Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 03:05:38 -
[1] - Quote
Warning wall of text containing personal views and ideas
TL;DR -FozzieSov is OK but needs tweaks and other changes -Remove Jump fatigue from Jump/Titan Bridges and Black-Ops -Logi has ruined EVE, needs stacking penalties for all remote assistance modules -Titans and Super Carriers need new Roles to be more relevant in FozzieSov
FozzieSov is now in place, yes it requires tweaks, and yes not everyone will like it. There are those out there that are against change, they donGÇÖt like their sandcastles being kicked over, or their way of life changing; but everything changes eventually. FozzieSov was to promote small gang warfare or at least allow smaller entities to do things they were unable to do before GÇô take sov of bloated sov holders who donGÇÖt use their space. Some changes that have been put in place are questionable, for example Jump fatigue. The theory behind this IS good GÇô Stop entities traversing the galaxy in short succession to crash other entities parties. This change to capitals was great GÇô smaller groups were no longer totally afraid to use their small dread and carrier fleets. Faction warfare saw super carriers being used finally. So why penalize Jump bridges GÇô Titan Bridges GÇô Black op? Jump fatigue was a great idea GÇô applying it to the latter was purely lazy. Jump Bridges, Titan Bridges and Black-Ops while highly strategic are not GÇ£I-WINGÇ¥ buttons. Jump bridges still require travel time GÇô Titan Bridges still require an entry cyno and Black-Ops are not un-killable remote repping death machines with millions of HP.
So my first suggestion is to remove fatigue for everything bar carriers/Dread/Supercarriers and Titans.
Next is the plague that is remote repair. Remote Assistance modules have ruined the game bringing rise to the alpha fleet and basically rendering local repair systems useless GÇô I need GÇ£xGÇ¥ amount of logi otherwise itGÇÖs not worth undocking. Fights now come down to who can kill the others logi first and force the retreat. It also encourages blob mentality while discouraging fighting to the last man since once you lose critical mass a fleet is no longer able to penetrate the reps of their remaining logi. Not only does this effect sub-capital engagements it turns capitals / super capitals into barely killable bricks. Even several supercarriers with their high resistances and extreme HP are neigh impossible to kill. The only combat against this is more super capitals. The problem here is you donGÇÖt want to remove Remote assistance or kill the GÇ£goodGÇ¥ use of it in small gang warfare
Therefore my second suggestion is that all Remote Assistance modules gain a stacking penalty GÇô no different to the stacking penalties gained from 5x Gyrostabilizers for example.
With FozzieSov came the removal of the structure grind GÇô this plus jump fatigue rendered Super Capitals virtually useless. Super Capitals are not being used (or at least very rarely) so the chance of a Super Capital escalation has decreased dramatically. CCP has hinted that GÇ£eventuallyGÇ¥ the role of these space monsters will be changed. The problem is that nothing more has been said. There are quite literally hundreds and hundreds of Super Pilots with zero need to log in or even remain subscribed. Super capitals should useable on a daily basis GÇô but not so powerful that a large fleet of them equates to the GÇ£I-WINGÇ¥ button. Everything in EVE should be killable in some shape or form.
My third suggestion is to modify the role of Titans and Super Carriers to cater for everyday use. Titans are the panicle of EVE, the ultimate cap killers - so it boggles my mind how something so big, so seemingly powerful can be so helpless against a single tackle ship. While I agree these space behemoths should not be solo pvp machines they should also not be completely defenceless vs 1-2 sub-capitals, nor do I think they should be powerful enough to stand on their own against a gang of 50. Therefore I propose that a Titans Maximum capacitor is reduced to make them more vulnerable vs Cap warfare. I also propose the following 16 High slots (increased from 8) 6x XL Turret/Missile Hard points - Ship Bonus - 125% Damage bonus to XL turrets/missiles 8x Turret/missile Hard points (can fit s/m/l) GÇô un-bonused Titans retain their racial trait e.g. 7.5% to GÇ£xGÇ¥ Can fit Doomsday Can fit Jump Portal Generator Can fit Clone Vat Bay 90% resistance to Electronic Warfare (remove total immunity) 50% bonus to capital repair systems Remove Penalty vs smaller ships Titan cannot jump/cloak or receive remote assistance post Doomsday
Super Carriers would get a big enough nerf with the stacking penalty of remote repair/assistance therefore my new role for them puts them in the position of an GÇ£actualGÇ¥ command ship that cant be volleyed off the field (unless by multiple titans). Super Carriers could provide excellent on grid boosts to smaller fleets with the addition of the command ships bonuses GÇô it would also make them useable outside of cap killing and the now nonexistence structure grind. Super Capitals should also have their maximum capacitor reduced to make them more vulnerable vs cap warfare.
Super Carriers 12 High slots (increased from 8) 6x Turret/Missile Hard points GÇô un-bonused (s/m) Racial ship bonuses remains the same Can deploy 1 additional fighter/bomber per level Can fit 1 additional warfare link per level 5% bonus to Warfare and Skirmish links effectiveness (per level GÇô same as command ship bonus) 5% bonus to Energy Neutralizer range per level 200% to fighter/bomber control range 100% bonus to fighter/bomber HP and Damage Can fit Remote ECM Burst 90% resistant to Electronic Warfare (remove total immunity) Can fit 3 Warfare links simultaneously Gains Titan Racial Bonus 7.5% to (racial bonus)
Additional Generic changes Energy Neutralizers gain 30% bonus to amount neutralized vs Super Capital |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
811
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:18:23 -
[2] - Quote
Vandarra Deneroth wrote:...Additional Generic changes Energy Neutralizers gain 30% bonus to amount neutralized vs Super Capital
Ah, so make neuts even more op and buff Blackops to be jump all over the map insta-death machines and buff titans for forum-alts I-WIN solo-wtf-bbw-pwn-mobiles.
Gotcha. No!
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:09:20 -
[3] - Quote
The jump fatigue removal for Blops would be fine as long as they're only allowed to jump themselves only. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1646
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:32:33 -
[4] - Quote
I agree that some changes are needed, but not these changes.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:39:53 -
[5] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Vandarra Deneroth wrote:...Additional Generic changes Energy Neutralizers gain 30% bonus to amount neutralized vs Super Capital Ah, so make neuts even more op and buff Blackops to be jump all over the map insta-death machines and buff titans for forum-alts I-WIN solo-wtf-bbw-pwn-mobiles. Gotcha. No!
Black Ops were never a problem post Jump fatigue, they arent as strong as Marauders and fit a very specialized niche. Titans should be wtf-pwn machines but still vulnerable if solo
|
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:41:11 -
[6] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:The jump fatigue removal for Blops would be fine as long as they're only allowed to jump themselves only.
I reiterate - Blops were never a problem prior to Fatigue and with IS boxers virtually neutralized ................ |
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:43:53 -
[7] - Quote
systems like Jump bridges should be a bonus to owning sov - otherwise whats the point in upgrading your system for (however many damn months it takes) to get a Jump bridge / Cyno generator system in place. |
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:50:30 -
[8] - Quote
My suggestion to the whole deal would be this:
Logi
- Remove all remote repair
- Add new logistics module that increases target's resistances by 80% across the board VALUE UP FOR DEBATE
- The Logi using it can not be assisted while he is running this module, just like HICs using bubble/infinitypoint
- Only one of these modules can be applied onto any target at the same time. Multiple do not have an effect.
- Redesign logistics hulls for local rep bonus on Gal/Min, and EHP boni on Amarr/Cal. Gal/Min have to get stronger local reps than Amarr/Caldari.
Capital ships
- Reduce overall EHP of Super Caps drastically
- Give Super Caps strong active tank bonuses
- Reduce Dreadnought and Titan DPS drastically, down to ~3k dps
- Revert Capital Gun tracking changes
- Reduce Fighter Bomber dps greatly, or remove them as a whole.
Accompannying changes: Manned Repair Modules for POS to make up for lacking Remote Reps until they get phased out. Buff subcap local tanking across the board (change fitting space / capacitor).
All resulting gameplay changes should easily be understandable. Bonus: Ends weird logistic limits on Alliance Tournament. |
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 09:07:32 -
[9] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:My suggestion to the whole deal would be this: Logi
- Remove all remote repair
- Add new logistics module that increases target's resistances by 80% across the board VALUE UP FOR DEBATE
- The Logi using it can not be assisted while he is running this module, just like HICs using bubble/infinitypoint
- Only one of these modules can be applied onto any target at the same time. Multiple do not have an effect.
- Redesign logistics hulls for local rep bonus on Gal/Min, and EHP boni on Amarr/Cal. Gal/Min have to get stronger local reps than Amarr/Caldari.
Capital ships
- Reduce overall EHP of Super Caps drastically
- Give Super Caps strong active tank bonuses
- Reduce Dreadnought and Titan DPS drastically, down to ~3k dps
- Revert Capital Gun tracking changes
- Reduce Fighter Bomber dps greatly, or remove them as a whole.
Accompannying changes: Manned Repair Modules for POS to make up for lacking Remote Reps until they get phased out. Buff subcap local tanking across the board (change fitting space / capacitor). All resulting game play changes should easily be understandable. Bonus: Ends weird logistic limits on Alliance Tournament.
I dont think removing RR completely is a great idea, small gang where 1-2 logi are used are still very good examples of what they were intended for. 40 of them in a fleet repping enough to ward of any amount of DSP bar alpha volley is silly though. 2-3 Logi should be a max a ship can be repped with.
Personally i don't think you can reduce the total EHP of Supers without causing a **** storm. increasing their vulnerability i.e. cap warfare allows for their defenses to be neutralized and the reduction in remote repping/capping would make them less invincible. I like the idea though of strong active tanks - an active tank is reliant on cap and supers can be capped out. No cap = no hardeners and death.
|
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 09:24:15 -
[10] - Quote
Vandarra Deneroth wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote:My suggestion to the whole deal would be this: Logi
- Remove all remote repair
- Add new logistics module that increases target's resistances by 80% across the board VALUE UP FOR DEBATE
- The Logi using it can not be assisted while he is running this module, just like HICs using bubble/infinitypoint
- Only one of these modules can be applied onto any target at the same time. Multiple do not have an effect.
- Redesign logistics hulls for local rep bonus on Gal/Min, and EHP boni on Amarr/Cal. Gal/Min have to get stronger local reps than Amarr/Caldari.
Capital ships
- Reduce overall EHP of Super Caps drastically
- Give Super Caps strong active tank bonuses
- Reduce Dreadnought and Titan DPS drastically, down to ~3k dps
- Revert Capital Gun tracking changes
- Reduce Fighter Bomber dps greatly, or remove them as a whole.
Accompannying changes: Manned Repair Modules for POS to make up for lacking Remote Reps until they get phased out. Buff subcap local tanking across the board (change fitting space / capacitor). All resulting game play changes should easily be understandable. Bonus: Ends weird logistic limits on Alliance Tournament. I dont think removing RR completely is a great idea, small gang where 1-2 logi are used are still very good examples of what they were intended for. 40 of them in a fleet repping enough to ward of any amount of DSP bar alpha volley is silly though. 2-3 Logi should be a max a ship can be repped with. Personally i don't think you can reduce the total EHP of Supers without causing a **** storm. increasing their vulnerability i.e. cap warfare allows for their defenses to be neutralized and the reduction in remote repping/capping would make them less invincible. I like the idea though of strong active tanks - an active tank is reliant on cap and supers can be capped out. No cap = no hardeners and death.
Think deeper. Connect the dots. 2 or 3 Logi will be all you need, and they will never outscale incoming dps. They will only buy time for the primaries to get local reps going and warpouts. They would multiply EHP and local tanks by the factor 5.
Supers and Dreads being able to fight subcaps, with reduced overall DPS, will take a lot of dps pressure from them, too, hence the reduced EHP, aswell because of the resistance boost from Logis. Neuting will have great effect in PvP, even with logi on grid. With logi on grid, a Super will almost always have great resists and thus ehp, though their active tank can be shut down.
Overall the proposed changes encourage more activity from individual pilots and puts capitals back into the fray of subcap brawls without blapping them in 1 or 2 volleys. Caps also become a lot more exposed on grid. |
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
364
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 12:20:08 -
[11] - Quote
I'm cool with removing jump fatigue on blops. There are enough soft counters to this.
The role of supers will likely soon include their necessity in attacking Citadel structures. CCP intends these to be formidable structures with ample capability to defend themselves. If you think a trollceptor is going to be able to do anything at all to these, sure. Most likely these structures will actually require you to entosis them with a cap or supercap of some kind. Not only does this once again make supers relevant, but presents interesting scenarios for defense and escalations as well.
On the topic of RR, I completely agree. Remove, or critically gimp RR, and the fights in eve may become dynamic in a way that has only ever been depicted in the trailers. Chaotic fights with explosions happening on both sides, weapons fire flying everywhere....and yes, local reps would be a thing, and that would be awesome. I think, at the same time though, the sound tactic of concentrating your fire all on one target might need to be looked at too. Perhaps a mechanic where the more burst fire you receive, the lower your sig radius gets (very temporarily), and the more likelihood other shots start to miss you. This might encourage spreading your fire out a bit. Just my three cents. |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
217
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 12:36:37 -
[12] - Quote
This thread is AIDS.
People suggesting complete removal of remote repair???
Completely remove fatigue from Blops?
This ridiculous "change logi to 1 module per ship = increased resists" idea again?
I'm opposed on all counts.
The UI update we deserve
|
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 13:15:31 -
[13] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:This thread is AIDS.
People suggesting complete removal of remote repair???
Completely remove fatigue from Blops?
This ridiculous "change logi to 1 module per ship = increased resists" idea again?
I'm opposed on all counts.
You know, bring in strong and reasonable arguments, and maybe you can make a point. The more CCP has an overview of people's thoughts and their way to exploit proposed features, the better they can develop the game.
Solely on the RR topic: Fights on large scale go like this: Volley lineship. RR keeping it alive? Try alphaing another one. RR keeping it alive? Try volleying their Logi. RR keeping it alive? Focus on the objective or gtfo. Vice versa, if your lineships get blapped, you gtfo. If your logi gets blapped, gtfo. And if you don't have 20 Guardians you don't even bother undocking. Only on very important targets, like station timers for staging systemsa in Dominionsov, fleets and fcs would commit to a slugfest and accept losses while keeping shooting. With Aegissov, such important targets are kinda gone, only when factions are both close to the required nodecount an all-out brawl becomes reasonable.
If we take away the unbreakable aspect of logiheavy fleets on certain scales people will have to arrange with the fact that their ship is at danger, even if your brackets outblot the sun. Granted, this will not increase people's commitment to unimportant timers and objectives, but it will shake things up. Even heavily outnumbered, you might break hostiles. Even in a 200 man fleet, 5 logi pilots are good for an undock. Doctrines get more loose, as shield and armor ships can get mixed with relatively low effort.
On the topic of unimportant timers, that's a problem that's already been around in Dominionsov. It has to be the goal of Aegis to create more timers to be important, preferrably all.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2135
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 13:35:28 -
[14] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:This thread is AIDS.
People suggesting complete removal of remote repair???
Completely remove fatigue from Blops?
This ridiculous "change logi to 1 module per ship = increased resists" idea again?
I'm opposed on all counts. You know, bring in strong and reasonable arguments, and maybe you can make a point. The more CCP has an overview of people's thoughts and their way to exploit proposed features, the better they can develop the game. Solely on the RR topic: Fights on large scale go like this: Volley lineship. RR keeping it alive? Try alphaing another one. RR keeping it alive? Try volleying their Logi. RR keeping it alive? Focus on the objective or gtfo. Vice versa, if your lineships get blapped, you gtfo. If your logi gets blapped, gtfo. And if you don't have 20 Guardians you don't even bother undocking. Only on very important targets, like station timers for staging systemsa in Dominionsov, fleets and fcs would commit to a slugfest and accept losses while keeping shooting. With Aegissov, such important targets are kinda gone, only when factions are both close to the required nodecount an all-out brawl becomes reasonable. If we take away the unbreakable aspect of logiheavy fleets on certain scales people will have to arrange with the fact that their ship is at danger, even if your brackets outblot the sun. Granted, this will not increase people's commitment to unimportant timers and objectives, but it will shake things up. Even heavily outnumbered, you might break hostiles. Even in a 200 man fleet, 5 logi pilots are good for an undock. Doctrines get more loose, as shield and armor ships can get mixed with relatively low effort. On the topic of unimportant timers, that's a problem that's already been around in Dominionsov. It has to be the goal of Aegis to create more timers to be important, preferrably all.
People will engage more when they know they will lose more than now just because they can get a few KM? Because that's pretty much what nerfing logi bring anyway. The side with the better fleet will still win, the lesser side will still take losses until they manage to disengage and they will still not get the objective done.
I really want to be sure this is what people envision because it really sound like it would not happen to me. |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
217
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 13:52:19 -
[15] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:This thread is AIDS.
People suggesting complete removal of remote repair???
Completely remove fatigue from Blops?
This ridiculous "change logi to 1 module per ship = increased resists" idea again?
I'm opposed on all counts. You know, bring in strong and reasonable arguments, and maybe you can make a point. The more CCP has an overview of people's thoughts and their way to exploit proposed features, the better they can develop the game. Solely on the RR topic: Fights on large scale go like this: Volley lineship. RR keeping it alive? Try alphaing another one. RR keeping it alive? Try volleying their Logi. RR keeping it alive? Focus on the objective or gtfo. Vice versa, if your lineships get blapped, you gtfo. If your logi gets blapped, gtfo. And if you don't have 20 Guardians you don't even bother undocking. Only on very important targets, like station timers for staging systemsa in Dominionsov, fleets and fcs would commit to a slugfest and accept losses while keeping shooting. With Aegissov, such important targets are kinda gone, only when factions are both close to the required nodecount an all-out brawl becomes reasonable.
Here's my reasonable argument... or at least my opinion.
If you have 20 Battleships, you committed 20 pilots and the ISK necessary to do 20 Battleship's worth of DPS. If you have 20 Guardians, you committed 20 pilots and the ISK necessary to have 20 guardians worth of repair.
If you are a fleet of 50, and your enemy brings 20 guardians, and therefore you can't possibly kill a single ship of theirs, then they are a more powerful force, and you are not entitled to kill "at least a few" of their ships just because you undocked and were willing to try.
This is how I see all these "nerf logi" cries....
Quote:We don't have the numbers to break the reps of our opponent, and we don't want to try any other tactics like some kind of surprise e-war, or target switching, or otherwise attempt to beat a superior force by some other means, so CCP change the game to make it so we get kills just for undocking, no matter how much repair support our enemy brings.
I do not agree with this sentiment. I believe that if a force can field more repair support than you (or I) can break, then they don't lose any ships.
That said, I am completely open to some slight nerfs to Logi...
Perhaps Guardians could repair a bit less, like 10-25% less than they do now. Perhaps Cap transfer mechanics and/or the Guardian hull could be changed so that infinite capacitor generation is no longer possible, and therefore Guardians are no longer infinitely cap stable.
Perhaps a balanced combination of both of these nerfs. And perhaps not.
Since joining GalMil and subsequently Bebop, I've been in more large fleet engagement than I ever was before. Most of them are armor ships of some kid, with Guardians as logi... for both my fleet AND the enemy fleets. We have had fights where we couldn't break the enemy, and they couldn't break us. We have had fights where we could break them, and we've had fights where we couldn't hold. So far I don't see an inherent problem with Guardian logi specifically.
Those that do think Logi is so OP and needs a nerf in the form of diminishing returns (BARF)... I think are just frustrated becaus they form up their nice, shiny, big fleet of 30, 60, or even 100 ships, and they expect that nothing could possibly survive their WTFBBQPWN dps, but then their enemy brings a huge number of Logi cruisers, AND then drops a Triage or two, and now even the 100 man fleet can't break the enemy reps. So Logi = OMG UNFAIR CCP NERF NOW.
That's how I see you, and those are my feelings on the matter.
The UI update we deserve
|
Xackattack Avianson
You are a Pirate
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 14:11:34 -
[16] - Quote
The only thing I agree with here is that Black Ops should have reduced jump fatigue. Everything else you said is poorly thought out at best. |
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 14:12:48 -
[17] - Quote
Whenever I fly lineships, I fly Logi. As much of a good feeling it is to see my fleetmembers catching reps and hear the fc calling one primary after the other, as much do I hate it to miss out on space violence happening because there's not enough logi.
What many seem to have forgotten nowadays is that there's another, very efficient way to stay alive in an engagement. Warping out. Too many people rely on repps landing and want to carelessly anchor up and press f1, ctrl+lmb, and broadcast armor/shield.
It might be unusual and disturbing for you and others to hear this from a goon in karma, but in my opinion the fleet with the better pilots should succeed, not numbers or ships as the predominant factor. Succeeding doesn't necessarily mean winning a timer, or turbodunking hostiles. It can mean fighting outnumbered and picking off bad pilots, demoralizing the enemy with every skirmish. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
426
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 14:15:30 -
[18] - Quote
Do I have to do this again? Do I have to explain why removing Logi is so fundamentally bad? |
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 14:21:46 -
[19] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Do I have to do this again? Do I have to explain why removing Logi is so fundamentally bad?
yep |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
461
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 14:31:15 -
[20] - Quote
OH Please remove remote reps, the tears from the Incursion community alone would be worth suffering any other negative affects of this change.
Overall I still say no to any form of removal or reduction of the jump fatigue mechanic since doing so would serve to increase force projection. The argument made earlier about ISK boxer limitations is very short sighted. Remove or significantly reduce jump fatigue from the Black Ops ships and watch the instant change in fleet doctrines to using all black ops ships. |
|
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 14:33:48 -
[21] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:OH Please remove remote reps, the tears from the Incursion community alone would be worth suffering any other negative affects of this change.
Overall I still say no to any form of removal or reduction of the jump fatigue mechanic since doing so would serve to increase force projection. The argument made earlier about ISK boxer limitations is very short sighted. Remove or significantly reduce jump fatigue from the Black Ops ships and watch the instant change in fleet doctrines to using all black ops ships.
Nice injection! Stealth nerf to Incursion ISK/hr as ships have to utilize sufficient active tanks. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2135
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 15:37:38 -
[22] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
It might be unusual and disturbing for you and others to hear this from a goon in karma, but in my opinion the fleet with the better pilots should succeed, not numbers or ships as the predominant factor. Succeeding doesn't necessarily mean winning a timer, or turbodunking hostiles. It can mean fighting outnumbered and picking off bad pilots, demoralizing the enemy with every skirmish.
Our morale is just so damn low with MoA picking off bads left, right and center.
Are you really believing what you type? |
Viscount Hood
Relentless Terrorism Separatists
71
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 15:57:02 -
[23] - Quote
I was playing Eve before Logi's were around so I remember what fleet battles were like. Which basically involved accepting that if you were targeted you were going to blow up very quickly. The general comment from FC's was "shut up and die". Matches turned into who had the most numbers, or the biggest fastest hitters.
The primary setup was meta 4 artillery then later T2 Artillery. Given that the only ships available were battleships, cruisers and frigates, the only ships you saw were battleships. The only counter was fitting two warp core stabilisers which if you weren't lagged out and could spot that you were being targeted, meant you had the chance of warping out and then back in.
Later on we started fitting remote shield/armour boosters in place of one weapon and tried chained support which kind of worked. Then logi's came out which took some time before anyone could work out how to use them.
Now it is quite different with many different types of ships and many modules, and without logi's I think we'd just end up doing what we used to do. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2135
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 16:09:42 -
[24] - Quote
Viscount Hood wrote:I was playing Eve before Logi's were around so I remember what fleet battles were like. Which basically involved accepting that if you were targeted you were going to blow up very quickly. The general comment from FC's was "shut up and die". Matches turned into who had the most numbers, or the biggest fastest hitters.
The primary setup was meta 4 artillery then later T2 Artillery. Given that the only ships available were battleships, cruisers and frigates, the only ships you saw were battleships. The only counter was fitting two warp core stabilisers which if you weren't lagged out and could spot that you were being targeted, meant you had the chance of warping out and then back in.
Later on we started fitting remote shield/armour boosters in place of one weapon and tried chained support which kind of worked. Then logi's came out which took some time before anyone could work out how to use them.
Now it is quite different with many different types of ships and many modules, and without logi's I think we'd just end up doing what we used to do.
AoE DD also prevented logi from being on grid for some time IIRC. |
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 16:49:43 -
[25] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote:
It might be unusual and disturbing for you and others to hear this from a goon in karma, but in my opinion the fleet with the better pilots should succeed, not numbers or ships as the predominant factor. Succeeding doesn't necessarily mean winning a timer, or turbodunking hostiles. It can mean fighting outnumbered and picking off bad pilots, demoralizing the enemy with every skirmish.
Our morale is just so damn low with MoA picking off bads left, right and center. Are you really believing what you type?
MoA isn't doing PvP. They're like a predator hunting the sick and weak animals. They're making the goon population more healthy.
|
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation Cruis3rs Cr3w
2993
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 18:11:10 -
[26] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:This thread is AIDS.
People suggesting complete removal of remote repair???
Completely remove fatigue from Blops?
This ridiculous "change logi to 1 module per ship = increased resists" idea again?
I'm opposed on all counts. You know, bring in strong and reasonable arguments, and maybe you can make a point.
Arguing the merits for and against sh1t, is not going to change the fact hat you're looking at a vagrant in a very public area, that is in all likelihood, smelling up the place and reducing the quality of life for the rest of us...... Nah, its gotta be cleaned up and flushed away.
So I agree with Leto
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2135
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 19:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote:
It might be unusual and disturbing for you and others to hear this from a goon in karma, but in my opinion the fleet with the better pilots should succeed, not numbers or ships as the predominant factor. Succeeding doesn't necessarily mean winning a timer, or turbodunking hostiles. It can mean fighting outnumbered and picking off bad pilots, demoralizing the enemy with every skirmish.
Our morale is just so damn low with MoA picking off bads left, right and center. Are you really believing what you type? MoA isn't doing PvP. They're like a predator hunting the sick and weak animals. They're making the goon population more healthy.
And that isn't PvP why?
|
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 21:59:04 -
[28] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:This thread is AIDS.
People suggesting complete removal of remote repair???
Completely remove fatigue from Blops?
This ridiculous "change logi to 1 module per ship = increased resists" idea again?
I'm opposed on all counts. You know, bring in strong and reasonable arguments, and maybe you can make a point. The more CCP has an overview of people's thoughts and their way to exploit proposed features, the better they can develop the game. Solely on the RR topic: Fights on large scale go like this: Volley lineship. RR keeping it alive? Try alphaing another one. RR keeping it alive? Try volleying their Logi. RR keeping it alive? Focus on the objective or gtfo. Vice versa, if your lineships get blapped, you gtfo. If your logi gets blapped, gtfo. And if you don't have 20 Guardians you don't even bother undocking. Only on very important targets, like station timers for staging systemsa in Dominionsov, fleets and fcs would commit to a slugfest and accept losses while keeping shooting. With Aegissov, such important targets are kinda gone, only when factions are both close to the required nodecount an all-out brawl becomes reasonable. If we take away the unbreakable aspect of logiheavy fleets on certain scales people will have to arrange with the fact that their ship is at danger, even if your brackets outblot the sun. Granted, this will not increase people's commitment to unimportant timers and objectives, but it will shake things up. Even heavily outnumbered, you might break hostiles. Even in a 200 man fleet, 5 logi pilots are good for an undock. Doctrines get more loose, as shield and armor ships can get mixed with relatively low effort. On the topic of unimportant timers, that's a problem that's already been around in Dominionsov. It has to be the goal of Aegis to create more timers to be important, preferrably all. People will engage more when they know they will lose more than now just because they can get a few KM? Because that's pretty much what nerfing logi bring anyway. The side with the better fleet will still win, the lesser side will still take losses until they manage to disengage and they will still not get the objective done. I really want to be sure this is what people envision because it really sound like it would not happen to me.
Totally what i envision - because a fleet of 30 vs a fleet of 100 can still inflict significant losses if they outplay the fleet of 100 which can be achieved by better tactics. Right now there is no way a smaller fleet can outplay a larger force if that larger force is logi heavy.
|
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 22:28:31 -
[29] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Do I have to do this again? Do I have to explain why removing Logi is so fundamentally bad?
Im not saying remove remote reps im saying there should be a limit on how much someone can be remote repaired at once. Right now - short of Alpha you try break each others reps - once you cant do that you try catch the logi off guard - when that fails you give up and go home.
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 23:17:19 -
[30] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:OH Please remove remote reps, the tears from the Incursion community alone would be worth suffering any other negative affects of this change.
Overall I still say no to any form of removal or reduction of the jump fatigue mechanic since doing so would serve to increase force projection. The argument made earlier about ISK boxer limitations is very short sighted. Remove or significantly reduce jump fatigue from the Black Ops ships and watch the instant change in fleet doctrines to using all black ops ships.
Some will maybe use BO as doctrine fits, but T1 battleships+logi will win over any BO fleet (close to equal numbers). BO is about as good for pure combat as their T1 counterpart and have no real logi alternative, so the fleet taking gates will have access to a stronger fleet setup. BO are good for hotdropping, mostly done with superior numbers vs 1-2 guys, or done with higher isk losses and worse insurance cover. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |