These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Remote repair modules - rebalance of the mechanic.

Author
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2015-09-10 13:38:38 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Logis needs to be nerfed, there's two things that make them broken and owerpowered: the ability to use large reps and their very small signature radius.

HACs don't get a bonus to large guns, so why Logis have a bonus to large reps? I say replace their CPU/PG reduction of large reps with 7.5% bonus to rep amount as seen on T1 Logis so the only way to fit large reps is to use several fitting mods, sacrificing tank and/or cap stability, and make their signature radius comparable with other T2 Cruisers.

Eventually CCP could introduce a class of T2 Battleship Logis which would have more slots that current Cruiser-based Logis and could fit large reps without fitting sacrifices, but they should also have standard disadvantages of a Battleship, such as high signature radius and low scan resolution (would also be perfect ships to have a bonus to remote sensor boosters).


People are using very often medium reps , as they allow to fit more tank.
You simply need more logistics, that are harder to kill.


You also need less cap mods or can use more practical ones because the drain is lower.
Solarus Explorer
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-09-10 15:39:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Solarus Explorer
I realize i also posted this in the Marauders thread, but its probably relevant here as well.

How about adding a new high slot module that prevents the target from receiving any remote reps? This would help counter logi, and it can have significant fitting/cap usage to compensate. But this basically allows people to overcome the swarms of logi that currently prevail.

Alternatively the new module could decrease the effectiveness of remote assistance by a said percentage (instead of prohibiting it completely)......
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2015-09-10 16:12:43 UTC
Solarus Explorer wrote:
I realize i also posted this in the Marauders thread, but its probably relevant here as well.

How about adding a new high slot module that prevents the target from receiving any remote reps? This would help counter logi, and it can have significant fitting/cap usage to compensate. But this basically allows people to overcome the swarms of logi that currently prevail.

Alternatively the new module could decrease the effectiveness of remote assistance by a said percentage (instead of prohibiting it completely)......


Then we all go with drone doctrines and use all our free high slots to use this new module completely cripplig the other side while still keeping our tank and DPS intact?
Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
WE FORM V0LTA
#44 - 2015-09-10 19:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vic Jefferson
afkalt wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:

Lowsec/WH people don't have a problem ripping into each other as much as anaemic and impotent Null fleets do. Why is this?



Well from my experience, WH fleets tend not to be tidi inducing monsters, thus they tend to lack the critical mass required to tip anaemic personal DPS into enough alpha to break things. Equally the same is true for the other side in terms of reps etc.

I guess it is a question of battle scale.

I couldn't comment on lowsec - it has no limitations like WH - perhaps simply a population issue?


WH people are among the most competent players in the game. They know how to counter logi and even triage sometimes without needing multiple full fleets to do so, and have no trouble thoroughly annihilating each other. An overwhelming majority of the logi is broken chorus tends to be sov-null people who have have become willing participants in exacerbating this problem. Now, Ill hand it to you that the present ship meta doesn't help, and WHs naturally avoid some of the scale issues, but some of the blame clearly falls on the people involved. If you were not fighting at extreme ranges, a whole new set of tactics can actually come into play, but since no side is actually interested in a fight verbatim, you almost never get an actual fight. You get the whole procession of space turtles lining up, either nothing happens at all, or one side breaks the other's logi, causing the entire rest of the fleet to boogie out. It is surprisingly bloodless, and surprisingly foreign from the idea of epic space conflict where both sides are fully committed to a slugfest.

Now, I won't deny that there would need to be a whole range of good changes to open up a scenario where these tactics weren't optimal for winning. Bomb damage still needs to go down, short range weapons need a massive buff to account for the application disparity, etc. I just don't find it a coincidence at all who is calling for the changes. Scale and ship meta may heavily color your ship choices, but that's a problem with those two things. If logi was TRULY broken, you wouldn't have 90% of the complaints coming from sov-null alone.

Maybe about once a week, there's a thread proposing a buff to freighters because someone is mad they got ganked. More often than not, people explain that this is part of the game, and how you can avoid it with even a little bit of effort, so there's no need for the mechanic to literally carry you. Philosophically, this isn't that much different - people want the rules of the game changed because they perceive things to be unfair or poorly balanced. I cant shoot at other ships meaningfully because logi is broken....I can't move goods because hisec isn't hisec. It's a lot more justified here for sure, but you cant just deal with logi in a vaccum - its only a problem when mixed in with the double problem of scale and ship-meta. Fix those first, and then tell me logi is broken.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#45 - 2015-09-18 14:38:31 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
We already have the mechanic whereby only one tractor can operate on an object at once, expand this to the logi modules maybe.


Can we apply this to gun also? I mean, why can you team up to an infinite number while the logi could not?



I keep going back and rewatching the Eve trailer with the supergate...especially the sequence with the naga firing on the apoc. This video, along with almost all other eve trailers highlights the exact opposite of effective warfare given the current game mechanics...which is focusing all your reps, and all your firepower, on one target. That little Naga, despite how cool that attack run looked, would not be doing 'meaningful' damage in actual Eve battles.

If only there were both diminishing returns on focusing reps and Firepower both, you'd get some interesting and chaotic battles. A lot more exploding ships on both sides. Local reppers on your fleet ships would actually be both useful, and possibly very important in help keeping you alive.

But this all is just speculation. A change to either mechanic would have be be simply 'forced' by CCP. Not even sure they'd want this kind of revolution.

But definitely +1 to Frostys Virpio, these two game mechanics are very intertwined.


Interestingly enough CCP has announced what I believe to be the first time they have ever forced 'damage mitigation', in regards to citadel combat. Guess the idea is not so far-fetched.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2015-09-18 14:47:45 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
We already have the mechanic whereby only one tractor can operate on an object at once, expand this to the logi modules maybe.


Can we apply this to gun also? I mean, why can you team up to an infinite number while the logi could not?



I keep going back and rewatching the Eve trailer with the supergate...especially the sequence with the naga firing on the apoc. This video, along with almost all other eve trailers highlights the exact opposite of effective warfare given the current game mechanics...which is focusing all your reps, and all your firepower, on one target. That little Naga, despite how cool that attack run looked, would not be doing 'meaningful' damage in actual Eve battles.

If only there were both diminishing returns on focusing reps and Firepower both, you'd get some interesting and chaotic battles. A lot more exploding ships on both sides. Local reppers on your fleet ships would actually be both useful, and possibly very important in help keeping you alive.

But this all is just speculation. A change to either mechanic would have be be simply 'forced' by CCP. Not even sure they'd want this kind of revolution.

But definitely +1 to Frostys Virpio, these two game mechanics are very intertwined.


Interestingly enough CCP has announced what I believe to be the first time they have ever forced 'damage mitigation', in regards to citadel combat. Guess the idea is not so far-fetched.


I want to see how the dps cap will interact with reps. Is it going to be like the entosis cap where the reps would apply to the overload of damage still leaving DPS at the cap if enough number are present? Is this even possible seeing as they don't have any effect on each others right now (reps are applied to the target, not countering them like a web counter speed).
Cristl
#47 - 2015-09-18 15:09:44 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:

Interestingly enough CCP has announced what I believe to be the first time they have ever forced 'damage mitigation', in regards to citadel combat. Guess the idea is not so far-fetched.


I want to see how the dps cap will interact with reps. Is it going to be like the entosis cap where the reps would apply to the overload of damage still leaving DPS at the cap if enough number are present? Is this even possible seeing as they don't have any effect on each others right now (reps are applied to the target, not countering them like a web counter speed).


I don't think you are able to rep the citadels at all.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#48 - 2015-09-18 17:05:41 UTC
They could always change reps to something funky like a limited stacking refreshing hitpoint buffer.

Rather than healing x amount to the appropriate bar, they just make that bar much bigger for the length of the cycle. The extra buffer would be damaged first, but damage that overcomes it stays unless repaired by local reps. With limited stacking only a certain number of these buffers would stack, and beyond that point no further could be applied. If you make it so that a cycle cannot be ended prematurely then reps are quite severely limited.

Alpha becomes much less of an issue, as the reps can be applied before any damage occurs, and you have the entire length of the cycle to overcome the added hitpoints. Fitting choices open up as local reps now interact with logi in a beneficial way, with hard choices between rep power, resists and weapon mods all competing meaningfully for slots.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2015-09-18 17:12:34 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
They could always change reps to something funky like a limited stacking refreshing hitpoint buffer.

Rather than healing x amount to the appropriate bar, they just make that bar much bigger for the length of the cycle. The extra buffer would be damaged first, but damage that overcomes it stays unless repaired by local reps. With limited stacking only a certain number of these buffers would stack, and beyond that point no further could be applied. If you make it so that a cycle cannot be ended prematurely then reps are quite severely limited.

Alpha becomes much less of an issue, as the reps can be applied before any damage occurs, and you have the entire length of the cycle to overcome the added hitpoints. Fitting choices open up as local reps now interact with logi in a beneficial way, with hard choices between rep power, resists and weapon mods all competing meaningfully for slots.


If rep has a cap, then anyone can just keep dps-ing through it so you might as well not bring logi and take more dps on board to go through your enemy faster. Local rep would not work with that because no ship would be able to rep with the required efficiency to ever survive while also supporting enough buffer to counter an alpha kill. Even if we push to the limit and allow more fitting space on all ship so they can field buffer mods + resist mods + local reps, you would run out of cap in no time. If we add cap boosters on those already impossible fits, we run into the issue of charge deciding when your ship die instead of the efficiency of your fleet.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#50 - 2015-09-18 17:31:07 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
They could always change reps to something funky like a limited stacking refreshing hitpoint buffer.

Rather than healing x amount to the appropriate bar, they just make that bar much bigger for the length of the cycle. The extra buffer would be damaged first, but damage that overcomes it stays unless repaired by local reps. With limited stacking only a certain number of these buffers would stack, and beyond that point no further could be applied. If you make it so that a cycle cannot be ended prematurely then reps are quite severely limited.

Alpha becomes much less of an issue, as the reps can be applied before any damage occurs, and you have the entire length of the cycle to overcome the added hitpoints. Fitting choices open up as local reps now interact with logi in a beneficial way, with hard choices between rep power, resists and weapon mods all competing meaningfully for slots.


If rep has a cap, then anyone can just keep dps-ing through it so you might as well not bring logi and take more dps on board to go through your enemy faster. Local rep would not work with that because no ship would be able to rep with the required efficiency to ever survive while also supporting enough buffer to counter an alpha kill. Even if we push to the limit and allow more fitting space on all ship so they can field buffer mods + resist mods + local reps, you would run out of cap in no time. If we add cap boosters on those already impossible fits, we run into the issue of charge deciding when your ship die instead of the efficiency of your fleet.


True, the only way to truely limit reps is to also limit damage to something reasonable as well. Missile damage concepts of limiting damage by signiture would probably be the best way to do that. Once damage reaches a certain magnitude then more is just redundant. If you want to encourage diversity you could make that magnitude on a per resist basis, so that mixing weapons and ammo helps to scale larger groups. That would also give The damage locked missile bonuses a better reason to exist, more damage is good but diverse damage has its own benefit.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#51 - 2015-09-18 22:03:23 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Fixing Logistics

Worth to read an consider his words.


This Mittani post is considerably more well put together than anything posted on the forums so far.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-09-18 22:18:05 UTC
I think logi ships are just overpowered, and that if T2 logi were nerfed to 1/4th of the repair output they would still be very popular in fleets but no longer an I-WIN button. I insist that 1/4th output is more than enough and would not even begin to push them into obscurity.


But I support cutting their output to half what it is, and I'll settle for no less. Also T1 logi already reps about half the rate of T2 last I checked, after the change they should be made to rep about 20% less than T2.

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."

Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
WE FORM V0LTA
#53 - 2015-09-18 22:33:21 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I think logi ships are just overpowered, and that if T2 logi were nerfed to 1/4th of the repair output they would still be very popular in fleets but no longer an I-WIN button. I insist that 1/4th output is more than enough and would not even begin to push them into obscurity.


But I support cutting their output to half what it is, and I'll settle for no less. Also T1 logi already reps about half the rate of T2 last I checked, after the change they should be made to rep about 20% less than T2.



This is silly. Big ticket null fleets will just bring N times more of them where 1/N is the amount the module is changed by.

If you don't like the tactics of big ticket null fleets, go somewhere else to find fun.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-09-18 22:37:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Vic Jefferson wrote:
This is silly. Big ticket null fleets will just bring N times more of them where 1/N is the amount the module is changed by.

If you don't like the tactics of big ticket null fleets, go somewhere else to find fun.

Someone told me this once before, maybe it was you. I responded with an explanation showing that your mathematical relationship is backward. Reduce logi output and you reduce the number of logi brought. Not the other way around.

Here's another one for you:
1.) The optimum percentage of logi in a fleet is greater than the percentage of players who want to fly logi Arrow
2.) Reducing logi output will reduce the optimum number of logi in a fleet Arrow
ArrowArrow So reducing logi output will improve the percentage of players flying what they want to fly.

P.S. update your forum signature

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."

Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
WE FORM V0LTA
#55 - 2015-09-18 22:58:54 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
So reducing logi output will improve the percentage of players flying what they want to fly.


Sure. Reduce logi output, fly what you want to fly, but rest assured, there will be plenty of people who will simply bring more logi to compensate, and you will be right back here, complaining it is broken, and that either it needs further nerfs or your favourite comp needs buffs. EvE players, particularly those in large groups, can be made to endure almost any tactic, almost any comp, if the all important strategic objective can be assuredly won by their implementation.

it''ll just increase the disparity between fun-havers and serious business types. Fun havers won't have the numbers to make the now nerfed logi relevant, and serious business types will have free reign of the mechanic.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-09-18 23:08:34 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Sure. Reduce logi output, fly what you want to fly, but rest assured, there will be plenty of people who will simply bring more logi to compensate,

Reducing logi effectiveness reduces its fleet value. This causes other ships to be valued more in relation to it. If this were false, and your understanding true, then making logi extremely weak would cause players to bring fleets of almost purely logi.

Please either acknowledge the point, or explain your disagreement. Then we can move on with the discussion.

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."

Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2015-09-18 23:30:20 UTC
Logi is just very binary. If a fleets logi can't pull a ship back from the brink then it's likely so useless that you may as well put everyone in a DPS ship instead. That's the problem with just about every suggestion, if they're nerfed to the point that they aren't cockblocking enemy fleets then they're just going to be replaced wholesale a fleet.

Which brings up an interesting point. Would you rather fight against fleets with logi, or would you rather fight against fleets with a metric ton of EWAR to try to reduce the losses (and the SRP payouts because of it)? I remember some cases of pilots complaining about 20 minute lock times in 10% tidi, which I imagine is less fun than anything else.
Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
WE FORM V0LTA
#58 - 2015-09-18 23:34:17 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Sure. Reduce logi output, fly what you want to fly, but rest assured, there will be plenty of people who will simply bring more logi to compensate,

Reducing logi effectiveness reduces its fleet value. This causes other ships to be valued more in relation to it. If this were false, and your understanding true, then making logi extremely weak would cause players to bring fleets of almost purely logi.

Please either acknowledge the point, or explain your disagreement. Then we can move on with the discussion.


A fleet that cannot be killed is infinitely valuable. Even if you had to bring like 40% logi or more for peak effectiveness, especially large or dedicated entities would have little trouble doing so if it ensured an advantage. If they lack sufficient damage, they simply bring another full fleet consisting of 40% logi, now you can both inflict losses while not receiving any. Having a situation where it is impossible for one side to inflict losses is bad.

Say hello to the Red Queen. This would perpetuate a situation where you would need to bring increasing numbers of ships people may not want to fly just to be stay competitive.

Your proposed fix would just raise the logi bar for null, while making them impractical for lots of small gang scenarios.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Aven Valkyr
Reckless-Endangerment
Shoot First.
#59 - 2015-09-18 23:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Aven Valkyr
I haven't read the whole thread but I need to say something here.

As a logi pilot, -1 to this idea.

What about incursion pilots? by your standards you would need 5 - 6 logi pilots to compliment a fleet running vanguards that only rewards 10 - 11 players anyway. That would totally screw over the PVE community.

If CCP actually takes this post seriously, and I hope they don't, then all the things suggested here should only relate to PVP.

I don't know if you actually fly logi, but being a logi pilot is very demanding as it is. You can't always lock up the whole fleet. It takes a huge amount of actual pilot skill, and I'm not talking about SP. Having the overview working for you, watchlist up, fleet broadcasts open, having to orbit things, enabling AB's and support mods, launching drones to get on killmails, all while keeping the fleet alive is extremely taxing.

If any proposed nerfs actually go through, like reduced repair amount for additional cycles down to a certain limit, or limit how many modules we can fit, or anything that nerfs logi in some way, should also see some sort of buff, like the scimitar's remote tracking bonus or something. If they do any proposed nerfs, and the community is looking for a solution, then here is my proposal:

Add more logi boats to the game. Give them each some way of assisting the fleet in other ways in relation to the nerf. Give them all some sort of fleet assistance module, such as the scimi's remote tracking computers.

One way you could do this is by making it for PVP to have the proposed changes as stated in previous topics in this thread. As soon as a logi boat repairs someone on a criminal timer then the suggested nerfs happen. But then depending on the ship the other fleet assistance modules come up. A person could get very creative here. This topic is now getting lengthy but let me further clarify what I"m suggesting:

Make a global change where anyone trying to remote repair someone with a PVP timer has reduced cycle time, or can't repair as much on a gradual repair decrease. This is a GLOBAL thing for ALL logi boats. However, introduce a new class of "pvp" style logi boats. For example:

-Caldari PVP logi boat:
Caldari cruiser:
100% bonus to transfer range for remote shield and remote capacitor transmission modules per level
15% reduction in capacitor need for the activation of remote shield and remote capacitor transmission modules per level
Logistics:
50% bonus to range for remote ECCM modules per level
75% bonus to strength of remote ECCM modules per level
Role Bonus:
80% reduction in powergrid and CPU needs of remote shield and remote capacitor transmission modules
25% bonus to shield amount
50% bonus to gravimetric sensor strength

This is just an example. And please don't hate on it. My main point here is, if you are going to nerf logi, make the nerf apply to PVP ONLY. Leave PVE logistics alone. It's fine the way it is.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-09-19 02:16:24 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
A fleet that cannot be killed is infinitely valuable. Even if you had to bring like 40% logi or more for peak effectiveness,

There is no such thing as peak effectiveness, what matters is how many you're up against and for how long. Bringing more logi lets you sustain more damage, but bringing more shooty-ships lets you reduce the length of time you sustain damage.

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."