These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

A talk about logi
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#1 - 2016-08-31 04:25:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
Let's have a serious discussion about logi.

Logi is the biggest cancer in this game, bigger than svipul, bigger than ECM, bigger than kiting meta, bigger than the frigate menace and I say this because logi perforates every level of ship gameplay (particularly now that there is t2 frigate logi) while all of these other examples are contained to specific circumstances or compositions.

If we take FAX's as a baseline for ship design, then I think that really the remaining logi classes need to be nerfed in a number of significant and dramatic ways, which would include:

- increased sig size
- unstable cap unless using injectors
- speed decreases
- remote capacitor modules can not give more cap than they consume, at best they give 100% efficiency no higher
- logi modules all gain signature characteristics, meaning capital logistics on cruisers or smaller is almost a complete waste

and that's just to start with. For years and years there have been complaints about blobs of logi making fights either impossible to win or simple stalemates until escalation or retreat occurs. This should never happen. At the very worst case scenario all you should have to do is burn out the other fleets supply of injectors and thus shut off their logi one by one. This will open up new meta's never before seen with things like divebomb ECM and ultra-long-range neuting becoming more important than ever. For the purposes of nullsec or wormholes having a bomber with cap bombs becomes a strong incentive as well since shutting off or severely gimping the output of logi while they burn boosters at an accelerated rate can become a strong tactical move.

At present we have even the focus group talking about the problems with logi - https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/null-sec/2016-08-15/ [oops linked the wrong one] <--- talking about how as logi increases in number the prevalence of alpha doctrines grows as well. This is due to stale gameplay revolving around logi and the easy-mode modules and fittings these ships enjoy.

inb4 naysayers complaining it will break the whole game, it won't, your hyperbolic sabre rattling about every issue isn't interesting and if you think logi are "fine" in their current form you surely are either ignorant or a member of the abusing class. Logi in their present design are reductive, they reduce the variety of fleet compositions you see in the game. A change is needed, whether people like it or not.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#2 - 2016-08-31 05:21:20 UTC
i completely disagree. this is a social game. ccp wants folks to group and play. wanna solo? play skyrimm.

we design fleets around the use of logi to be able to beat you guys who wont use them down.
logi frigs are the best thing since the game started.
logi frigs>ewar frigs>inties-AF (and whatever else folks who cant play as a team wanna fly...)
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2016-08-31 05:28:22 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

...and if you think logi are "fine" in their current form you surely are either ignorant or a member of the abusing class. Logi in their present design are reductive, they reduce the variety of fleet compositions you see in the game. A change is needed, whether people like it or not.


This throws all kind of debate or discussion out of the window, doesn't it?

I say NO and I won't tell you why because you don't want to hear it anyway. Enjoy your monologue Sir.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#4 - 2016-08-31 05:40:39 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

...and if you think logi are "fine" in their current form you surely are either ignorant or a member of the abusing class. Logi in their present design are reductive, they reduce the variety of fleet compositions you see in the game. A change is needed, whether people like it or not.


This throws all kind of debate or discussion out of the window, doesn't it?

I say NO and I won't tell you why because you don't want to hear it anyway. Enjoy your monologue Sir.


The discussion is already taking place in a closed forum with the devs. You think the guys running this game (either the devs or the bloc FC's) can't see that something is amiss? And what is your response to a comment like this?

Quote:
While I disagree with his core idea-as well as most of his proposals-his idea that capital remote repairs be nerfed by being signature radius based is an idea that I have talked about with my corp mates before and would be a great way to balance the current issues with having 2 Fax as the only logi needed for a 100 man Macharial fleet. With arty Macharials being the standard doctrine of most low and null sec entities (which is a whole other problem that CCP needs to address) there is absolutely no reason to bring Guardians seeing as you'll need more people in Guardians, resulting in less people in Macharials, Guardians do less reps and require a stable cap chain to operate, have trouble supporting themselves, take longer to lock targets, and can easily be volleyed by the opposing Macharial fleet . This is bad game design if there is only one decision to be made when a problem arises.

Having capital reps rep based on signature radius, like how capital neuts work, would offer greater gameplay choices. Instead of only needing two reps on a target, maybe it would require all four, or even a second fax, to save the ship being primaried meaning that you cant just save your fleet with one or two fax on the field. So you could make the decision to either bring more fax, greatly increasing your risk of being dreadbombed, or maybe you go for Guardians, having to deal with their weaknesses, but at least all your reps will go for full and would be less risk of having opposing capitals on the field. Also, it would allow your fleet to be much more mobile as you don't have fax stuck on grid in triage.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2016-08-31 05:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
I'm thinking cruisers are outclassed when facing a Machariel fleet. FAX should be the way to go there -- or Nestors.

FYI - most cap pilots will agree capital neuts are useless because they only apply to other caps; we fit large battleship neuts for a reason.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#6 - 2016-08-31 06:00:57 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
I'm thinking cruisers are outclassed when facing a Machariel fleet. FAX should be the way to go there -- or Nestors.

FYI - most cap pilots will agree capital neuts are useless because they only apply to other caps; we fit large battleship neuts for a reason.


I'd love to see what your nestors would do when a bunch of command dessy come through and chain jump them 500km off.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2016-08-31 06:10:16 UTC
dafuq man? I said FAXes were the right choice -- you were harping about logi remember?
What do MJF generators have to do with this all of a sudden?

Bringing a counter (well, "counter" .....) is part of PvP, you cannot account for all eventualities can you?

If you can manage to get a snatchfleet onto a ball of Machs, those machs are as screwd as your nestor would be. Solution: Blap them off the field before they do.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#8 - 2016-08-31 06:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Not seeing the size based stuff to RR. Its not always used for I wins. back when I ran jam scorps I ran a repper or 2. Post battle it was top off armour/hull of any ships banged up. Hell I could make the half joke/half truth people happier more for my remote hull repping than the jams sometimes.

Not seeing needing injection very workable either. It kind of negates why the bonuses exist. Which means rounds of rebalance ship and mod wise. Players want better cap, they will find it. Possible grrr t3 rants as well...they can allow for better options capacitor wise. We can't get CCP to look at arguably "super hac" configs, chance of them looking at its logi config slim to none. Or tbh if they did....many would be going really CCP, you fixed this before the HAC mode?
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#9 - 2016-08-31 06:39:44 UTC
There are a ton of counters to Logi.

Damps make locking next primary harder (if res damp scripted) or impossible (if range damp scripted and you have a positioning problem).

ECM flat out nullifies a ship when it sticks, and can be two or three times as effective against cap-chain Logi in the heat of battle.

Neuts - and specifically Void bombs - are extremely effective against Logi.

Void bombs in particular bring a completely different style of gameplay to the battle, which can only be a good thing.

Shield Logi have a sig radius the size of a small country and as such are vulnerable to Torp Bombers too.

Armour Logi, once in a fight, are not terribly manoeuvrable - which can & should be exploited by faster moving opponents, especially if combining with range damping in certain situations.

Logi are the counter themselves to the "most guns wins" gameplay beloved of most F1 monkeys.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#10 - 2016-08-31 06:44:45 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
dafuq man? I said FAXes were the right choice -- you were harping about logi remember?
What do MJF generators have to do with this all of a sudden?

Bringing a counter (well, "counter" .....) is part of PvP, you cannot account for all eventualities can you?

If you can manage to get a snatchfleet onto a ball of Machs, those machs are as screwd as your nestor would be. Solution: Blap them off the field before they do.


I should have clarified, in response to your comment about Nestor, the MJD dessy is the cheapest and most powerful counter. No you cannot build a fleet to counter all possible enemy compositions you would need a fleet of 5000 people and noone in the game has the manpower to do that anymore. Those days are over.

And yes you fit large neuts to capitals... because of the sig radius. That was the whole point. It was literally the entire point of the exercise was to make sure that dreads couldn't drop at 0 and instaneut anything in 1 cycle then blap it in 1 hit. Yet remote reps and remote cap transfer don't work the same way?

The commentary which isn't being talked about is this
Quote:
[16:26] nour_samy @garsttyrell: I agree about fighting alpha doctrines, whatver you do you're going to lose ****, and your logi plays almost no part until you whittle down their numbers till they can't straight up alpha anymore


It's not centrally an issue I'm talking about when addressing machs in particular, it's a matter of fleet doctrines having boiled down to just a few variants yet again. I'd even argue there's less fleet variety today than in the past. Unbreakable balls of logi are more powerful at smaller fleet numbers, smaller fleet numbers where you prefer alpha/dps over reps by condensing the reps in to the smallest number of ships needed (in this case FAX) which expresses a further need for alpha doctrine. If you limit the power of FAX reps then they're going to be forced to consider other options, other options which take DPS/alpha ships and turn them in to logi which means that you end up with another unbreakable ball of logi. So you can't just introduce one change you have to introduce several at the same time. Making it so that logi can't function on magic would mean balls of logi become breakable either by directly attacking them with dps or ewar, or through wearing out their local cap charges. Or by forcing them in to max-regen fits which similarly can be broken especially once you remove the >100% remote cap efficiency crap.

This is why I said what I did about the sabre rattling. We are already beginning to see the new metas of this sov system emerging, CCP formed a focus group who are busy telling them how it is playing out and where it will go. But CCP will bandaid patch the problem again by making tiny adjustments to ship stats instead of changing mechanics the same way they did with jump fatigue, sov, exploration, carriers/supers, refitting, wormhole sites, nullsec anoms, citadels jeez what else, they will bandaid it instead of sticking with their own precedent of sweeping mechanical changes to how logi function at the sub capital level so that these reductive fleet formats don't become the new ishtar fleets, these omnipresent compositions that work so well the only accessible counter becomes using more machs than the other guy, more cerbs more tengus more jackdaw/svipuls.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2016-08-31 07:02:02 UTC
imho, the capital neut is broken. According to the same logic, a large neut shouldn't apply well to frigates which would make them meaningless because they are the ONLY line of defense battleships have against The Frigate Menace...

While I see why large guns don't apply their full potential to small targets (unless properly tackled), not everything has to scale according to the same logic. The Guardian for example has better mobility (both in velocity and the non-dependency on triage) and can keep up with a fleet whereas a FAX cannot-- meaning there certainly are situations where a Guardian is prefered over a FAX.

The large ballfights are a fine example of a situation where captial reps are required.

To me, as long as every ship has its proper place in the game, it's good. Limiting caps to cap-only fights is contrary to the direction CCP has been going with HAW dreads and anti-subcap carriers.

Does this make any sense to you?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#12 - 2016-08-31 07:19:11 UTC
Sorry Caleb but this sounds more like a rant. Did you lose a fight because they had more logi on the field?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#13 - 2016-08-31 10:14:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
imho, the capital neut is broken. According to the same logic, a large neut shouldn't apply well to frigates which would make them meaningless because they are the ONLY line of defense battleships have against The Frigate Menace...

While I see why large guns don't apply their full potential to small targets (unless properly tackled), not everything has to scale according to the same logic. The Guardian for example has better mobility (both in velocity and the non-dependency on triage) and can keep up with a fleet whereas a FAX cannot-- meaning there certainly are situations where a Guardian is prefered over a FAX.

The large ballfights are a fine example of a situation where captial reps are required.

To me, as long as every ship has its proper place in the game, it's good. Limiting caps to cap-only fights is contrary to the direction CCP has been going with HAW dreads and anti-subcap carriers.

Does this make any sense to you?


Well battleships also have webs and grapplers now in order to help them fend off small ships. They can now fit RHML and for gun ships have always had the opportunity to downscale their weapons to shoot smaller ships. Dual 250mm rails, etc. So no I reject your notion that heavy neuts are the "ONLY" line of defence against a frigate.. unless we're talking at 18+km where electron blasters/webs/scram cannot reach. Just because you feel like capital neuts are broken (they're not, you're supposed to dreadbomb enemy FAX with a capital neut in the utility high).

Everything needs to conform to a logic, the logic of logi cruisers has been demonstrably out of whack. The Guardian doesn't have jump drives, so there is that. For getting in to or out of combat esp. lowsec an Apostle can bug out much quicker than a guardian. The specific function of a guardian I won't comment on right now, I'm doing some reading.

Large ball fights requiring capital reps, yeah... and capitals cap out. How convenient. And then sometimes you can't rationalise taking FAX with you because maybe you're using tinkertanked rattles or something in a 5-man, again, working via the magic of remote cap transfers being stupid.

And caps aren't limited to cap only fights. The new-carrier is very specifically an anti-subcapital ship. The new HAW weapons are your Dual 250mm's of the capital size. Rapid torp launchers, same story. Except I'm not making those claims or suggesting that larger ships should be unable to affect smaller ships at all (you are though, from the way you're writing), I am saying that larger ships need to scale properly on to smaller ships. Capital weapons, neuts, cap transfers and reps should all work the same way as they are projected effects. And if such changes went ahead for the benefit of fleet diversity (or the increased granualisation of groups from powerblocs to smaller & more manageable entities) then you would need to address the subsequent more appropriate logi that battleships and cruisers would be using and you arrive at the same problems these ships have suffered for years.

I've been around for a long, long time. I can't remember anyone ever praising logi, only ever complaints that logi makes fleet fights uninteresting as their presence in an engagement gets larger by proportion.
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#14 - 2016-08-31 11:07:31 UTC
The "Magic Cap Transfers" are part of a deliberate design choice by CCP to differentiate the two Logi of each defensive type, and thus create varied gameplay. If those hulls didn't have those bonuses, they would need to be extensively changed in other ways to compensate.

Cap chaining is a weakness, not a strength. It effectively reduces the number of other pilots the Logi can have locked, and increases the Logi's vulnerability to Cap Warfare, Sensor Dampening and ECM, because instead of these modules just affecting one ship, they can each cause a chain fail cascade which affects multiple Logi ship, especially if applied in multiple (consider what happens if the Cap Chain breaks but reforming it is delayed by Scan Res Dampening).
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#15 - 2016-08-31 11:44:05 UTC
Kalido Raddi wrote:
The "Magic Cap Transfers" are part of a deliberate design choice by CCP to differentiate the two Logi of each defensive type, and thus create varied gameplay. If those hulls didn't have those bonuses, they would need to be extensively changed in other ways to compensate.

Cap chaining is a weakness, not a strength. It effectively reduces the number of other pilots the Logi can have locked, and increases the Logi's vulnerability to Cap Warfare, Sensor Dampening and ECM, because instead of these modules just affecting one ship, they can each cause a chain fail cascade which affects multiple Logi ship, especially if applied in multiple (consider what happens if the Cap Chain breaks but reforming it is delayed by Scan Res Dampening).


Not all logi are bound to cap chains. 2 of them are, sure, the other 2 are not. I made a cap stable 3-rep/1-cap oneiros in like 2 seconds right now in pyfa. It uses a large battery and a single cap recharger.

Are there far better fits available for this ship? Sure there are. But this is one example right away where breaking down the chain doesn't matter a damn since functionally all the other ships are stable without the extra incoming cap (which would be a defense against neuts than anything else).
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2016-08-31 11:47:22 UTC
The problem is not logi. The problem is the giant blob all volleying the same target.

Introduce DPS caps so you can't instant alpha a single ship, naturally Logi caps follow on, now you can swamp the logi by the sheer number of targets engaged making it vastly more likely that they fail to rep some targets & over rep other targets.

Now your fleets are differentiated by skill, not simply in who has the bigger blob. And the whole 'logi problem' no longer exists.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2016-08-31 13:09:55 UTC
Wrote an entire wall of text. Deleted it. Just going to ask what do you mean, "the logic of logi cruisers has been demonstrably out of whack" ?

You seem to assert this as a generally accepted fact. Yet this is the first time I've ever heard it described as such. Something is clearly bugging you, I'd like to know what it is.
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#18 - 2016-08-31 13:19:59 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Kalido Raddi wrote:
The "Magic Cap Transfers" are part of a deliberate design choice by CCP to differentiate the two Logi of each defensive type, and thus create varied gameplay. If those hulls didn't have those bonuses, they would need to be extensively changed in other ways to compensate.

Cap chaining is a weakness, not a strength. It effectively reduces the number of other pilots the Logi can have locked, and increases the Logi's vulnerability to Cap Warfare, Sensor Dampening and ECM, because instead of these modules just affecting one ship, they can each cause a chain fail cascade which affects multiple Logi ship, especially if applied in multiple (consider what happens if the Cap Chain breaks but reforming it is delayed by Scan Res Dampening).


Not all logi are bound to cap chains. 2 of them are, sure, the other 2 are not. I made a cap stable 3-rep/1-cap oneiros in like 2 seconds right now in pyfa. It uses a large battery and a single cap recharger.

Are there far better fits available for this ship? Sure there are. But this is one example right away where breaking down the chain doesn't matter a damn since functionally all the other ships are stable without the extra incoming cap (which would be a defense against neuts than anything else).

What are you going on about?

Have you ever actually flown Logi, or are you just whining because targets don't give up and explode when you press F1?

Of course you can make a cap stable Oneiros - you don't even need a Cap Booster for that to happen. The whole point is that Cap Chaining is what makes the Guardian different from the Oneiros.

Try learning to use the existing counters to Logi (hint: read my first post in this thread for a list of some of them)
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#19 - 2016-08-31 13:27:11 UTC
-1 your changes completely break logi on a small scale. My low sec character and the group he is with routinely run smaller roams with at most two logi ships and usually just one, your proposed changes would make this impractical at best and impossible at the worst.

As for your contention that there is no counter to logi in it's current state I say BS (not battleship).
Other have listed just a small sampling of the possible ways that logi can be dealt with.
Armor is slow making them vulnerable to a fast moving hard hitting attack wing, or to bombers not to mention long range artillery and missile fits.
Shield logi with their sig radius makes them vulnerable to long range cruise missile fits or to torps and bombers.

May i humble suggest that if you spent as much time thinking about ways to counter logi as you do thinking of how and why it needs to be changed this topic would not be here simply because like the rest of us here you would have found solutions that work for you.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#20 - 2016-08-31 14:17:55 UTC
Someone is unfamiliar with the true power of command destroyers. The double jump, if executed right, is literally game changing.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
12Next page