EVE Search - MAKE Remote Rep mods stackable...

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

MAKE Remote Rep mods stackable...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
lloyd bank	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:19:00 - [1] Edited by: lloyd bank on 08/06/2011 20:28:50 would there be a way to make RR stackable so that you cant have impenetrable turtle tanks? an idea would be make them size variable... so you can only have so many rr drones before the next one becomes useless... the same would be for small medium large and capital rr mods... So example: after 5 capital rr's the 6th only gives like 25 hp per cycle...
daddys helper	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:23:00 - [2] Edited by: daddys helper on 08/06/2011 20:25:26 stacked neuts? last time I checked RR needs a lot of power jamming? last time I checked RR's need to target the recipient as long as you can counter it there's no need to change it, only a need to change how you deal with it. also, repping multiple targets is a good use of reppers, so if the repper is repping 5 ships, should the 5th get fractional repps?
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:28:00 - [3] 1. You mean "Please Give Remote Rep mods a stacking penalty." 2. You posted in the wrong forum section.
lloyd bank	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:31:00 - [4] Originally by: Sig Sour 1. You mean "Please Give Remote Rep mods a stacking penalty." 2. You posted in the wrong forum section. 1. FIXED... 2. YEAH... fetures and ideas for it to die right or ships and mods? cuss GD is filled with on topic subjects right?
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:33:00 - [5] Originally by: lloyd bank 2. YEAH... fetures and ideas for it to die right Yep
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:37:00 - [6] Originally by: lloyd bank 1. FIXED... Also you did not fix it. Stacking and stacking penalties are different.
VoiceInTheDesert Inroads	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:42:00 - [7] Lemme see if I can translate this post: "I couldn't break the triple guardian setup my opponent's gang had and I think I should have been able to. They need to be nerfed because I can't be bothered to learn new tactics beyond "scam, point, F1." I don't know why you would want to take away an element of the game essential to medium-large fleet fights. Unless, of course, my translation is accurate.
lloyd bank	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Sig Sour Originally by: lloyd bank 1. FIXED... Also you did not fix it. Stacking and stacking penalties are different. ah jeez... ok take 3?
lloyd bank	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:47:00 - [9] Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert Lemme see if I can translate this post: "I couldn't break the triple guardian setup my opponent's gang had and I think I should have been able to. They need to be nerfed because I can't be bothered to learn new tactics beyond "scam, point, F1." I don't know why you would want to take away an element of the game essential to medium-large fleet fights. Unless, of course, my translation is accurate. no not at all... its more of a omg drake fleets with 12 guardians or turtle SC fleets that are making this game vanilia... plus i think large fleets back in 2006-2007 with max dps setups were lots more fun then the current turtle tanks that we see all over the place...
Last Wolf Umbra Wing	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:49:00 - [10] Last I checked... RR were SUPPOSED to make a target HARD to kill. If they didn't do that they would be pointless. How about you stop shooting the target that has 200 RR on it and shoot something else? Oh wait... that would require thinking. Maybe we should make MWD only give 5% speed increase... It's too hard to catch a ship that is going fast! Oh no you don't! Incoming witty reply, ETA: 300 seconds!
lloyd bank	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:52:00 - [11] Originally by: Last Wolf Last I checked... RR were SUPPOSED to make a target HARD to kill. If they didn't do that they would be pointless. How about you stop shooting the target that has 200 RR on it and shoot something else? Oh wait... that would require thinking. Maybe we should make MWD only give 5% speed increase... It's too hard to catch a ship that is going fast! the only counter to rr is to bring rr... its like the only counter to SC is to bring more sc... does not leave to much for independant thought... but if rr had "stacking penalties" then yeah a ship would be harder to kill... but it would still go down... just slowly... the very fact that there is 200 rr on a single ship is a problem in my books... but alas flame on
oprime Long Term Evolution	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:53:00 - [12] Remote repping is perfectly fine the way it is. Also remote reps are already 50% that of local reps. IF any type of stacking penalty should be placed it should be on local. Also just because you can't kill a ship solo with a guardian repping it shouldn't mean it needs to be nerf'd. Remember that this is a MMO and with that you should be playing with others. I primary fly logistics and can tell you that remote repping can be easily broken with alpha. 3~4 high alpha battleships can still easily kill a cruiser with 4 reps on it. That is if the cruiser pilot is dumb and doesn't know how to use traversal. For example a few months ago I lost a zealot to a 20 man Romanian legion drake fleet in stain. I was in a zealot/guardian a-hac roaming fleet. Even tho I had 2 guardians repping me the enemy drake fleet still killed me. It took them 2 tries (and a few of their logi) but they still got me :P. Good times...
Mister Smithington	Posted - 2011.06.08 20:55:00 - [13] Edited by: Mister Smithington on 08/06/2011 20:57:09 Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Originally by: lloyd bank the only counter to rr is to bring rr... Nooooooooooooo. . . as stated earlier to counter to remote reps is ECM and cap drain. Not a huge deal since most roaming ships anymore have ECM drones and a utility nuet.
Joss56 Gallente Unleashed' Fury	Posted - 2011.06.08 21:03:00 - [14] Originally by: lloyd bank would there be a way to make RR stackable (by this i mean stacking penalties) so that you cant have impenetrable turtle tanks? an idea would be make them size variable... so you can only have so many rr drones before the next one becomes useless... the same would be for small medium large and capital rr mods... So example: after 5 capital rr's the 6th only gives like 25 hp per cycle... It's a very bad idea, however those should have limits on the number you can fit in other ship class than logistics. It's ridiculous at the point that a single carrier can neut you and rep several bs's at the same time making logistics pointless when they're single target worthy. A single carrier shouldn't be able to fit more than 2 reps has not more than 2 neut and so give back the logistics the importance they should have. Want to have fun? -bring some Aeons or Archons and a full fleet of Bhaalgorns, the fun is how fast you can gtfo or much Titans/Supers you need to outnumber those before they spank your ass. It's no match almost, ridiculous. (Jumped in to small fleet of those on sisi...) ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.08 21:09:00 - [15] Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Feligast Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.06.08 21:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic Yes. Because supercaps should never, ever, ever die.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.08 21:26:00 - [17] Originally by: Feligast Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic Yes. Because supercaps should never, ever, ever die. It's not an "all or nothing" thing. There are many ways it can be implemented. And there's no reason why supercap HP (and other large HP amounts) couldn't be drastically reduced once this might get implemented. Nobody says you HAVE to apply the same stack-nerf coefficients as for regular modules (can be much more lenient or much harsher), nor that the stack-nerfing has to be on a per module damage/repair source instead of a per-source-ship basis (it makes more sense to make it on a per-ship basis), and last but not least, stack-nerf coefficients could just as well be variable depending on hull size of shooter vs hull size of target (so it would make sense to bring quite a few smaller ships into the fight, to supplement the damage dealt to larger craft). _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
lloyd bank	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:15:00 - [18] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 08/06/2011 21:41:58 Originally by: Feligast Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic Yes. Because supercaps should never, ever, ever die. It's not an "all or nothing" thing. There are many ways it can be implemented. And there's no reason why supercap HP (and other large HP amounts) couldn't be drastically reduced once this might get implemented. Nobody says you HAVE to apply the same stack-nerf coefficients as for regular modules (can be much more lenient or much harsher), nor that the stack-nerfing has to be on a per module damage/repair source instead of a per-source-ship basis (it makes more sense to make it on a per-ship basis), and last but not least, stack-nerf coefficients could just as well be variable depending on hull size of shooter/repairer vs hull size of target (so it would make sense to bring quite a few smaller ships into the fight, to supplement the damage dealt to larger craft). Obviously, the stack-nerf coefficients would be different for shooting vs for repairing, to promote whatever the heck it is you want to promote (if anything). Would it be oh so horrible to, say, get a supercap that dies in more or less the same amount of time as now to 20 enemies, but only if the enemy fleet is composed of, say, 2 supercaps, 3 BSs, 5 BCs and 10 cruisers or smaller ? And if you bring more supercaps instead of something else, you get a slower kill ? Or maybe even get sieged dreads an exemption from the stack-nerfing ? There's so many things you CAN do, you're only limited by your imagination and the final effect you wish to encourage. is it worng for me to love you oh and this.
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:17:00 - [19] NARF TEAMWORK IN MULTIPLAYER GAMES ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:22:00 - [20] Originally by: Patient 2428190 NARF TEAMWORK IN MULTIPLAYER GAMES ^^ That -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Saint Lazarus Pwn 'N Play Chaos Theory Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:27:00 - [21] Edited by: Saint Lazarus on 08/06/2011 22:27:07 I endorse this idea as soon as they implement stacking penalties for incoming dmg if 5 guys pewpew you then the 6th guy should only do 0.0000000000001% of the dmg Originally by: lloyd bank no not at all... its more of a omg drake fleets with 12 guardians Also am I really the only one who noticed this? boooo EvE-O forums boo ----------------- My EvE Comic
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic imagine, under your fictional scenario, that you have ten thousand people shooting a single target, and ten thousand people repping it. who should win? _____________________ Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:54:00 - [23] Edited by: Akita T on 08/06/2011 22:54:48 Originally by: Chaos Incarnate imagine, under your fictional scenario, that you have ten thousand people shooting a single target, and ten thousand people repping it. who should win? The same people that would win if the scenario would be 20 vs 20 instead of 10k vs 10k In other words, either one, or even stalemate, depending on many factors other than just pure numbers / pure alpha. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Mister Smithington	Posted - 2011.06.08 22:54:00 - [24] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic imagine, under your fictional scenario, that you have ten thousand people shooting a single target, and ten thousand people repping it. who should win? Uh? Realistically? Whoever was on grid first :/
Messy Beaver	Posted - 2011.06.08 23:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Mister Smithington Making remote reps have stacking penalties makes about as much sense as making weapon systems have stacking penalties. The only way it would be balanced for the second repper on a target to be less effective is if the second gun (or group of guns) is less effective as well. Well, why not ? It would certainly make for an ahem interesting blob-must-spread-fire tactic imagine, under your fictional scenario, that you have ten thousand people shooting a single target, and ten thousand people repping it. who should win? The hamsters
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.06.08 23:05:00 - [26] The best counter for RR is to bring alpha fleets. You can't rep something that's dead on the first cycle. Alternately, shoot the correct targets first: ECM -> Logistics -> Everything else. Why are people still shooting at 60k EHP drakes when there are 30k EHP scimitars/basilisks still on the field? A decent counter for RR drones on the other hand? Good old YF-12s. Anyone who has seen Clear Skies 3 knows that you use smart bombs to counter (sleeper) drones :P -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.08 23:08:00 - [27] Well, IDEALLY (a.k.a. "never actually going to happen"), we would have no need for any kind of stack-nerfs for either repair or damage, and would instead get formation flying (a much longer range bump replacement with some attraction in the mix), bump damage (for those not flying in formation, or for those risking a very tight formation and making some reckless maneouvers), line-of-sight damage/repair effects, shots that miss able to hit somebody else (be it enemy or friendly), non-boolean target locking - lock quality depending on concentration of ships around the target (less penalties for fleet members around), ability to fire at any time (at drastically reduced accuracy for very bad lock quality) and so on and so forth. But like I said... unlikely to ever happen, so might as well make due with whatever is realistically likely to be feasible under the current EVE universe simulation rules. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Llilit	Posted - 2011.06.08 23:18:00 - [28] Originally by: Mara Rinn The best counter for RR is to bring alpha fleets. You can't rep something that's dead on the first cycle. Alternately, shoot the correct targets first: ECM -> Logistics -> Everything else. Why are people still shooting at 60k EHP drakes when there are 30k EHP scimitars/basilisks still on the field? A decent counter for RR drones on the other hand? Good old YF-12s. Anyone who has seen Clear Skies 3 knows that you use smart bombs to counter (sleeper) drones :P Somewhat this. Gank still beats tank so blob up. I've done 3 man Guardian spiders, I've done 3 man Thanatos and Nyx. The Guardians are easy. Break locks. Thanatos require you yo have Super caps. Super Cap Spider tanks dont die. Simple. Just log out and move on.
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2011.06.08 23:30:00 - [29] Originally by: Mister Smithington Uh? Realistically? Whoever was on grid first :/ assuming, ofc, that there is no lag and everyone is loaded and ready to go before the shooting starts. And the server/internet/everything can handle it. Ideal conditions. Originally by: Akita T The same people that would win if the scenario would be 20 vs 20 instead of 10k vs 10k In other words, either one, or even stalemate, depending on many factors other than just pure numbers / pure alpha. the problem is that by stacknerfing both damage and reps, YOU have decided to override all the other factors, dependent upon how the two scale relative to each other if damage outdoes repping, no ship can ever be saved no matter how much repping you have (sucks to be a logi pilot, heh.) if reps outdo damage, no ship can ever be killed (so long as it can absorb the alpha...which would probably also be stacknerfed, so basically no one would ever die) Balancing the two such that they're even roughly balanced against each other would be like trying to balance a bowling ball on the point of a needle, and even if you did you'd likely wind up with a number of unkillable fits based on players figuring out the math and exploiting it in short, it's a very bad idea. The current situation works fine, imho; RR fleets can be countered with jamming, bombs, alpha fleets. _____________________ Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like.
Syberbolt8 Gallente Swallows And Amazons AAA Citizens	Posted - 2011.06.08 23:38:00 - [30] http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1524696 Double post using an alt?

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.