| 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? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 23:53:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Akita T on 08/06/2011 23:55:32
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
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.
It's a bit of the "chicken and egg" thing going on here.
On one hand, the damage and repair figures are already pretty arbitrary to begin with.
The exact same argument could be made for just a single ship on either side and self-repair capabilities.
And anything that gives a reason to NOT blob so much could be viewed as something positive.
Afterall, you're not doing much but artificially scaling down the maximum size of an effective force applied against a single target, be it for assistance or hostile purposes.
On the other hand, you have a point, it does mess with the existing balance.
And it could be incredibly difficult to balance.
However, when in doubt, you can always just err on the side of destruction - have it balanced in such a way that JUST supercaps fighting supercaps will ALWAYS end up in a stalemate, but as soon as you add in a sizeable smaller ship force, a force made up of just supercaps will always LOSE to the fleet that's composed of many vessel sizes.
I would argue that this "upset balance" would actually be far more beneficial than the one we're having right now.
P.S. Heck, you could even apply stack-nerfing JUST for capital ships, or even just for supercapital ships.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 00:55:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Akita T
On one hand, the damage and repair figures are already pretty arbitrary to begin with.
Certainly, but it's not the numbers i'm concerned with, it's the scaling.
Quote:
The exact same argument could be made for just a single ship on either side and self-repair capabilities.
sure, but solo self-rep setups usually aren't cap stable in PvP without boosting (so they die eventually), whereas remote reps are easy to permarun with cap chains.
Quote:
And anything that gives a reason to NOT blob so much could be viewed as something positive.
People blob because they want to win and they hate losing. Not much is going to change that; even in games with literally no penalties for loss, people clump together and blob
Quote:
P.S. Heck, you could even apply stack-nerfing JUST for capital ships, or even just for supercapital ships.
there are better and more sensible ways to deal with supercaps vs subcap issues imho
_____________________
Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 01:18:00 -
[33]
I think applying a stacking penalty to RR would be excellent for the game. RR currently stacks so well, that when two 100+ size fleets engage each other, the winning side often holds the field with relatively few losses. Local reps are obsolete in fleet battles, as resistance+buffer+RR is the only option for surviving fleet assaults. When you have two large fleets engaging each other, you SHOULD have lots of losses on both sides!!!! It would make situational awareness in fleet fights much more important, and it would make assessing how well your fleet is doing a lot more than "are remote reps holding"....
I think balancing this would require a lot of analysis and work, and probably involve altering the resistences and buffers of various ships. It would be worthwhile, especially if it brought local reps back into PvP. You would also have to boost nullsec resources to deal with the extra carnage!
While you could apply a stacking penalty to reps, I don't think you can apply it to Damage:
EWAR can be stacked because it changes a specific mostly static attribute on a ship (Sig size, tracking speed, number of locks, etc). Since reps and damage are applied from different sources at random times, to apply a stacking penalties, you would have to alter the RATE OF CHANGE of HP. The most implementable option is to just nerf the reps in the order they arrive (1rst rep is full, 2nd is 90%, 3rd is whatever%...) during every 5s window (reps typically have a 4-5s duration). You can prevent exploitation by making the stacking penalty size dependent (small/med/large/cap). This option just doesn't work for dps, as dps comes in too many varieties based on size/ship/skils/ammo... Since turrets fire in 1-40s intervals, applying a stacking penalty to dps is just not implementable!
The major drawback to this, is people would be less willing to bring expensive toys to a fight.... As the chances of their death would be significantly increased!
|
Shieko Chan
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 01:51:00 -
[34]
Because - you can't find anyone to rep you? Yes, since that's all the are good for, by all means, let's make logistics ships worth less.
While we're at it why not nerf reppers across the board.
In case you missed the sarcasm, I hate the idea.
|
Monstress
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 03:29:00 -
[35]
Originally by: lloyd bank
the only counter to rr is to bring rr...
This is where I stopped reading. I suggest you all do the same.
|
Mspaine
Amarr
Knights of Solitude
Knights of the Rising Phoenix
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 07:05:00 -
[36]
fleet of 5 RR ships.
2 falcons can destroy all 5.
RR ships HAVE to be in constant communication with eachother. They can compensate if they have the numbers (5 MINAMUM - and they cant be noob at RR they have to be experienced).
Jam up two - you destroy their unlimited power chain.
Capitals in Triage? L2 Bring more Nutes imo if you know your'e facing an experienced RR team.
p.s Lockbreaker bombs. Are so under-used.
|
salty Milk
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 08:37:00 -
[37]
yeah and give weapons stacking penalty too :interrobang:
|
N'tek alar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 08:42:00 -
[38]
Originally by: lloyd bank
the only counter to rr is to bring rr...
Yeah, Totally.
Except....
ECM
Neuts
Rapid Target switching
High Alpha setups
And probably a bunch more that i'm missing. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 09:58:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
there are better and more sensible ways to deal with supercaps vs subcap issues imho
Yeah, but very few have a similar ragequit tear potential 
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
lloyd bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 13:52:00 -
[40]
Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: lloyd bank
the only counter to rr is to bring rr...
Yeah, Totally.
Except....
ECM
Neuts
Rapid Target switching
High Alpha setups
And probably a bunch more that i'm missing.
yeah but you still need to bring simular amouts of rr to use any of those...
|
Savage Angel
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 13:59:00 -
[41]
Ever fought sleepers?
Besides, as many have said, there are counters already for RR in PvP.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 14:53:00 -
[42]
Originally by: lloyd bank
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...
Let's make a bet. 100 mill ISK from you to me for every counter I can think up vs whatever stake you care to name.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
lloyd bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 15:03:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: lloyd bank
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...
Let's make a bet. 100 mill ISK from you to me for every counter I can think up vs whatever stake you care to name.
cool so we have:
nuets
ewar
switch targets real fastlike
high alpha...
now sc are immune to ewar
so you cant jam the sc turtle tank
go and try to nuet the sc turtle tank
ok switch targets real fast you still brining down that sc?
how many titans you need to alpha an sc
for regular ships yeah you have the 100 meals warping in/warp out trick trying to alpha threw the fleet
but when was the last time you saw a fleet battle that did not involve heavy use of rr? (and thats other then FW)
i am not saying kill rr... i am saying its way way way to op as it stands right now and is in need of some sort of nerf...
though that would be jokes someone bringin like 200 black birds fighting a rr fleet and winning...
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 15:45:00 -
[44]
I might be wrong on this, but from first thought I believe the "stacking penalties" you are referring to are really only applicable to percentage based modules and effects. Remote rep gives a set amount of HP per cycle.
=========================
Karash Amerius - Operative - Sutoka
Fighting Broke - A Eve Online Blog
========================= |
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
C C P
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 15:56:00 -
[45]
Moved from General Discsussion
Zymurgist
Community Representative
CCP NA, EVE Online
Contact Us |
|
davet517
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 16:00:00 -
[46]
Quote:
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
There's this thing called alpha strike. A ship can't be repped if it dies in one volley. You have to be in the right ships, and your FC has to be pretty good, and you have to listen to your FC and shoot what he's telling you to shoot, and only when he tells you to shoot it. That's your counter to RR. Enjoy.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 16:30:00 -
[47]
Originally by: davet517
Quote:
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
There's this thing called alpha strike. A ship can't be repped if it dies in one volley. You have to be in the right ships, and your FC has to be pretty good, and you have to listen to your FC and shoot what he's telling you to shoot, and only when he tells you to shoot it. That's your counter to RR. Enjoy.
So wait, what you're saying is that the counter to RR chains is skill, strategy, and solid tactics?
IN OUR EVE?!?!?!
For shame good sir. For shame.
--Vel
Originally by: Blacksquirrel
This is EVE. PVE can happen anywhere at anytime. Be prepared.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 16:13:00 -
[48]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
So wait, what you're saying is that the counter to RR chains is skill, strategy, and solid tactics?
IN OUR EVE?!?!?!
For shame good sir. For shame.
Your right that logistic ships chains have counters: Nuets, Jams, Alpha all work to circumvent their RR. At the same time, these options are much less viable, if not futile, on carrier/sc ships chains.
Personally, I think I want RR stacking penalized so that it doesn't scale so high.... if 40 (non-alpha) BS's would be enough to overcome all the RR an abbadon could receive, then perhaps fleet battles would be more than just everyone locking a primary and firing... I would like fleet battles to entail shooting multiple ships at once.... where situational awareness counts, and personal survival becomes more skill bases (can you tell I like flying inties in fleet battles)... Realistically, this is a pipe dream.. and is perhaps less than ideal for the game. It would certainly make logistics roles a much bigger pain in the ass while reducing the praise they receive.. and they already have a mostly thankless job.
|
Recursa Recursion
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 04:10:00 -
[49]
An amusing but perhaps ineffective way would be to apply resistance to incoming RR. It cuts down on the amplification of the high resist buffer tank setups (Drakes, Abaddons, etc.).
|
Oregin
Red Sky Morning
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 05:12:00 -
[50]
Originally by: lloyd bank
Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: lloyd bank
the only counter to rr is to bring rr...
Yeah, Totally.
Except....
ECM
Neuts
Rapid Target switching
High Alpha setups
And probably a bunch more that i'm missing.
yeah but you still need to bring simular amouts of rr to use any of those...
Damn right you do. Why do you think you should be able to get away with not bringing your own RR? Now your argument is effectively: nerf RR to the extent where we don't have to bring any and still have a chance of winning
|
lloyd bank
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 13:36:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Oregin
Originally by: lloyd bank
Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: lloyd bank
the only counter to rr is to bring rr...
Yeah, Totally.
Except....
ECM
Neuts
Rapid Target switching
High Alpha setups
And probably a bunch more that i'm missing.
yeah but you still need to bring simular amouts of rr to use any of those...
Damn right you do. Why do you think you should be able to get away with not bringing your own RR? Now your argument is effectively: nerf RR to the extent where we don't have to bring any and still have a chance of winning
Remember at7 were everyone was using duel logi setups or even the spider tank bs's... remember how boring those fights were... but in at8 when they limited the use of logis all of sudden the fights opened up... i am not saying make rr useless i am saying take it down a notch... if anything just reduce the max amount that rr gives...
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |