Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Before I start this post, I’m going to state that this isn’t going to be some crazy attack on a game mechanic with an equally crazy fix. I’m going to state my thoughts on where the true problem lies in logistics and then I’m going to suggest a few ideas on the matter. If you disagree with my reasoning, and I’m sure people will, then I would enjoy hearing your criticism, thanks.

Now, logistics have been a very relevant part of eve ever since the dominion expansion where they became viable and incredibly useful. Ever since then, they have been an integral part of fleet compositions. The amount of hulls with logistics bonuses have been increasing of late, however it cannot be argued that there are incredibly few in stark contrast to the overwhelming variety of offensively focused hulls. Also another comparison leads me to point out that there is only one module type for logistics that’s only variation is in it’s size for the class of ship (Small, Medium, Large, Capital).

Where for offensive purposes we usually have two types per weapon type, usually long range with low damage versus short range with high damage to be succinct. On top of this there are several types of each long/close range weapon that allow for different fitting requirements or a need for better tracking or better range. With all these variations is where we find balance, where each weapon has pros and cons, and they each have their own niche. With our smorgasbord of damage dealing weapons there is no one-size-fits-all, yet when it comes to logistics we pretty much find there is only one size to choose from in the first place.

With a balance we usually find a form of the ‘Pick Two Triangle’, with weapons (I’m keeping it simple for clarity sake) our options are high damage, long range, high damage application. Now we can pick two and we’re left without the third, for example if I want high damage application [in the form of good tracking] and high damage I’m left with blasters [as well as most other close range high damage weapons, just using blasters as an example]. As we all know blasters are notoriously short ranged. Obviously there is more to it than that, but as I said, I’m keeping it simple.

Now when we apply this to logistics our three options end up being… what? We can’t even apply this logic to the modules themselves because the only difference in them is their size. So I can put up whatever pick two option I want but I’ll always end up picking all three and I end up with the same module every time. If I were to put up three choices for a pick two triangle, I would have high repair, sustainability and e-war resistance. But we don’t have the modules to match, and this is where I feel the problem with logistics lies.

With combat in eve our logistics do all three of those options reasonably well, and the result is very limited options to beat an enemy fleet, and the most risk free and most reliable option is to outnumber the enemy or to not engage (aka. N+1). For a while there was a way around this option, and that was triage. Personally I believe triage is the most balanced of all logistics because I can apply it to the triangle. It has high repair, and e-war resistance but it is not sustainable. These days triage is countered on pure dps, you can still fight a blob by using triage but these days blobs just tend to be too big.
So to end this post I’ll finish with stating my best suggestion on what needs to be changed, I believe that there needs to be more logistics modules with more options and they need to be balanced around pros and cons like most other things in the game. If this happens I think pvp in eve would be much more lively and although this wouldn’t make blobs go away (anything that does would ruin the true nature of eve) it would make fighting in an N-1 style more viable.

I’ll include some suggestions for modules and ideas that fit my proposed pick two triangle, just to spark some discussion on the topic. Don’t take them to heart, they’re just discussion starters more or less and I didn’t take much time to think on them.

Transferring hp idea.. check.
Siege mode cruisers... check.
AARR's.. check.
Very misunderstood conceptions about the role of logistics ships in large scale fleet warfare. check.
Arbitrary restrictions on modules in order to shoehorn in a bad concept... check.

Oooohh... got a Bingo.

The first three were a way of starting discussion, your last two hold no basis of reasoning. Where in there do I even mention a conception of the role of logistics in very large scale fleet warfare and where in there did I state this was restricted to large fleet warfare in the first place. On top of that where did I say siege module cruisers, I never specified a hull size or type, I only expressed the possibility of a siege like module on a ship with certain attributes. Also what arbitrary restrictions did I mention on modules, as far as I can see I only mentioned adding more logistics modules and balancing them as such a way as to lessen how logistics cause N+1 pvp.

You seem to have a way of putting words in other peoples mouths just so that you can insult the words you're putting there…

the thread is about logistics and your view on the problems with them while at the same time you proposed the idea of a siege module to put on said ships and since logistic ships are usually identified as a t2 cruiser type, im pretty sure that's where he got the idea of you talking about siege module cruisers.

The problem I personally have with siege module's being used on ships that provide logistical support is that usually siege mods have a 0m/s speed which would be a bad idea and makes them much easier targets to take out of the picture first thus causing the rest of the fleet to be easy prey.

You might want to edit thread title because currently your thread seems to be about how there's problems with fitting logistics, and since there aren't any problems many ppl (me included) will go "yeah right, NEXT!". That's probably also why people went TL;DR, at least partially anyway.

Wowowowow... there are some issues here, which might require a repost. Like it has been pointed out, the title is compeltely misleading and I would have reported it immediately if I hadn't galnced at the one comment mentioning it.

Further more you should structure it better, since there are many different points and they can't work all in conjunction. I really would advise to have this locekd at request and repost it better if you want to have a decent discussion about it.

Still, I ll try to respond.

+1 for different RR modules, even though you did not go into specifics. Long range modules (about x2 or x3 as is now), low repping power (/2 or /3). Short range can almost stay as it is now, maybe cut range by 10% max. Medium range (x1,5-2), low rep (/3), low cap cost (no idea yet). I'd really love this for my small gang spider tank fleet with fresh recruitsThey got issues staying close enough sometimes 8).
Btw. this should be transferred to cap transfer too.

Role boni on ships need to be adjusted, the range values in the end could even be a bit lower then they are now maxed out. I'd rather have pure logistic ships (T1 and T2, not the faction) get more focused on cap and maybe add some (15-20% T1, 20-30% T2) cap drain resistance to the role bonus.

+1 for capping out certain rep ships with immunity to remote cap transfer/neuts/vamps. Maybe as a faction cruiser ship, since we got T1 and T2. Like you said, high buffer, low cap regen, hard to fit for good reps and cap regen - so either one or the other.

-1 for triage module

-1 for hp transfer

-1 anc remote reps unless the ships can't get remote cap in any way imaginable.

I hope this helps.

Hmm, not really.

1. T2 frig has been suggested before many times and shot down, there is no need for such a ship since it brings no new content but fiills only a perceived gap. Battleship size logis are also only a perceived gap, basically only a want of more hp, since the T2 cruisers already use large modules and the next step are carriers, there is no role gab. If need be, read up on those threads, which explain everything in detail.

2.There is no need for it, you need for example perfect logi skills with bad ass tight fittting to fly a T2 logi, cutting caps is not needed. Its all the difference between logi L4 and L5. Read up on nthose threads too.

3. Inverting range is incredibly silly if you do not consider the repping power nor the usability of modules regarding ship types. If you want related ranges, new modules is the only way to go. But we actually might get that with the coming module tiericide.

Stacking penalties on logistics has been suggested before and shot down every time, there's good reason for that too. It's all in scaleability. If you add stacking penalties on logistics there's pretty much a set upper limit on reps and that means that it doesn't scale from a 30 man fleet to a 300 man fleet, the result is the problem of too strong logistics would persist in small game pvp and large scale pvp would have virtually no logistics. That would have a negative effect on fleet pvp as a whole.

I tend to do a fair bit of Logi support and the only idea I would support is making a bigger variations between the Meta modules which I hope they fix in the Meta Rebalance. Examples of what could change is fittting, overheat time, cycle time, range, amount, cap use etc