Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1937
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 03:21:58 -
[31] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote: Implement a mechanic which allows you to still have about 18 effective reps on a single target, that will cover any and all PvE activities in one go while limiting the living hell out of PvP related logi.
Also limit DPS on a target then. Otherwise all you are doing is keeping blobs strong. Note, I'm not opposed to limiting both as it forces squad commanders and wing commanders in fleets to take on active target calling roles for their squads and wings, rather than just one target for the entire fleet. But the two are intertwined, you can't change one without changing the other unless you want to utterly destroy the current Meta of EVE and hand mid sized blobs the same 'I win' button. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2046
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 04:27:41 -
[32] - Quote
Why should logistics not be nerfed in PVE? It's just as powerful in PVE as it is in PVP.
Also cruiser hulls get used absolutely everywhere, not just nullsec, largely because everything bigger than a cruiser is as slow as hell to move anywhere, can't relocate themselves effectively and can't hit cruisers worth a damn once they eventually arrive. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1005
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 04:33:43 -
[33] - Quote
The answer to logi is more and better AOE... this proposal is the answer to logi
Everyone sees bombs as an all or nothing tactic which I just dont get...
Imaging a bombing run throwing their entire fleet into half armor followed by a quick target switch to pop ship after ship until their logi gets things under control... you want to talk about a nightmare as a logi pilot? try seeing your broadcast window fill up with armor requests because your entire fleet is half armor. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15354
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 04:42:52 -
[34] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:baltec1 wrote:It is impossible for a smaller force to do damage to a larger one. Objectively true. However, one could also call into question at what numbers the game should be balanced around; what's perfectly balanced for small gang is, as this example points out, absurd for massive battles. It can go the other way too, obviously.
It doesnt matter what scale you talking the problem is at every level. Bring a critical mass of logi and if you cant break them the fight is pointless. This is the main reason why subcaps are useless vs wreckingball and boot fleet no matter how many you bring.
HTC NecoSino wrote:
Welcome to e-war. ECM and sensor damps make a logi pilot have a bad time.
Only damps work and even then it requires an entire fleet dedicated to the task so this means smaller alliances cant pull it off.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance
888
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:01:12 -
[35] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:baltec1 wrote:It is impossible for a smaller force to do damage to a larger one. Objectively true. However, one could also call into question at what numbers the game should be balanced around; what's perfectly balanced for small gang is, as this example points out, absurd for massive battles. It can go the other way too, obviously. It doesnt matter what scale you talking the problem is at every level. Bring a critical mass of logi and if you cant break them the fight is pointless. This is the main reason why subcaps are useless vs wreckingball and boot fleet no matter how many you bring. So, the problem isn't logi, it's N+1. That has always been the problem. If you nerf logi, it wont matter, because smaller groups won't be able to hurt bigger ones because the bigger ones will have more firepower to blap the smaller force first:
It's the basic principle behind the predator/prey ecosystem.
baltec1 wrote:HTC NecoSino wrote:
Welcome to e-war. ECM and sensor damps make a logi pilot have a bad time.
Only damps work and even then it requires an entire fleet dedicated to the task so this means smaller alliances cant pull it off. A handful of T1 Maulus, fitted for less than 3m isk, can screw over a dozen logi ships. That's hardly beyond a small alliance.
Friends
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15361
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:22:52 -
[36] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: So, the problem isn't logi, it's N+1. That has always been the problem. If you nerf logi, it wont matter, because smaller groups won't be able to hurt bigger ones because the bigger ones will have more firepower to blap the smaller force first:
It's the basic principle behind the predator/prey ecosystem.
The goal isnt to make the smaller fleet win fights vs bigger fleets of equal skill, its to allow them to at least cause damage to said bigger fleet.
Hakan MacTrew wrote: A handful of T1 Maulus, fitted for less than 3m isk, can screw over a dozen logi ships. That's hardly beyond a small alliance.
They die in seconds when the enemy FC orders free fire on them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:34:19 -
[37] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Ohh you Megatron blob loving person. Logi is ok, it's much more fun when reps are holding :) in small/med sized gangs. Than just die in few seconds.
Yes, Logi is fine. Logi doesn't need a nerf, at all. It's extremely fun when reps hold in fleet vs fleet battles, and the determining factor is things like good FCing (target switching), E-war, enemy making mistakes, etc. And of course, the Logi heroes' don't get on killmails, so Logi should be a fun, powerful, and rewarding role to fly. Please everyone shut up about nerfing Logi. You are so wrong.
As for the OP, that's utterly ridiculous....
"Bombers currently own Battleships, leading to nobody using Battleships... so let's make Bombers own cruisers as well."
This is borderline insane. Is this a troll thread?
Please let this thread die, it's full of some of the worst ideas I've read in a while. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1014
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:21:01 -
[38] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Ohh you Megatron blob loving person. Logi is ok, it's much more fun when reps are holding :) in small/med sized gangs. Than just die in few seconds. Yes, Logi is fine. Logi doesn't need a nerf, at all. It's extremely fun when reps hold in fleet vs fleet battles, and the determining factor is things like good FCing (target switching), E-war, enemy making mistakes, etc. And of course, the Logi heroes' don't get on killmails, so Logi should be a fun, powerful, and rewarding role to fly. Please everyone shut up about nerfing Logi. You are so wrong. As for the OP, that's utterly ridiculous.... "Bombers currently own Battleships, leading to nobody using Battleships... so let's make Bombers own cruisers as well." This is borderline insane. Is this a troll thread? Please let this thread die, it's full of some of the worst ideas I've read in a while. Ok, allow me to summarize so you can understand... nobody uses battleships because cruisers are 80% as good, are far more mobile, and arent vulnerable to bombers which means they still get to use the same brainless no-effort tactics they used to use with battleships.
If you make it so that cruisers are also vulnerable when using brainless no-effort tactics then maybe ship size will be less of an issue and tactics will come into play again. |
Helios Panala
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:00:16 -
[39] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The answer to logi is more and better AOE... this proposal is the answer to logi Everyone sees bombs as an all or nothing tactic which I just dont get... Imaging a bombing run throwing their entire fleet into half armor followed by a quick target switch to pop ship after ship until their logi gets things under control... you want to talk about a nightmare as a logi pilot? try seeing your broadcast window fill up with armor requests because your entire fleet is half armor.
Not just AoE, damage over time, ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, all sorts of stuff. More stuff going off would nerf logi through raising the skill requirement of being a logi pilot without being some gimmicky hard limit on effectiveness.
Back on topic, bombers... short spool up time on the bomb launcher to give an attentive escort wing time to shoot a few down and reduce the incoming bomb wave maybe? |
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:21:09 -
[40] - Quote
Sigras wrote:[quote=Reina Xyaer][ Ok, allow me to summarize so you can understand... nobody uses battleships because cruisers are 80% as good, are far more mobile, and arent vulnerable to bombers which means they still get to use the same brainless no-effort tactics they used to use with battleships.
If you make it so that cruisers are also vulnerable when using brainless no-effort tactics then maybe ship size will be less of an issue and tactics will come into play again.
How about nerf bombers?
What exactly are you calling "brainless no-effort tactics"? An enemy cruiser fleet with logi?
Since I don't live or fly in 0.0 anymore, I'm not sure what this situation with bombs is about... but I'm assuming the situation is that bombs currently own Battleships because BSs are slow and have a huge sig radius, so they can't escape bomb damage, and the damage hits them for the full amount...
While cruisers are faster and have a much smaller sig radius so they can both fly out of bomb explosion radius, and the damage hits them less hard anyway.
Is this the case?
If so, I agree that a change needs made to somehow make Battleships more resistant to bombs, or make bombs weaker, or something... but adding a new type of bomb that owns cruisers just as hard? Yea, no. You must be a bomber's bar alt right?
|
|
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:25:26 -
[41] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote: ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, all sorts of stuff.
Helios Panala wrote: some gimmicky hard limit on effectiveness.
Really? You think an ammo type that "reduces the effectiveness of remote reps" isn't a gimmick?
There's already ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, it's called all ammo... i.e. doing damage.
|
Helios Panala
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:49:47 -
[42] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:Helios Panala wrote: ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, all sorts of stuff.
Helios Panala wrote: some gimmicky hard limit on effectiveness.
Really? You think an ammo type that "reduces the effectiveness of remote reps" isn't a gimmick? There's already ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, it's called all ammo... i.e. doing damage.
Reducing or increasing the effectiveness of all sorts of things via special weapon effects is quite an old idea that's been used in many games before. It's not even a new concept for Eve specifically, although the existing effects are obviously much less dramatic. Mostly related to optimals and tracking and such. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1014
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:51:42 -
[43] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:Sigras wrote:Ok, allow me to summarize so you can understand... nobody uses battleships because cruisers are 80% as good, are far more mobile, and arent vulnerable to bombers which means they still get to use the same brainless no-effort tactics they used to use with battleships.
If you make it so that cruisers are also vulnerable when using brainless no-effort tactics then maybe ship size will be less of an issue and tactics will come into play again. How about nerf bombers? What exactly are you calling "brainless no-effort tactics"? An enemy cruiser fleet with logi? The "brainless no-effort tactics" I speak of is hearing an FC say "everyone orbit anchor"
Here's a thought, if all your ships are not in the exact same place, they're more resistant to bombs!
Instead of one big ball flying around together pressing F1 at the same time we should see alternative tactics emerge. Right now there is no reason for cruiser fleets to split up, and every reason for them to ball up. |
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:00:01 -
[44] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Reina Xyaer wrote:Helios Panala wrote: ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, all sorts of stuff.
Helios Panala wrote: some gimmicky hard limit on effectiveness.
Really? You think an ammo type that "reduces the effectiveness of remote reps" isn't a gimmick? There's already ammo that reduces the effectiveness of remote reps, it's called all ammo... i.e. doing damage. Reducing or increasing the effectiveness of all sorts of things via special weapon effects is quite an old idea that's been used in many games before. It's not even a new concept for Eve specifically, although the existing effects are obviously much less dramatic. Mostly related to optimals and tracking and such.
Dude what are you talking about??
Yea we already have modules that reduce optimal range and tracking, those are called Tracking Disruptors.
This thread is making me physically ill from all the horrible ideas and whining about logi.
I'm literally starting to shake with rage. Holy ****. Are you trolling me?
Ammo that reduces the effectiveness of repair modules.... I.E AMMO... I.E. DAMAGE... I.E. THE MORE DAMAGE YOU DO, THE LESS HP IS REPAIRED.
You want ammo that... when you shoot a target with it, that target get's -50% hp repaired from remote reps? For how long? Does it stack? Or does one ship in your fleet just have to shoot each enemy once, and they're all getting -50% remote rep for 5 minutes? 10 minutes?
Please...
I can't even...
I just have nothing else to say, except I think this is a god-awful idea. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:12:38 -
[45] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:baltec1 wrote: Logi needs to be nerfed for many reasons.
like? It is impossible for a smaller force to do damage to a larger one.
actually wrong, you add RR bottleneck a smaller forces will get melted by unstacked DPS / volley of larger forces.
the larger forces is still bottlenecked by EHP.
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:31:55 -
[46] - Quote
I think we need two things: the first is a hard counter to bombers, and the second is an expansion of fitting options for heavy ships based around damage application.
Hard counter - I'm picturing a destroyer module that lobs depth charges. Either it's a medium sized explosion sphere device useful when a picket trolls around at 30+ km from the most likely fleet targets, or it could be a launcher that fires high speed probes in random directions.
Another option is simply to give exploration frigates the ability to pull up cloaked ships by combat probing, though not on d-scan. Knowing that an imicus is gunning for you is going to make a lot of bomber fleets hesitant to wait around for the best shot. That would even be reasonably good gameplay.
Heavy ship damage application - We need a tier of turrets to match the abilities of the rapid tiers of launchers. These will have reduced target sig (<400m), maybe half-way between the existing gap between large and medium turrets as well as improved tracking. As an example, this will give an excellent hit rate on battlecruisers (195-305m), and improved hit rates against cruiser sized hulls (~125m), perhaps even logi (75m). Perhaps they could even be rapid fire weapons themselves, utilizing medium or small ammo. It's really important that they do less damage to large hulls than standard size weapons. It might also be necessary to make webs rely on falloff instead of optimal to compensate the lighter ship meta. |
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1257
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:15:25 -
[47] - Quote
This whole thread is terrible. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15412
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:07:58 -
[48] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
actually wrong, you add RR bottleneck a smaller forces will get melted by unstacked DPS / volley of larger forces. and still do essentially no damage to a larger force.
the larger forces is still bottlenecked by EHP.
Which is better?
Your fleet getting wiped out for zero kills in return.
Your fleet getting wiped out but taking down an equal number of ships from the other side.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1621
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:52:09 -
[49] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:
actually wrong, you add RR bottleneck a smaller forces will get melted by unstacked DPS / volley of larger forces. and still do essentially no damage to a larger force.
the larger forces is still bottlenecked by EHP.
Which is better? Your fleet getting wiped out for zero kills in return. Your fleet getting wiped out but taking down an equal number of ships from the other side.
Equally irrelevant.
