Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nac Lac
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Destructive interference is where two or more signals are phased just right to diminish the signals. This is the basis for noise cancelling headphones. How does this relate to EVE? It already does. Each additional ewar module is less effective than the first. The net effect with two or more modules is greater than one but not doubled.
So, Logistics. Each ship should, scaling by size, receive stacking penalties for received reps to bring them in line with all other remote effects; neuts should get similar treatment as well. A moving window, of say 4 seconds or less, would calculate the maximum rep received and lower the rest by an increasing penalty. So, a rep of 10 followed by one of 1000, the 10 would be full strength but the large rep would be decreased by a penalty based on the 10. So the total rep value would be, 10 + 999 = 1009, instead of the 1010 originally. A rep of 1000 then 10 would be, 1000 + 9 = 1009, the same amount. The rolling window is to ensure high skilled players aren't being neutered by lower sp pilots or swarms of t1 logi frigates making a carrier's reps so penalized, the carrier should have stayed docked.
My thought is for each ship size module to increase interference on targets smaller than its intended size. So capital reps would have a tiny penalty on capitals but reps would be less effective on battleships, and worthless on a frigate. Large reps would function almost as normal on battleships and above but result in less for cruisers and below.
Previous attempts to reduce repair potency have focused on the offensive side, either with a logistic disruptor or reducing resists. By focusing on the reps themselves, you don't remove the effectiveness of repairs, just massed repairs. That titan with its own cost in modules won't lose 1 ehp. The same number of ships to alpha it down stays the same. But the dps needed to kill it drops substantially. In some cases from impossible to just within spitting distance. All ships get a place, not just alpha doctrines and their handful of support ship types.
As a result, small gang logistics is almost untouched, not likely to have more than 1 or 2 logi per side. Fleet battles with proper communication will notice the difference; while mismanagement will lead to utter ruin. Note I didn't give many numbers as to the stacking penalties. With my lack of experience in large scale combat, I didn't feel I could figure out a good starting point, since the difference in a few percentage points of reps can mean everything.
Attrition should be a thing in large fights. Two equal fleets should maul each other, not maintain a balance before tumbling to one side crushing the other with few losses. Now, this post might be entirely borne of goon propaganda and reading too many articles on the mittani.com. So, if I am being an unwitting goon pawn or misinterpreting the news on large scale null fights, I apologize and offer a free ship to anyone if they dock a pod in an empty station. Basically, please think of the idea, not the exact numbers. The interference idea seems almost usable, if not a nightmare to code. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1
. In fact, I believe that except for DPS delivery, all cumulated effects, even from different ships, should follow the rules of the modules stacking,and this applies as well to the logistics effect you allude to. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Leyete Wulf
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 13:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
+1
Actually, I think applied damage should have a stacking penalty as well. I believe a meta where fleets benefit from spreading out their efforts to be superior to the 'all guns on my target' meta. Once you have more than a a squad or two of pilots firing on one target you've effectively eliminated any chance for individual decision making having an impact on the outcome of big fights. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
193
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1
Great idea. A buff to small gangs is a buff to Eve.
CCP won't do it, though. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1128
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 18:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Reps are negative damage.
Other question, are local rep stacking penalized? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
665
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 18:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
I am actually good with stacking penalties to every effect, including damage. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1701
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 19:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
So what happens to a guardian with 5 remote reps? What happens to logi drones which are in no way over powered?
The idea would have to balanced by reducing the number of reps per ship/drone but buffing each repper to 4-5 times it amount. and even then the idea is still crap as two logi with two wings of logi drones suffer huge stacking penalties.
No from me. Does eve even know how to apply stacking penalties to absolute amounts like damage?
@ Phaade. How is this a buff to small gangs? How does changing the logi chars to dps and falcons change the outcome in favour of a smaller gang? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
630
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 21:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
so essentially you are asking to make incursions impossible to run.... as there are frequently occasions where more than 2 logi are required to save members of the team, this is what I am forced to conclude your goal is. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Nac Lac
Vicis Inter Astrum I'd Rather Be Roaming
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 00:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
You misunderstood. The stacking penalty is not a huge percentage, not at first. In fact, I'd say at bare minimum, incursions should be the baseline before penalties start. Keep in mind this is for 1000 man fleet fights. Where you have 50 logi on one target, at least.
Additionally, you have to keep in mind intended targets. Only by going down in size do you lose effectiveness. Incursion guardians are using med/large reps on cruisers and battleships. No loss of rep there. I'm talking about carriers repping battleships, about fleet battles where each side has a fleet of just logi. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |