skill back to normal" in the way of sensor strength skills. Between those two precedents, I think it's entirely fair to ask CCP if they would like to consider altering the optimal and falloff ranges of reps whatever they decide them to be, a choice not made by me and do not make me correct you a third time, to make them akin to training other ship roles.

That's it. I just think it makes for a more interesting game. It doesn't make it or break it for me. It's just an idea I was bouncing off the Devs.


So really you knew what i meant :) and got a bit touchy of nothing.

CoolBlink

I knew that's what you meant lowering optimal/fall off and giving a skill to bring it up to current range. I still don't think that makes an interesting game play. It just means people train for a month and are back doing what i feel is stopping content.

Proposal for me is to sacrifice tank for reps. Similar to how OGB works with Command process modules. If it's a close engagement logi needs tank but is limited to the number of Remote Rep units it can fit. If it's sat at distance then with the optimal/fall-off multiplier it means they sacrific tank for reps and fit multiple "Logi Command" module in their mids/lows.

I do find the thought of having remote reps based on ammo more open to player skill rather than cap chain.