If both side SRP, then the side with the biggest war chest "win" as they can trade those losses far longer.
If only the large side has SRP, then the small side both lost the battle and their pilot have to grind ship back.
If for some ******** reason the small side SRP while the larger one don't, then the larger side loses have to be grinded back but the larger fleet is still likely to still be bigger for the next engagement.
"We wont the ISK war" when you lose an engagement is just as stupid as "didn't want that X anyway" unless you have the financial means to outlast your enemy across losses. Too bad the smaller fleet is more than likely not the soviet union of WWII with more ressources (manpower and material) to throw at the problem than the other side.
Winning the ISK war will only keep a group motivated for so long anyway. "We lost the field for the 50th time in a row but still wont eh ISK war!!! Let's just forget about our warchest being completely dry by now while they just SRP all the losses we inflict to them." |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15413
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:12:36 -
[50] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:
actually wrong, you add RR bottleneck a smaller forces will get melted by unstacked DPS / volley of larger forces. and still do essentially no damage to a larger force.
the larger forces is still bottlenecked by EHP.
Which is better? Your fleet getting wiped out for zero kills in return. Your fleet getting wiped out but taking down an equal number of ships from the other side. Equally irrelevant. If both side SRP, then the side with the biggest war chest "win" as they can trade those losses far longer. If only the large side has SRP, then the small side both lost the battle and their pilot have to grind ship back. If for some ******** reason the small side SRP while the larger one don't, then the larger side loses have to be grinded back but the larger fleet is still likely to still be bigger for the next engagement. "We wont the ISK war" when you lose an engagement is just as stupid as "didn't want that X anyway" unless you have the financial means to outlast your enemy across losses. Too bad the smaller fleet is more than likely not the soviet union of WWII with more ressources (manpower and material) to throw at the problem than the other side. Winning the ISK war will only keep a group motivated for so long anyway. "We lost the field for the 50th time in a row but still wont eh ISK war!!! Let's just forget about our warchest being completely dry by now while they just SRP all the losses we inflict to them."
Better than what we have now.
Right now if you cant break their logi then you don't undock, meaning fewer fights. I'll take dying in a ball of thunder dragging as many enemies down with me over blueballs any day.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1103
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:20:15 -
[51] - Quote
i would think nerfing the bomb sig radius too something like 500 would help battleships out
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1103
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:21:47 -
[52] - Quote
would definitely help the ease of sig tanking but also reducing the dps of some cruisers would help here also.. perhaps reducing T2 resists would help push towards buffer over logi + resists+ sig radius
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1014
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:55:50 -
[53] - Quote
So the feeling I'm getting in this thread is that instead of promoting tactics that encourage fleets to split up into smaller units to move independently, most people would rather just orbit anchor and press F1?
No diversity, no independent thought, no tactics, no creativity, just orbit anchor and take fleet warp?
How is that not insanely boring? |
Sigras
Conglomo
1020
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 07:10:13 -
[54] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:actually wrong, you add RR bottleneck a smaller forces will get melted by unstacked DPS / volley of larger forces. and still do essentially no damage to a larger force.
the larger forces is still bottlenecked by EHP. Which is better? Your fleet getting wiped out for zero kills in return. Your fleet getting wiped out but taking down an equal number of ships from the other side. Equally irrelevant. If both side SRP, then the side with the biggest war chest "win" as they can trade those losses far longer. If only the large side has SRP, then the small side both lost the battle and their pilot have to grind ship back. If for some ******** reason the small side SRP while the larger one don't, then the larger side loses have to be grinded back but the larger fleet is still likely to still be bigger for the next engagement. "We wont the ISK war" when you lose an engagement is just as stupid as "didn't want that X anyway" unless you have the financial means to outlast your enemy across losses. Too bad the smaller fleet is more than likely not the soviet union of WWII with more ressources (manpower and material) to throw at the problem than the other side. Winning the ISK war will only keep a group motivated for so long anyway. "We lost the field for the 50th time in a row but still wont eh ISK war!!! Let's just forget about our warchest being completely dry by now while they just SRP all the losses we inflict to them." Better than what we have now. Right now if you cant break their logi then you don't undock, meaning fewer fights. I'll take dying in a ball of thunder dragging as many enemies down with me over blueballs any day. As I have said before, AOE is the answer to logistics that you're looking for. Unless you have a crack logistics team they're going to get distracted with the massive broadcast storm an effective bombing run would cause and the lesser side will have a chance to bring in some kills. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |