Driving The Meta: The Remote Logistics Disruptor

Avatar
Jesus guys learn to process flow
Avatar
You really put some thought in this, I like your idea.
Avatar
A very good idea, that is except it would utterly destroy the capital meta. The idea is sound but the rep debuff would have to be a more reasonable percentage. 90% less reps for a 4 stack penalty is fine in a small gang when that would be a costly sacrifice to fit 4 mods of any type on your gang. But when the primary in a triage ball can receive that crippling debuff were just going to play a game of who has the most dreads.
Avatar
to be honest what i see this bringing back more than anything is FC headshots.edit: said bring back, should have said helping.also, you say they would need to get the RLD ships on top of the FC and that would be difficult, and yet from what i could tell, one of your biggest selling points is this could make even a newb in a slasher useful beyond tackle - slashers can get to FCs most of the time id wager, and a real interceptor with a real interceptor pilot? gonna be on whatever pilot he is told to be on like white on rice.
Avatar
We already have RLDs: E-War.Also logistics don't cause the n+1 problem - if anything they reduce it.
Avatar
Bring it back? When did it go away?
Avatar
I think if a FC flow chart has an option for 'Stand Down' - he is doomed to fail as an FC.
Avatar
50% de-buff on reps from a single meta module? Talk about effectively making logi damn near useless.
Avatar
I agree. Unfortunately if an FC has a flowchart wihtout stand down he is doomed to fail as an FC in a much more expensive fashion.
Avatar
Not a good idea. Apart from FC headshots, it would be easy to just kill any enemy with 10 people flying ships with this in a fleet. Being in null I know when it matters we would have 40 - 50 guys in anti RLD ship just head shotting any fool that comes in range of the fleet. It will just create more N1 game play.Also the node would prob break the RLD once tidi kicks in.The best way to solve your perceived repping problem is limit number of ships able to rep another at a time.
Avatar
A 50% debuff applied at under 10km, you have to get it there and then keep it there while the target tries to make you die. Thats the catch.
Avatar
I lovingly remember getting private convos from Vee just before engagements with "You'll keep x target webbed at all times, ignore all other broadcasts this is your job". Every time it was invariably the enemy FC. So I am guilty of that.Fuck, stop making me want to resub...
Avatar
I think if a FC doesn't consider all his options - he is doomed to fail as an FC.
Avatar
There already is a remote logistics disruptor.. Its called a Sensor Damp
Avatar
What is to stop the enemy from going for those anti-RLD ships, either killing or jamming them out of the fight? If they bring destroyers you bring cruisers and everyone goes at it hammer and tongs while the main fleets have it out. The logis can rep their anti-RLD or the primary or both less but no matter what all hell is breaking loose.Instead of everyone bringing massive fleets of a few ship types to engage in a very limited number of ways there would be reasons to have a variety of ships for a number of roles, and who would win would hinge on more than who can pass a DPS check. Whole sov-objective battles might be decided by who had the better FC for the interceptor wing, or the guy who kept the battlecruisers in the perfect spot when it counted.
Avatar
as member of NC. you should know better.only undocking when winning is ensured right?
Avatar
Logistics, as apposed to other support ships, is only useful in the role of supporting other ships. This effectively near neuters the one thing they are useful for in a fleet. Ecm at least would require multiple ships to counteract a significant logistics force, this module lets a single pilot nerf a player group completely into the ground that is even several magnitudes greater in size.
Avatar
When did they ever go away? Problem is the reds would have to get RLD ships on top of the FC to do it, there is a reason I do not say they would have the range of EWAR or sensor damps.
Avatar
Really like this idea. Don't know if it would flush out exactly how it's planned but very interesting read and would be awesome to throw my low skill point friends into a role where they really feel like they can do something. Hope something on this level gets implemented soon.
Avatar
That is the dumbest flowchart ever.
Avatar
Theres also another one called ECM.
Avatar
The point here is to stop a Triage ball from being untouchable to a fleet not composed of even more caps. Carriers and/or dreads would be less able to be a standalone force. A cap fleet might take losses even if it was not an all hands on deck cap formup by the opposition too, and if that counts as breaking the capital meta then I say break the hell out of it and dance on the pieces. Also, death to all supercaps.
Avatar
Sadly my flowchart-fu is weak, if you want to make a better one to convey the information it would be welcome.
Avatar
As a counter argument I offer my first article and coalition behavior since Dominion.
Avatar
This only means more logis in fleeet.
Avatar
think twice and realized this is different plz
Avatar
I think this would be a welcome change but I think there would need to be some changes to ship classes also for it to work as you are intending it to. First I would say give command ships either an immunity or reduction to penalty to this type of module. Second I would say that it shouldn't be as strong and you have it maybe T2 25%. This also could lead to a new type of ship class maybe a 2nd T2 destroyer hull or possibly the last frig hull for each line could get a new breath of life with this.
Avatar
Il be fair and say that sound like how eve should be but I cannot see it working because of 2 main reasons;who ever turns up first is at a disadvantage as fleet comp is known (unless like you said there in their staging system) so numbers to counter are easy to work out.larger alliances/coalitions could still bring more ships to do specfic things then some alliances can muster in one fleet. During B-R cfc had fleets all over camping systems number like these are hard to over come. who can compete with a 250 man gang of anti RLD, or even a 250 man gang of RLD,saying that i do believe for smaller fights they can be interesting but like many comments suggest there is ewar
Avatar
The fun thing is that after a certain point the fleet would have so many logis it would not have the DPS to break the enemy rep or shoot the objective. A 250 man logi fleet might be untouchable but its also kind of a doorstop...
Avatar
this idea is awesome and it opens up opportunitiesits also different from eCM and damp because it focusses on the ship receiving repairs and not giving
Avatar
Command ship immunity might actually be a good thing, that is worth some real consideration.I picked 50% for the amount that incoming reps are reduced because it gives the target a BIG incentive to get the tackle off of it. That could easily be too much, but I don't want this module to be another target spectrum breaker or something that looks useful on paper but really does nothing in practice.
Avatar
Something like this might be good for large nullsec fleet fights, but what about smaller fights in lowsec or w-space? Now every small fight becomes a simple DPS race, and you lose the skill of properly positioning logi and whatnot. A tweak I would propose is that each module reduces logi much less, but the stacking formula is different for them, so that having 20 or so of these on a target would get you that 90% reduction.
Avatar
For about 2 seconds if the defenders are on the ball with sensor boosted thrashers. Would that be enough to kill the bricked out command ship? I don't know! A world of endless possibility awaits.
Avatar
I would hope that CCP would consider this. I went with my numbers because I want them to be significant and I did not want to get into things like changing stacking penalties in what is already a long and complex article.
Avatar
That would result in lots more all command ship fleets. PL is already flying Vulture fleets...
Avatar
If only there were a module - or even 2 modules - already in game which already effectively counter logistics. Some kind of magic devices that stop logistics even lock their intended rep targets.
Avatar
What alliance do belong to?
Avatar
I hate those magical devices. :(
Avatar
Clearly this guy has never heard of Dabigredboat...
Avatar
Numbers should still win, just not as overwhelmingly as they do now. Right now numbers are a hard counter to smaller numbers across the board; the RLD will simply soften it a bit.
Avatar
triage is balanced because it offers a limit to what a carrier can rep soloa 200 carrier fleet isnt, its boring no matter what telkin-style argument with 'it should that powerful' argument you throw at it. Its bad and boring gameplay
Avatar
The flowchart-fu is irrelevant, more like your understanding and interpretation of the metagame, game mechanics and tactics in general is severely lacking, as shown by the short-sightedness of the solution proposed.That's what I mean by your flowchart being butts. You are making a mountain out of molehills.Alphastrikes are only a core necessity in very few situations: guerrila warfare types of fights where small numbers try to eliminate opportunity targets, and megasuperbrawls where client and server lag in equal measure prevent high RoF weapons to truly be effective. Between those two examples is a very, very wide spectrum of engagements where tactics are much more diverse and either do not need the proposed RLDs to be effective and/or would be negatively effected if not outright made impossible by the addition of this poorly thought-out solution.
Avatar
Glass houses and stones
Avatar
You have a point there which really should have occurred to me.
Avatar
One or two waves of void bombs into a mass of 250 logi...Hhhnnngh... I can taste the tears already
Avatar
I did read your previous article, but unfortunately I don't think this is a solution to that problem. We already have means to deploy a similar effect already. Neut the target dry to turn off hardeners and EMC/Damp the Logi to reduce incoming reps. It's effectively the same effect as an "RLD".Imagine an underdog alliance attacking a Baltec fleet for example, and let's say they welp 150+ Falcons to the sole purpose of jamming out *all* the logi while their Ishtar or whatever fleet of 200+ melts the Megas.
Avatar
the cool thing to do is talk smack about eve-o forums, but this is TL;DR by even F&I standards of hypothetical modules. very big miss for this article. I skimmed and scrolled scrolled scrolled after seeing the first line, second para: "Aesthetically, this module would be"
Avatar
You have to have 50 sensor damps to effect 50 logistic ships. You only need 1 RLD. Read the article.
Avatar
With the probing meta the way it looks right now, this may be a more severe issue than you might expect.
Avatar
If those tactics worked well enough to counter logistics they would be more widespread; as it is they are simply deployed as support to the main fleets. Nice if they work but nobody is betting the farm on them.Coalition behavior has shown that the utility of one more logistics or DPS battleship outweighs the utility of an ewar hull. The RLD would give another option that would be a more direct and reliable counter but with its own limitations.
Avatar
Is giving one module the capacity to overpower fifty dudes necessarily the answer to the n+1 game?I'm sorry, but from a numbers standpoint, building a module that can hard counter dozens of enemy pilots alone is reminiscent of AOE doomsdays.
Avatar
Its long but I decided while writing that it was better to over-support and miss some people who would not read the whole thing than under support and miss everyone. Unfortunately Eve is a fairly complex beast and there is no way to poke one part without touching on a whole lot of other ones.
Avatar
Did you read the first paragraph? I specifically say this relates to relatively large fights over timed objectives.
Avatar
Except that the AOE doomsday was on a titan and this has a range of 10km.
Avatar
I don't understand how this work/I'm not used to it and therefore it's bad.
Avatar
Right now a single logistics ship can effectively overpower four DPS battleships ships with almost no limitations on its employment. I don't propose giving the RLD long range, or even a bonuses hull to increase its range, because I think it should be really hard to apply.
Avatar
Does range have a part to play in it? Would AOE doomsdays have been okay if they only blasted 60km? 30km? 10?I get that a comparison between an AOE weapon on a ship with tens of millions of hitpoints and a single-target, short-range rep scrambler is nonsensical from a numbers standpoint. The point is this: We have to be insanely careful not to create a new demon with modules as potentially powerful as this.
Avatar
Won't change a thing blobs will still blob and the bigger blob will still win (Most of the time).
Avatar
To me, the concept is sound, but the current implementation/suggestion way too overly strong, even with the limited range factor and stacking penalty. Though, considering the debuff only affects remote repairs, local repairs would remain the same.It is an interesting thought, to provide a module that doesn't require to target the logi themselves in order to still have an impact against logi. I can see how it will be very difficult to balance though.
Avatar
Logi already do that in the other direction and are far far harder to counter than an interceptor with an RLD would be.
Avatar
Until all ten of the battleships fit with smartbombs around the FC light up the disco party.
Avatar
Yep! And that is how it should be. But the bigger might get all kinds of messed up while winning. As opposed to now where they don't.
Avatar
I say 6km. ULTIMATE SMARTBOMB!
Avatar
I think if a FC doesn't read to the fleet 50 Shades of Grey its a slightly less interesting fleet.
Avatar
Hey, for one, mad props for taking criticism in this comment thread well.
Avatar
Where does immunity to electronic warfare play into this?With how well supercarriers are about to be able to apply damage to battleships, I propose this is a more legitimate question in our new era of supercapital proliferation than it may have been in the past.
Avatar
Having 25 damping ships to shut down 50 logi is more balanced than having one ship shut down 50 logi
Avatar
I don't get it -- a damped Nereus can still web and scram its victim.
Avatar
All I see happening is people just bringing twice the logi in anticipation of modules everyone is going to bring
Avatar
Numbers always win OnlineORBig ships are pointless Online
Avatar
proposed modules are fun to imagine, and theorycrafting takes some knowledge to do well. I just... don't think it's appropriate in the context of the TMC front page.
Avatar
I heard RnK took turns reading passages from 50 shades while rage rolling wormholes.
Avatar
So what your saying is this article was a waist of time reading it because it offers no form of a solution to bring the good fights. There needs to be a reason in the game to not have big fuck off coalitions or a way to limit them without destroying the Sandbox, Solution Concord tax for the members in corp, alliance, maybe even a blue list
Avatar
You say this would be good for smaller fleets fighting bigger fleets. But in reality it would be much easier for bigger fleets to use this than smaller one since they have more expendable people, while small fleets need to make every man count.If both fleets bring 5 of these, the big fleets logi blob would still work quite well but the small fleets logi would not. Making it even easier for bigger fleets to kill smaller ones.
Avatar
The RLD module would have to have drawbacks that prevent it from doing exactly what you described, offsetting dozens of pilots with one module.Such drawbacks are easy to think of, such as:-Difficult fitting-Close range-Different size modules for hull sizes (ie10km range for a small module, 30 for a Large version)-Mobility drawbacks, EHP, Sig radius, or disallowing remote reps while active (like siege)
Avatar
Haven't run out the math completely... since end of day and damn tired... so this is not well thought out:Reduce the amounts, say base is 10% Inverse scaling based on signature radius (battleship being the baseline, most effective against cruisers and frigates, less effective against capitals and supercapitals)Hard cap at 60-80%.This is more along the lines of nuets than webs, so 3 sizes and meta would probably be better on range than amount.Small gangs might put 1 or 2 modules on it, since they're hoping for smaller ship engagements since they still need the DPS and tank (since now other small groups and possibly solo will very possibly have the same).
Avatar
Having short range modules for frigates and longer ones for BS might work, or sig radius having an impact. If it gave FCs new and interesting options and made the "pure math" superiority of remote reps weaker it would accomplish my overall intent. I'm not going to say either is wrong since this is largely theorycrafting.
Avatar
Yet another attempt to change the game in a way to nerf something effectively used against Goons.
Avatar
This exactly.
Avatar
This module changes nothing, for the same reason you propose a smaller fleet can engage a larger fleet with this module, the larger fleet has the same opportunity, what is to stop them from using it.the Larger fleet can now put more pilots into logisitics, needing less dps to overcome the applied reps from the smaller fleet.all you have done is change the fleet composition, but not the outcome. the smaller fleet will still be wiped .
Avatar
To hard to apply and too vulnerable. Big, fat, slow, comparatively short ranged.
Avatar
No, I appreciate it. This is as much to provoke dialogue as it is to prove that my idea and my idea alone is right. So, why is my idea very dumb? Be specific please, with math and examples if possible.
Avatar
GREAT! Makes it important to keep bubbles up far enough out to keep the Rifters off the logi then! I went with Baltecs because I figure the defensive effort would be concentrated on the logi for the very reason you say here.
Avatar
Its more about comparative loss. Brave might be able to inflict losses, but at what cost to themselves? A war of attrition only makes sense if you can hurt your opponent worse than you are hurt yourself in the attempt. You can lose rifters all day and not care, but start losing 30+ tornadoes to kill a couple battleships and the equation starts to look less awesome.
Avatar
Yep. The goal is to have nullsec devolve into an orgy of blood, fire, and tears. I have never pretended otherwise; my whole argument here is that there is not nearly enough of those things right now and its boring.
Avatar
In the current meta supers are used to apply reps for the specific reason that they are ewar immune. So that's what. It was one of the main points of the previous article.
Avatar
Just nerf logistics hard, that way in any engagement at least both sides get kills. The newbro fleet will be happy that they killed a few tengus or domis worth 10x their own ship, while the leet-bro fleet will be happy they decimated a bunch of thoraxes and get to loot the field, full of 200mm meta 4 railguns. The problem with the current meta is that typically only one side get kills, and ultimately what line members care about is getting kills and drinking beers. Nerf logistics, everyone gets kills, free beer, and we all be happy.
Avatar
That implies the smaller fleet is trying to rep. Depending on what the bigger one is composed of and what the smaller one can bring to bear they may not even try. Its all about cost vs what you can kill.
Avatar
But at the same time its effectively used by goons as well. Logis are, and have been for years, a universal ship. I really just want more explosions. Goon explosions, not goon explosions, both, its all the same.
Avatar
Everyone cries about ECM for years, CCP nerfs ECM so far into the floor its mostly ignored in bloc level warfare with a few specific fleet comp exceptions, and now you want them to make something that is not called ECM that does the exact same fucking thing, Full Fucking Circle here we come.
Avatar
When I read the title, I thought he was going to talk about sensor damps or ECM or something like that.How is introducing a module that reduces the amount of reps a ship receives going to change a bloc battle from being a mathematical thing?200 Ruptures going up against a fleet of battleships would lose 150 of their ships before they come in range of anything and if they do start out in range of the battleships, they would still lose ships at a much higher rate than the other fleet, bringing down their combined DPS pretty quickly. It would probably work better with more expensive ships, like HACs but yeah..... They do that pretty well already.
Avatar
so in those 2 seconds you need something to do a lot of damage all at once. sounds like a slightly modified alpha fleet to me, honestly when i look at it like this it might cause there to be even less diversity in fleets because now logistics could be rendered useless to a point.im not trying to be negative. i think this is a wonderful idea. i just think it needs more thought into it definitely.
Avatar
Learn to counter logi in small gangs and stay out of null sec.???Profit!
Avatar
just remove logistics from the game instead because if this mod gets introduced, power blocks will just employ a fleet of them and logi will not be able to keep the primary up at all. For example, CFC celestis fleet will just change damps to this mod. and its game over to anything that gets in its way.There are currently counters to Logi in: damps, Alpha fleet, neuts etc.this mod would reduce PVP not increase it.
Avatar
CCP wouldnt do it anyway. so NBD.
Avatar
Stacking penalties would make fitting an entire fleet with these lose something else they might need. Give n' take.
Avatar
Why aren't you on the CSM with the amount of time you spend replying and interacting with other readers you have my vote
Avatar
FC could be cloaked in any engagement if they wanted. Just put someone else in the boosting ship, set them as fleet booster, and have the FC cloak.
Avatar
You can have an RLD module in one of your highslots, if I can have 2 more tanks slots in my T2 and Oneiros, and my remote reps and remote cap can target me. Oh, and make the new debuff show up on the watchlist (and give us a longer watchlist).Otherwise, with these, RLD will be the new SEBO: everybody will have one, and you'll end up fast tackling the bigger stuff while alphaing down the logi until they are irrelevant, then proceed to kill everything else with relative impugnity or they log off. You would turn an what is usually consider at L*2 == logi supremacy to a L*2 defensive logi - .25RLD offensive modules (not ships) == logi supremacy, which gimps small logy to meaninglessness for any non-trivial size fleet.And say goodbye to spider tanking. And you'll need to have fleets with multiple groups of triage archons synched up to be able to save supers.Logi is sufficiently gimped in all the cases, against simple tactics, like kiting or bad positioning. The problem with fighting logi seems invariably because your tactics are bad: if your tactics are basically call primaries and wait until they burn, you're fighting against logi at what they're good at. A lot of this has to do with single-doctrine fleet comps, which are much more reasonable to manage, but lose you great amounts of flexibility and significant potential flexibility. Any decent FC in the situations under consideration can get far more kills by switching targets effectively to keep logi jumpin and targetting the wrong guy (and also wasting reps from logi who irrationally feel they ought to top-off rather than react), then timing missiles and instant damage weapons to increase their alpha, and several other things (like fill your target lists, free-fire periods where you just shoot what you can hit well before the next primary so logi doesn't know who primary is and maxes out their watch list) to screw up the logi capacity to respond to a primary.Fighting against logi is space chess. You can go and slog in brawlers, or you can go and kite, but when you're fighting logi, the best way to defeat them is to have been them. If an FC hasn't done legitimate logi in small, meduim, and large warfare for at least a year, then he won't see this. He'll still be thinking of them as D&D priests. And, further, he won't know when and how it's safe to split up fleets into autonomous wings, with just a couple of logi supporting a given comp (whose sole job it is is to buy time).
Avatar
Such reasoning is why we have such shitty ass governments.You dont vote someone in because he shook your hand, you vote him in because he knows what the fuck is actually needing to be done and will do it, not what the masses demand as oral compensation.Most of these concepts are shallow and flawed in my opinion, as well as many others. Think more about these ideas lad.Adding an N+1 counter to an anti-N+1 argument is terribly silly.
Avatar
staph eve 24 crap ideas Just SAPH PLZ!
Avatar
eve does not need mortal strike please go away
Avatar
i say enjoy the game play, and stop traying to introduce shity mechanicks that are win button to mindles blobs. it's not gona happen. i like there are tacticks in the game that are op, coz some things must be fun and op in the game to keep it going. if you reduce it to only dps on grid ... man Staph
Avatar
So in order to counter logi, you have one module that effective stop the rep from taking x percentage of reps. Talk about op man, so in order to shut down logis, you only have to target one target and fire 4 of this op modules so he takes 90 percent less rep..... Yea I like the idea but I don't like the idea of adding super op modules that effective take out 50 dudes off a fleet. Talk about being ridiculous. I don't see ccp putting this module into the game at all seeing out op it is. It would be more reasonable if instead of making the target RECEIVE less rep, it makes the take rep LESS. That way you need like 50 dudes to take out 50 dudes instead of "herp derp just target one primary and all their logis might as well be dead cause they can't rep for shit". If people think this is a great idea, they might as well say "Oh lets have an op module that makes number useless in a game.... like idk an AOE doomsday or smartbombs that hit 250 km away.
Avatar
Why can't you write this instead of your bullshit mod?
Avatar
You've been waiting too long to post that. Seriously, how long have you had that saved in your notepad?
Avatar
The issue is that something dies anyways. Where do you live that ships do not die?!And as a guy above already said - there are things that do what the OP "imagines". Break their lock, scram, jam and other magical words.
Avatar
TL'DR :ECM.
Avatar
So this would be a mod that would allow a small fleet to get a kill once in a while (not win, just be able to like...kill 1 carrier out of the 200)?What is the point? The bigger corp would be able to spew a new one out astronomically faster than the small corp. The bigger corp would have SRP and the smaller one not. SO in the end, the point of this module is not that more ships would die but that 1 or 2 ships would die somewhere in a far corner of New Eden where a big corp blobs a small corp.It's like saying "Take that Robocop, I scratched your paint!" while he still crushes your head with his big robo arm. (or just like in the last episode GoT).ECM is equally effective in what you are proposing.
Avatar
dum idea we already have sensor damp neut eccm and other meta like webbing the logi anchor so the logi fall behind the fleet
Avatar
"Oh hey I think T1 Frigates should be able to kill Battleships let's introduce a mod that helps them doing that".So you are saying "Lets introduce a new mod so we can win (with other ships)", but you forget that the hostile fleet will also have those ships, and they will be able to do the same to you, and probably at a level far beyond of what you can imagine.Furthermore, BNI would not have been confronted with a wall of Logis, they would have been confronted with CFCs logic "Bring 4 times the number of your enemy and we can have a good fight".
Avatar
Triage ball is anything but untouchable. With your module it would be even more important to make sure that you have absolute supremacy on the field before dropping caps. 90% nerf to incoming repps from 4 super cheap ships is just insane. 4 ships that effectively neuter a whole fleet. If the range was 4-5 km so it's inside SB range then maybe. Would force the caps to coordinate with SBs, drones/fighters/FBs.In the end it's too much like AOE DD. One ship should not be able to take out whole wings and turn them useless. ECM and damps is more than enough to deal with any logi group.
Avatar
You can have the same argument for any fleet. 200 carrier fleet is what big boys play with. If you are not one of them go play with people your own size.Nothing is ever going to change n+1 advantage.
Avatar
Unless there is a block war between CFC and PLN3 this is completely irrelevant. We are the only ones that fight on this level. Didn't see much whining for a module that basically removes logistics from the battle from either side.
Avatar
we fight and lose against small entities all day long. Check deklein losses of ishtars and carriers. Big coalitions are big because they are well organised and most of all rich as holy fuck. The idea that bunch of unorganised entities can threaten either of the coalitions is just plain crazy. Only thing that can threaten them is someone that is at least as organised as they are and probably has at least somewhat deep pockets.Even with this module it would still be n+1 as usual. Except that it potentially removes logistics as a playable ship despite all the talk that it wants to encourage diversity.
Avatar
This is a pretty dumb idea. There are already things in place that do the same thing. ecm, neuts, damps and MOAR DEEPS!
Avatar
Im with these ^^ guys this thing is really not needed and way too powerful in your article, apply to a ship and he doesn't get repped much? every damn ship in fleet would have every member slot one on and it would be placed in the F-2 slot and it would become a dps war again after x amount of RLD's where applied. Lets face it even setting the range low is not a counter to this, both sides are going to use them which means both sides will need to be close meaning everyone is going to bring a blaster tron and brawl. The only other choice is snipers with the usual tackle frig cover carrying rld, but how do you balance fitting to make it go on a tackle frig but leave it so putting it on your mainline ship is undesirable?Couple of ways that could be improved:1)Massive reduction in effectiveness and add a t2 ship with bonuses to it requiring skilled pilots to use it (the logi pilots need 40+ days of training purely logi skills to get max effectiveness I don't think its fair they could be hard countered off the field by a 2day old toon).2)Have it so it has to be aimed at a logi ship and reduce the rep it outputs rather than at the target ship and reducing the rep received. I like this better b/c it means triage carriers are still immune to it (they have more than enough weaknesses) also it means you need to co-ordinate disruptors which at least adds abit of skill. In this case I would be ok with abit of a range + effectiveness buff to make it preferable to sensor damps for this specific job.But really unneeded mod is unneeded. If anything this looks like an attempt to counter pantheon formation carriers (and their sub-groups, i.e slowcats + wrecking ball etc.) as the above (ECM,damps,neuts) all counter sub-cap logi quite well. Also I'm getting really worried that the push for "allow smaller groups harass null blocs" is litterally turning into "I want 200 people to be able to topple the bloc's entire empire
Avatar
Despite all the negative comments this is getting I actually rather like the idea. It'd need a hell of a lot of thought and work put into balancing it and making sure that you couldn't kill RR entirely with just a few ships but the idea of something that directly disrupts RR is really quite an attractive one.I know there's everyone and their dog screaming "neuts/damps/ECM" but this idea is a significantly different one in that the target is the ship receiving the RR not those dishing it out. That can make the whole world of difference on a number of levels.
Avatar
"nothing is ever goign to change n+1 avtange"the advantage? No, sheer immortality? Maybe
Avatar
How absolutely terrible! Now the enemy has to field 175 DPS battleships, 55 logi, 20 boosters/probers and FOUR CARACALS WITH RAPID LIGHT MISSILE LAUNCHERS. *Four* whole pilots! That's just AWFUL. We better make sure using this module at all requires T1 frigs/Inties to have even thinner tanks then they already do, because otherwise its just not fair to the blob fleet! We need to ensure that the fleet fight, the premium end-game content in EVE, isn't available to filthy pedestrian newbies with their low SP. If they want to be relevant they can go fuck right off to that rich small-gang experience we all know is so prevalent in sov-null, right?
Avatar
SO....I need a core of firewall battleships surrounding the FC at all times not that im against proper tactics but that would be a stupid meta
Avatar
I have to say thus actually sounds like it could work if implemented with short ranges and limitations to the amount that can be fitted to a ship. Whilst they may seem over powered they are really only powerful in numbers and if the ships using them can remain on field long enough for the target to pop. As soon as they are forced off field or popped themselves the reps shoot back up to ridiculous numbers and the target is repped to full shields/armour in seconds
Avatar
Exactly. The instant I saw the words "Remote repair disruptor" I instantly said "geez dude, it's called ECM;" but then I remembered how the range boost of logi hulls makes it possible to keep logi a good 20-30km behind the main fleet, safely out of harms way. And if you form, say, 30 guys in thoraxes and probe down the logi to drop in on them, you're effectively splitting your DPS because those pilots could have been sitting in DPS battleships; and the way the numbers work out now those pilots are always more valuable in DPS battleships, pound-for-pound.People are using "N+1 gameplay" as a buzzword with no appreciation of what it means. For raw numbers to be the *only* significant factor in fights requires there to be *exactly one* general fleet comp and *exactly one* general strategy worth a damn - and that's exactly the way it is now. A handful of dictors keeps an entire fleet bubbled, you have a handful of boosting ships, and the rest is DPS or logi. That's it. Adding the "fast tackle" mechanic to fleet fights (which is essentially what this does) at least varies fleet comps a little more and gives people a direct way to counter logi if they're willing to mob the enemy. Why can't frigates infinitely speed-tank every enemy in existence? Webs. Why can't inties escape almost any situation with an overheated MWD? Scrams. Why can't logis just shrug and rep their mates even if you drop close-range brawlers right on top of them? Oh, wait, they can.Any way you look at it, SOMETHING needs to be done.
Avatar
lol, 50% reduction with one module, starting with driven torwarts big fleet, followed by 50-guardian tank - sounds noobish, rusty zero-zero space noobish! play more small scale, have fun, there goon frends!
Avatar
This is actually a good thing. Since with both sides using this new module, the side with not enough dreads can still inflict heavy losses. In the current meta, a superior fleet can get so many reps the inferior fleet just gets obliterated without losses. In the new meta, you would have to take losses, even if you outnumber your enemy by a huge margin.
Avatar
Well, this idea could break the n+1 advantage. Because even if your fleet crashes and burns before the allmighty carrier fleet, at least a few carriers would burn with them. Currently, you can beat smaller fleet without taking losses at all. This is bad.
Avatar
Obviously not. If something like this module existed, they would be the ones suddenly taking losses from smaller fleets, maybe even lose systems to newcomers in NullSec. So of course the large blocks haven't much interest in this. Especially PLN3 would cry like babies if their precious caps could be blown up in a straight-up fight. Right now both sides only lose caps or supercaps due to stupidity or giant fleet fights. A small fleet of caps confronting one of the larger blocks would commit useless suicide. With this change, they could at least inflict some losses before going down.
Avatar
Either way will have the same basic result: even larger minimum engagement sizes. Logistics is a force multiplier. Take that away - take it off the field completely if you want - the damage is already done. The Coalitions exist, and have the organizational and manpower capabilities to apply overwhelming force when they put their minds to it.Let's say you cap the number of remote reps that can be applied to a single ship. Is this going to reduce the number of ships either side brings? Or will the pressure be on to bring even more numbers? After all, I don't much care if your small gang can have a perfect fleet comp - when one side or the other is capable of pouring thousands of battleships into a fight the way the CFC did last summer during Z9PP, the response to 'nobody can heal as well' becomes 'then we bring even more damage to kill them faster'.As for remote repairs filtering over the course of the cycle? As a logi pilot, I say 'yes, please. Make me MORE effective'. That will be the death knell of alpha-strike considerations - the only way to kill someone with an alpha-strike will be to literally one-volley them off the field. At any given moment, most of the reps on a target are not actively increasing the target's EH - they are at somewhere else in the 5s cycle.So, let's say you're looking at Armor reps - now they're applying faster. I think seeing how that makes them more effective against the imperfect alpha of the post-drone-assist fleets is obvious, yes? And shield reps? If the primary's doing what he's supposed to do, then he's broadcasting when he's yellowboxed - before any damage applies. The fastest-responding logi will have their shield reppers on him in the time between when he's locked, and when EVE would actually display any damage he'd already taken (often up to 2s) - except he hasn't taken any damage, so the shield reps apply before the alpha-strike hits, and are wasted. And then it's right back to waiting the 5s for them to cycle.Which means making the reps filter in as HoTs over the 5s cycle time makes even shield repairs more effective.Ultimately, the way to counter any force multiplier is with a measure that makes it obsolete and/or ineffective. Toaster's idea would definitely do that... but it wouldn't actually change the meta at all. The larger blocs would retain the ability to bring overwhelming force in pretty much any serious conflict, and the smaller groups would be unable to offer their members even the pretense of making them pay. Fighting sov warfare is already a grind. Make it a war of attrition and you'll just see people unwilling to even go around pinging towers - which would suddenly be far more powerful, because you know if there's an EWAR module, there's going to be an EWAR POS mod to do the same thing.
Avatar
The point is some losses are still better then zero losses. Nothing demoralises someone faster then like feeling totally helpless. So what if a big coalition can churn out ships faster then they lose some? Their enemies still blew some of them up and got killmails. So they will be more motivated to fight. This is basic human psychology at work here.
Avatar
That's just silly. If someone decides against bringing logistics, they will get slaughtered. Or does the bringing of heavy interdictors remove the need to bring your own supers? Or does it remove the need for DPS-ships if you bring ships to tackle them? This will be no different: Remove this new form of tackle and your logistics still work.If you read the article carefully, you will see this idea is more about preventing silly situations were one side routinely takes no losses and the other side gets annihilated. It's not about "threatening" big blocks, it's about motivating smaller entities to undock and fight.
Avatar
TL;DR, you need to read only 1/4 to know it's a rubbish, no offence..you allready have ECM, Sensor Damps and Neuts to counter Logialso giving 1 module 50% strenght? are you serious? so that means single module ruins work of numerous specialized pilots, also single pilot in cheap frigate would be able to punch down the repairs from 20 dudes to 10%.. brilliantso lets say this will happen, suddenly the fleet composition changes drastically, instead lets say of 200 DPS and 70 logi, there will be 200 logis, 70 DPS ships and a pack of RLD heroes, because now 70 DPS ships would be enough to kill ships that get 10% reps, and 200 logi, since each logi is only worth of 10% of what it can repair.the only thing this would lead to would be even bigger and bigger fights once again, with the difference of logis outnumbering DPS ships, and a need of RLD pilots, because they would not be a good addition to the game, they would be the absolute requirement without which the fleets would never undocksorry man, it seems it took you some serious effort to make this piece, but this idea is not the way to go
Avatar
No, they wouldn't lose a single system because of this. TCUs would be anchored on deathstars with a single pos-gunner and one or two dozen guys in stealth bombers or recon ships using these modules - assuming there wasn't just an equivalent EWAR module for the POS, which we all know there would be.
Avatar
prob echoing a lot of whats been said, but here goes anyway:i got bored of null pvp, partly due to the n+1 nature of engagements, and moved to wh space. I'd recommend trying that rather than staying locked into a shitty sov system that does nothing to promote roaming / value of ownership. Adding modules to "fix" logi is not going to change the n+1 nature, the problem is with sov not with modules. I'd also echo concerns of small gang peeps with 1/2 logi that would now be gimped further, its hard enough as it is with existing ewar.
Avatar
There's a fourth one , called ALPHA
Avatar
ok, so we are dealing with the problem of needing more and more ALPHA which leads to bigger and less fights, the main reason of this article is to ease up on ALPHA, and this is what you write.. nobrain ftw..
Avatar
And how is this going to give more to the FC more then adding more mandatory modules for a fleet fight. it will NOT solve the +1 issue it will only make the more expensiv ships weaker. for with that module there is few but none reasons to fly anything over 50mil cruisers since you will be unable to save the ship.Even your example are flawed. Let me explain why. we got a 100man fleet engagement (100 for easy showing)15% logistics 60% main dps 20% tackle and 5% boostersnow we assume the follwing:* we are using Hurricanes, Exequror, Rifters, T3 offgrid boosters * a Cane got 67k EHP ~* the enemy fleet is of equal size * a Cane got around 350dps or 3200Alpha(Alpha canes)The canes split there guns since they got 60ships in two groups and alpha off primary and secondarythe enemy fleet target primary and secondary canes with your modules the canes got a whooping -81% reduction in remote reps a Exequror can rep 200hp/s 5 logies / target5x200 = 1000hp/s with reduction this is cut down to 190hp/s or less then 1/5 of the logisitc power the result is the logistic pilots are UNABLE to save ANYTHING...... with a module like that what is the purpoes of having logistic ships? should we remove the logistic ships all together?
Avatar
Wrong.
Avatar
If you don't understand the difference between mez/stun and a healing debuff, you aren't capable of understanding the theory, so its a good thing you didn't waste time reading it. It was beyond you from the beginning.
Avatar
That is the point. To put all fleets at risk of losing.
Avatar
Something that might work a bit like this but in a more dynamic way would be a Projected Target Spectrum Breaker - that has a likelihood of breaking locks of all ships targeting the module target ship based on the number of locks made on the module target. (Edit: This should include the TSB rule that even immune-to-ewar ships will be affected) (As a rough example, maybe 1/2% per ship lock chance - weaker than the standard TSB to make up for the fact it's a remote module.) More valuable in large engagements, still requires EWar discipline to keep these locks broken and coordination for DPS ships to relock and start damaging before logistics can re-apply reps, but opens a window of DPS viability and additional strategic decisions. Spread reps would be less vulnerable to this kind of module, but then overpowering reps becomes more feasible - likewise, focused reps can potentially be cut off if used too much.Just a random idle thought.
Avatar
You realize that nerf is entirely dependent on someone's ability to keep n 10k ranged modulea on the primary, right? I.E you're swatting frigates. This is equivilent to killing tackle.This is a pretty essential element of toasters proposal; ignoring it is absurd.
Avatar
"Work"
Avatar
even at <10km range, put it on a proteus and logis are completely out of play for wormhole fights. Sorry but in the proposed way the module is way too strong if you can put it on more or less every hull.If you want to consider it, than it should have at least as many drawbacks as a falcon. T2 ship, moderately expensive, low tank and clear from the beginnig which ship is crippling your logis.
Avatar
sure give it a 500m activation range then lets see how its used ....the module is overpowerd you need a total of 10 in anyfleet and then you can ignore your own logistics since the enemy cant use his anyway.......your suggestion don't solve the n+1 it just removes the logistic ships totaly from the game. there is 0 reasons to bring a logi ship to a fight if that module even passed the CSM but please contact your CSM rep. and ask of his opinon.
Avatar
idk about this at all; seems to me like you'd have every dps shit fitting one then going and point-blank ownzowning
Avatar
Why do you need a module to disrupt remote rep? You already have modules that disrupts remote rep. It's called E-war.I think your premise is faulty. Just because your fleets suck at using E-war doesn't mean you need a new mod to stop logi.
Avatar
I see it as a plus that it could also be used defensively. Looks like it would be benefiting DPS ships that can relock faster than logi ships. I'd have to run simulations to say more.
Avatar
This, pretty much. I've seen a lot of talk about nerfing logistics, but I still don't see many fleets bothering to field proper e-war wings. Most people simply don't bother to deploy e-war, but on the rare occasions when it is deployed, it's very effective.When faced with paper, you should need to bring scissors, not scramble to find a bigger rock. Changing the meta to nerf paper (either directly, or with an easy-mode long-range anti-logi weapon) doesn't improve things, it just shrinks the range of options.Adding new e-war isn't a fundamentally bad idea, but this is very much the wrong way to go about it. I'd support any of the revised ECM ideas (even some of the really terrible ones) over this.
Avatar
The issue im seeing is that there is NO POINT in having a logistic ship with you in large engagement if that module existed.I have flown in several large fleet engagement 6VDT-H example sure logies are good to have but if a module that is capable of reducing the incomming reps down to 19% (T2 modules) It will only lead to FC and Booster ships beeing vollyed off field because you can't save a ship under 4x modules and belive me in a 1000+ engagement there will be plenty of crap ship doing stuff like this often under a own wing. It is to strong. because of a single AF Harpy is capable of pointing 1 ship and sacrificing a 50m isk ship for a 500m isk ship is always good for efficency. with 50 logies it would take 25 Celesties to slow them down......see the issue. 1 ship for 50m~ can cripple a fleet to equal levels of what 25 celesties can do ....
Avatar
If they put this in.... Ace Gunnery, I am finally going to kill you.
Avatar
So TMC is now a soapbox for people who couldn't get traction in F&I on the official forums?All you are doing is shifting the meta to attrition of cheap ships in lieu of interesting fleets comps. The RLD lowers the 'alpha' threshold to the point that people may throw up their arms and not bother bringing ships that they can't keep alive. They may even stop bothering with logi as more dps means they can attrition faster than an enemy who waste space with ineffective logi.Basically, you're making blobbing worse. Brave have demonstrated that it is effective DESPITE the current meta of logistics being quite strong. The RLD would just push the meta further in their favour and make their style of fighting the prevalent form of play.
Avatar
AOE Doomsdays came from titans which were very hard to kill. The RLD would most likely come from frigates sitting 10km off of an angry enemy fleet. Frigates are in fact easier to kill than titans. Clear RLD and logi still works just fine!
Avatar
It's not that they wouldn't ping a tower, it's that a team of interceptors warping into the POS would be pretty much all you'd need to defend it against anything smaller than dreads. The meta shifts from dickstars to deathstars, and now that the logi can't hold reps, the POSgunner is all you need to cap the FC and then start working down the fleet.
Avatar
First let me thank you for responding, its good to see people here making articles and try to at least respond to criticism. I undesrtand your goal is giving a plain field to weaker alliances, however my argument is that a module will not change that. Since it will be available for everyone. My point is that there are many circumstances for eve pvp. And the fact that you canot field more then rifters is not an issue, it is simply that. If you have an alliance of average 40m skillpoints per charecter, they should not fear an alliance of rifters. Or else it would be no point in skilling up. Just make bob 2.0 of noobs and conquer 0.0. Fact is cfc has been n1 power for some year now because they have, numbers, logistics, isk and an impecable organization, defenders cant hold because they just cant no matter what module you throw. Cfc can field 1000 megas like in fountain war, how you gonna atrition that with frigates? Capabilitie to defend in eve sov war comes from the social and organizational side of eve, not modules or leet pvp. I give an example TEST didnt even sbued their sys when cfc invaded, how is module gonna fix you not knowing eve mechanics? Or why they trying to defend their space flying bc like prophecys while cfc was in full battleship mode. Bad tactics and poor knowledge are the issues here. Now if you talk about small mid sized pvp for gudfights, i would have to say again there is EWAR ships, alpha ships, kiting concepts, bombers, smartbombing BS, and clever knowledge of eve pvp to even your fights. Logi is a part of the game not a broken mechanic in my view. Cheers.
Avatar
Lets say for a moment that out of a 250 man fleet there are 10 cruisers who need to get within 10km of the enemy but will win the fight for their side if they can stay there 90 seconds. The enemy knows this. What will the enemy do in response?
Avatar
After reading both articles and the majority of the 250+ comments, here is my view.I'm a noob at EVE, an outsider. I'm not a noob at gaming though. I've been playing video games for 30+ years and have dabbled at game feedback in various betas and a CSM like program for DAoC called Team Leads. That being said...After years of bouncing between FPS shooters and generic MMO's, I decided to try EVE and I was blown away. I like the potential this game has. I would like to see it continue to evolve and stay relevant. I was quite impressed at the plethora of ship sizes and roles, with nuances between factions. All of it balanced by player run in game economy. Reading about those big battles that make RL news, I could just imagined how crazy it must be to apply counter tactics followed by counter tactics followed by counter tactics. I guess my problem is my imagination is a bit grander than the "meta" allows.I mean, with how many different ship options, fit options, roles and whatnot, someone like me would expect to have a crazy amount of ship types in huge 1000+ battles. But when I did my research, I was quite disappointed to find out that each side of the conflict is likely to have several hundred of the same DPS "role" ships + several hundred of the same Logistics "role" ships + a few of the same tacklers (which I infer equates to ships that drop bubbles) and some booster ships that takes advantage of fleet bonuses. Really? That's it? Doctrines that can choose from HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of ship choices and fit combinations get boiled down into large quantities of 4 different ships? And when someone comes along with something that can cause some damage, the answer is to bring MORE OF THE SAME?Someone like me looks at that and goes, "game is broken." I no longer have any interest in ever moving from my beginner ways into "big bad Nulsec". I have no desire to be 1 of 200 DPS ships, or 1 of 200 Logistics ships, targeting what I'm told to target and pressing F1 (to F4) when I'm told to. How boring! How do you guys do it? I know a lot of people will piss on my point of view and say I am not made to play EVE with that kind of opinion. Fine, be a douche. I will always have plenty of options of new games to play, so how is your "HTFU" mantra really going to hurt me? If EVE was all there was, you'd have a leg to stand on. On the flip side, if you keep turning away new people and burning out your regulars with same old same old, how do you expect the game to prosper?Ranting aside, I really can't say if the proposed idea is good or bad. I am not blind to the fact that I have no experience. I am not here to say yay or nay. But I decided to write my (what is turning into a wall of text) view that games MUST EVOLVE or get replaced. That means introducing new things that shake things up. Every comment that just shits on the idea with no constructive (read: alternate suggestions, improvements, ect...) is not worth anyone's time. Not saying EVE is dying. I'm saying everything ends, and that attitude will just make EVE's end come sooner than later.The silly responses I've seen so far:1) FC head shots: Umm, how is this NOT a valid tactic? In many many MMO games I've played, we have set up primary "FC's", with a secondary backup and if necessary, a tertiary. So if something happens to #1, #2 takes over. If something happens to #2 before #1 can get back, then #3 takes over. To me it seems blatantly logical to find and kill the leader. How is it not part of the "meta" to make the leader hard to identify and/or find? I mean, how do you deal with disconnects? If, god forbid, the FC gets disconnected... is it just assumed the battle is lost? Do you not have contingency plans? And how is that really any different than having your FC "head shotted"?2) The many many responses that infer the proposed idea is bad assuming those ships will be left alone to do what they are doing. And the math? If your beef is 90% is too much, don't be stupid and say, "nope, impossible" when "balancing required" is all the idea needs.3) Now I don't know if the "alpha threshold" is really a thing, but the author blatantly explained his goal is to get rid of this in TWO articles. If your response to his TWO articles is "MORE ALPHA", then you are retarded. If you can't be bothered to read, then don't post. I am not saying you can't refute his "alpha threshold" concept. Just don't comment saying the answer to the problem IS the problem.4) People that deny there is a problem. I am not saying "alpha threshold" IS the problem, but when I read about large fights and learn that there is many multiples of maybe half a dozen ship fits in huge fleets when there are so many options to choose from, then I say there IS a problem.
Avatar
Put it on a Proteus, keep the Proteus in your fleet at 1km, RLD their Proteus, burn it down since their reps don't work. Then fly over with your Proteus and start screwing their reps. It cuts both ways. These things are meant to make you a huge target.
Avatar
I would think that the rest of Eve would adapt. I mean people might fly cheaper ships and/or die more, but I just cant get that upset about somebody who would unsub because of more risk to their ultra expensive PvP boat.
Avatar
The reason you would not see this used on every ship in the fleet is that bubbles allow their users to dictate range. It only makes sense to put them on small fast ships that can close and apply the RLD outside of a few situations. As for frigates en masse, sure it would work for a few kills but not to take a tower. At least not directly.
Avatar
When it comes to employing varied fleet comps and tactics/counter-tactics in the massive fights, the biggest limiters are not the game mechanics, but the game's software backbone, and its players.On the first ,Time Dilation's a big improvement over nodes simply crashing, but when everything in the target system is happening at 1/10th normal speed, that gives the enemy tons of time to respond to complicated gambits by mustering the correct counter in a different system, and throwing it in as soon as a cyno can light.On the second... some people are very, very good at this game, and very, very good at the complicated tactics and comprehensive knowledge needed to do exactly what you're saying. Those people tend to quickly wind up in positions where they are, indeed, employing clever tactics and careful planning to out-maneuver, counter-gambit, and out-smart their opponents. They are doing this on the meta-game level - behind the scenes, with diplomacy, with leaking new ideas and doctrines to see who responds to what, etc, etc.The sad truth is, the vast majority of us playing this game are little better than cheeto-stained retarded monkeys who've been hit in the head with a hammer too many times. Yes, some of us are very good at what we do. Most of us are not. That's not to say we couldn't be, but the majority of EVE players, even in the big PVP blocs in null, can't be bothered to put in the work for a game.
Avatar
Except that once upon a time players did do this, and BNI, RVB, E-Uni do it now. Sure, bittter vets in 100m sp clones will not be flying to screaming death in rifters but their alts might. I think that if players have an hope in hell of doing damage they will fight, and that damage is for many players defined my the ratio of loss inflicted on the enemy to your own losses.Also, purely on a locktime and sig tanking basis it would take a mega fleet longer than 45 seconds to wipe out 250 Rifters (excepting bombs/smartbombs which are iffy to apply). The Rifters would die for sure, but man they would cause some carnage before they did.
Avatar
1) spies in the enemy fleet, on their comms and just from experience of who/what they use for anchors. The FC is human like everyone else, if they keep being primaried their potential ability to have fun is diminished eventually to the point they no longer lead the fleet, rinse and repeat for each subsequent FC.2) Personally I see that module working into either extreme. Either even more logistic ships on grid to the point of the stacking penalty not mattering anymore or a potential full dps fleet to kill more than you lose faster than the other fleet. While fun and explosions galore it would eventually lead to n+1 for dps ships.3) changing how reps are applied won't affect the use of alpha fleets only shift the focus to dps setups.4) conformity is used everywhere. When dealing with that many ships, you try to idiot proof the fittings allowed through the use of doctrines and it allows the FC to better understand the limitations for their fleet. There is normally a doctrine for each intended role/target."Can I bring my drake"
Avatar
Provided that mega fleet would engage and not reship to something more suited for blapping rifters out of the sky.
Avatar
That is your idea of how they would be used. Obviously that would not be the case. They would be used on bigger ships for brawling. Few rifters can be killed by specialised ships fast enough not to affect the battle. This is not a module that can only be used by smaller alliances or newbies.
Avatar
I like this a lot, but in the form you suggested it is overpowered. Maybe make the fitting requirements so that only a cruiser like a heavy tackle stabber can fit it. But I do like this idea very much.
Avatar
Great! The smaller party is now fighting against less overwhelming odds! Maybe they could reship into something slightly larger and even win the battle! You just found one of the upsides to the RLD I just plain ran out of space for in my article.
Avatar
True. But bigger ships are harder to place since bubbles allow the defender to dictate range. A couple smart interdictors could keep those heavier ships 30km away long enough for them to be devastated. There would be a far larger element of skill to it than there is now... even the concept of smaller ships mattering would be a revolution.Alternately, the attacker could just fit RLDs to interdiction nullified T3 cruisers and fly into the heart of the enemy blob, but it would take some really rich and ballsy pilots to do that very often.
Avatar
That is a very valid point that I simply did not consider. Thank you for bringing it up. All I can say is that maybe the attacker would need to keep their FC cloaked and have something on hand to kill the inties like assault frigatess. Somebody would still have to come out of the force field to RLD whatever was being shot.
Avatar
1) Spies are part of the meta. It's blatantly obvious to anyone that makes any attempt at understanding EVE. So deal with that meta. Different misinformation given to different groups can slowly pin point who the spy is based on the enemy reactions. Espionage and counter espionage is part of the game. Why does an FC have to trust every member of his fleet? Trust your subordinates, let them establish trust with their subordinates. Military rank and file evolved the way it did for a reason...2) No experience, can't comment. Don't know if it would be a valid fix or a disaster. Not my point.3) Pure DPS vs pure DPS means both sides suffer losses. From my point of view, that is better than the picture of complete lossless victory by larger entities because they have an unbeatable (FOTM?) doctrine versus the little guys. I would rather play a game where a large entity has difficulty maintaining territory or logistics (as in ships, modules, etc..., not reps) because they bleed many small losses as they fight hundreds of smaller entities instead of a game where hundreds of smaller entities are powerless against a large entity unless they themselves become a large entity.4) I understand the power of conformity. However, when it scales endlessly it becomes un-fun gameplay. When the answer to "Out of the thousands of ship choices and fit combinations, what do I bring?" always boils down to "more of the same 4 ships for a given fleet", then the game has crossed the line into "un-fun"..Look at it this way: Imagine the rules of chess allowed you to choose to populate the board with the pieces of your choice. Eventually someone decides the best combination is 1 king, 9 queens and the rest rooks. Eventually everyone figures out the answer to that is bring the same or don't bother playing. And since Chess doesn't evolve, well that's it, ad nauseum. That version of chess would never last.
Avatar
I dont think the RLD would really allow a smaller alliance to defeat a coalition in a bigger fight, but I think it would allow a well lead and organized smaller alliance to exact a price from a bigger one for things. There are a lot of low end objectives in nullsec that big alliances hold right now because its almost free to do so. POCOs, R32 Moons, even really crappy systems in the middle of nowhere.Sure a small outfit couldn't take the CFC in full HELLDEATHPURGE mode, but they could probably make it not economical for the CFC to hold a couple low end moon towers right next door to their staging system.I guess you could say I want to create a niche for bottom feeders. Give them a chance to practice, train, recruit, and enjoy some of the benafits of nullsec without having to join a bloc or have 10000 members.
Avatar
Except that the large organized entity already has the capacity to win any fight it wants outside a bloc war without the RLD. The smaller entity has almost no capacity to do this.This would not change bloc fights, but it might allow smaller outfits to get a foot in the door.
Avatar
Reps need broadcasts to work and those are only visible to your fleet. As some point having more reps turns your fleet into a hilarious circle-rep that cant shoot anything.
Avatar
You think that would be terrible, I think it would be awesome. If whoever the CFC is fighting refuses to change they deserve to lose.
Avatar
I did not bring up the hardware side of EVE and TIDI because my text was already well into TLDR territory. But now that you bring it up....From my point of view, the current "doctrines" is what is leading to the hardware problems. When the answer to stiff opposition is "bring more of the same" instead of "some of you disengage and swap out for this tactic" then you are forever doomed to "hardware issues" and "TIDI"."...the vast majority of us playing this game are little better than..." is a bad way to look at your player base. In general, everyone gets better with practice. However, if all people do is fly the ships they are told to fly, target what they are told to target and shoot when they are told to shoot, then there's not a whole lot of room for improvement. I don't know about you, but when there is no more room for me to improve at a game, I don't have a whole lot of incentive to keep playing that game.Some people like being sheep, I'll grant that much. They like being part of something bigger that is successful. That is enough for them. Others just like seeing their statistics grow, or whatnot. I personally don't understand those people, but they exist, it just is. So yeah, there's room for doctrines and people willing to fill them. But thousands? With no one that gets bored? I just can't see that.
Avatar
"Often under their own wing."THIS IS LITERALLY THE POINT.One of the best things about EVE is the tackling dynamic; as ship sizes increase their weapon range increases, but there's no equivalent scaling for tackling mods - which gives frigates an important role in almost every fight, and OTHER frigates an important role vis a vis KILLING THEM. In huge fleet fights this just becomes "five guys in dictors kthx" and that's that. With a module like this, frigates that are allowed to get close can take at least one much more expensive ship with them. Combined with Interceptor's bubble nullification and suddenly there's a very real need for anti-support ships - the battle becomes a multi-faceted one with multiple elements that need to be managed separately instead of two blobs of ships ever so slowly grinding each other down in 10% ti-di while the pilots browse reddit.With ECM nerfs factored in, you'd have a full spectrum - a moderate, long-lasting nerf to enemy logi from afar (Celesties,) or a high-risk, high-reward module that requires you to get within 10km despite a lot of people who really don't want your damned rep-nerfer getting within 10km.tl;dr the tackling dynamic is utterly useless on the large fleet fight scale and that leaves us low-SP noobs with nothing to do.
Avatar
Well i got to say, if the permiss is to help small entitys with noob people get the rips of null sec, then sov mechanics is really your problem. Anyways, i would just recomend you think this for a second. 1 dampener ship with 4 damps, can effectively reduce scan res or range of 2 ships by 80% or 4 ships 50%. That means either you have logi with about a BSHIP scan res or a 10- 30k range, you really think that is not effective? A perma jamed logi is good for what? Target practice i would say. Cmon you have the tools in game, why not organize that?
Avatar
Maybe as a self proclaimed "incompetent player with too much money" you should shut up on game-mechanics and stop sprouting stupid ideas.
Avatar
BNI reads Harrpy Potter-Cthulu sex fics while structure bashing.
Avatar
Because I'm sure the addition of a way to boil down a fight into who brought the most meat is a grand idea.Best time in eve I ever had was in Tribute with NCdot, where smaller fleets of highly skilled players with on the ball logi routinely managed to beat back fleets double or more our numbers, largely due to very good logi and the CFC's horrible doctrines back then (drakes, lol).But let's just add in a mod which prevents the use of force multipliers like logi? Would just turn the game into a more simple "Who brought the most ships" meatfest.And if this is a good idea, can you explain why a similar mod reducing the effectiveness of ECM, damps, and TD's would not also be a good idea? A very similar process goes though before a fight where the question is "Can I engage without being damped to death by 1000 Celestis" I demand a matching mod that reduces the effectiveness of all forms of projected ecm in a large area, or one that reduces the effectiveness of incoming ecm. If you can point a carrier with one of these to reduce the incoming rep by such a massive amount, carriers should be able to circle jerk each other into having at least 50-70% Damp Immunity .
Avatar
Implementing falloff and optimal and adding two tiers of reppers for each size (short range, faster cycle, less HP higher EHP/s and long range, more HP slower cycle, less EHP/s) would force logi to be closer to repped ships and even allow same t1 frigs you want in new roles to be useful (shutting off logis MWD or webbing a logi while it's anchored, bringing it out of optimal for reps, etc) while not massivelly propagating N+1 gameplay you're proposing. Because, let's face it, there are a LOT of ships with utility slots and good dps which would become new meta and all you did was remove force multiplication from game. In short time it'd come down to "who can undock more pilots in [ship]" and pop other party first. Either that or logi gets replaced with ECM. Then again, I can see why you'd want that, you being in most numerous alliance/coalition in eve.
Avatar
His point is that alpha is only ONE way to deal with it, and the OP ignored the other ways (he touched on damps, but completely ignored the others). If he's so concerned about Guardians, he should look at its sensor strength. T2 logi are pretty easy to jam out with a Falcon or Scorpion.
Avatar
"coalition behavior since Dominion"It's not logi in general that's driving up larger numbers. Having mass numbers gives you a larger advantage in almost every case. If logi are nerfed, that only means that larger numbers get even MORE powerful, because you don't have the force multiplication that logi brings.As a lot of people have said, learn the counters that logi has (mainly EWar and fleet tactics, not raw alpha) before you start complaining about nerfs.
Avatar
I have a feeling that's a mistake by CCP. The bombers for the other races are the Breacher, Tristan and Kestrel hulls, but the bomber for Amarr is the frigate logi hull?
Avatar
Bombers already break the N+1 advantage, or have you never heard of CarbonFurry? Multiboxing 16 bombers he alone killed an entire -A- Tengu fleet a few months ago.
Avatar
Instead of advocating awful ideas that completely break the game, why don't you instead advocate for capital nutes as it is fairly obvious at this point that your entire grievance with remote repair is that QQ you don't like the Slowcat doctrine. Capital nutes would do exactly what you are complaining about. Instantly cap out a single target and then they die. Or just l2 eve and realize that counters to logistics already exist.
Avatar
Sure - unless, like every other EWAR module out there, CCP puts out an equivalent POS mod.
Avatar
Thousands?Try billions. That is the nature of humanity. The malcontents who rise above are the exception.
Avatar
ummm... i thought remote logistics disruptor's are AKA falcons....
Avatar
However, to respond to the larger points...No, the current doctrines are not what is causing the hardware issues. The current organizational capabilities of the player groups is. To be blunt, it wouldn't matter if the fleet compositions were varied and complex, with innovative and clever strategies, or as uniform and homogenized as pureed skim milk: when you pour 3500 people into a single system, CCP's backbone has 3500 ships to track, and 3500 sets of skills to evaluate, and 3500*3500 sets of interactions to track.And it chokes. Right now, the solution to TiDi is to spread the fights out over several systems (or better, constellations, since CCP's changed it so that constellations share TiDi). But that requires complex machinations toward strategic objectives that the current timer system pretty much renders impossible.As for how I'm looking at the playerbase... it's not the playerbase, as my other reply indicated. It's human nature. People do just enough to get by. And they measure 'improving' in a game in different ways. For some, it's actually improving their performance in the things they choose to do. For others, it's having a fatter wallet at the end of the day, and let's face it, PVP isn't the way to do that - afk ratting while you play F1 monkey, though. For still others, its succeeding at strategic objectives.That third option is what drives the big fights - what drives the publicized conflicts. And that third option doesn't require a lot of the first one. Just like the real world, you have the people who have a drive to be good at their jobs rising to leadership positions, and strategies and TO&E considerations being driven by the assumption that the rank and file are going to be morons. Not because they are morons, but because you plan and prepare for your worst-case scenario, always.
Avatar
a buff to damps would work better than this since, reducing the range on logis would make them get closer witch makes the blob weaker agaisnt bomber. This module seems way too overpowered and even adding some constraints to it i can not see any balanced output to it.
Avatar
dont you ever dare to nerf triage carriers, how would you balance this agaisnt triage carriers?.
Avatar
First off, let me state that I am fully aware I do not see the big picture. So if what I have said or will say is off the mark, then I'm ready to admit as much. My continuing discussion here is not me saying, no you're wrong, I'm right.In response, I have a hard time swallowing what you have said because it doesn't make sense (to me). I mean organizational capabilities (to me) would mean getting more done with what you have. In other words, a fictional coalition with 1000 pilots throws 100 into a fight. They face a clever counter and the FC has 2 choices:.1) Get 25 of his pilots to break off and reship (or die and come back) with a counter, or;.2) Call in 100 more to render the counter inconsequential..Using option 1) gets the job done and allows the other 900 pilots to be in 9 other groups accomplishing 9 other goals somewhere else..Using option 2) gets the job done but means one less goal accomplished somewhere else..Which of the two is more reflective of what "organizational capabilities" means, and which is more reflective of actual EVE "coalition" battles?.To me, bringing "moar!" is not good organization because when you get to the end of Option 2, you end up with 1000 pilots doing one thing when they could be doing 10 things at the same time.
Avatar
Then why does he keep bringing up Guardians as examples?
Avatar
It's not a mistake really, it's just that the Purifier and Tormentor kind of "swapped" roles under tiericide, the Purifier becoming the Logistics Frigate, and the Tormentor becoming a Laser Drone ship.
Avatar
+1; I like this idea. It is a reasonable form of targeted EWAR.Unfortunately, there is still one major downside: You cannot use this on supercapitals, as they are EWAR immune. At the largest ship level, RR Supercaps supporting DD titans will digress. At the same time, I'm not currently too concerned about that level of combat.
Avatar
Logi as a force multiplier works for larger fleets as well. There are no stacking penalties for incoming reps. There will be for the RLD. That alone would favor the smaller groups.
Avatar
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. More organized and numerous fleets can still apply RLD and screen for it better than smaller gangs. This way at least the smaller gangs can do some fighting before they're blown to bits, rather than just stan ddown from the start because they know they can't reach the magic DPS number.
Avatar
It still seems pretty backwards from the other races.
Avatar
Except that a)the fictional coalition will be doing their best to only pursue one strategic objective at a time, ensuring they have the maximum chance of bringing overwhelming force to bare, and b)the fictional coalition will, in any actual strategic situation, want to bring overwhelming force to bare, for a few reasons.First, bringing overwhelming force is the best way, generally, to achieve your strategic objectives in EVE. Strategic objectives, let's remember, come in two flavors: blow something up, or stop someone else from blowing it up. There's really no middle ground in EVE.Second, bringing overwhelming force has a demoralizing effect on your enemy - if your opening gambit is more than they can easily counter, the vast majority of the time, they will not engage.Third, the system limitations favor early insertion of overwhelming force - look at what happened in HED-GP: getting there first with overwhelming numerical support allowed the N3/PL capital/supercapital assets to take the field, albeit in TiDi, while CFC/RUS capitals who attempted to jump in later wound up stuck in transit, losing connection, etc.The hard reality is, the infrastructure situation favors the guy who can pour 2000 ships into the system at the start, and completely front-load their participation.'Organizational capabilities' means mobilizing those 1000 pilots to be used effectively. And given the timer mechanics of EVE enforcing the fact that the critical time-frame for any strategic objective will be known in advance by all parties, the most effective way to use those 1000 pilots is as an opening hammerblow. We've seen it time and time again. If more complex strategies were able to be shown to be effective, we'd be using them.
Avatar
Remote sensor boosters and projected ECCM exist already. There isn't a mod that makes your sig radius smaller though. As for the rest of what you are saying, while smaller groups may have beaten back larger one in Tribute that was certainly not the case in most of the recent battles. We are already to the meat grinder you speak of, and its boring.Skill and coordination would matter more with the RLD than they do now because success or failure would be tied to the ability to clear off tackle rather than just lock the broadcast and spin reps.
Avatar
Except that the current sov system forces big fights in one place, meaning MOAR is usually the right answer. Its a flaw that would take one hell of a lot more writing to even begin to address, but its a fact right now.
Avatar
Eew. That would be bad.
Avatar
So win territory by abusing limitations in game mechanics (hardware realities)..Congratulations, you have convinced me there is no alternative at this time. You have also convinced me to never bother playing that part of EVE.Win by not fighting at all. Sounds like a lot of fun. No wonder the bigwigs have to give their membership time to chill out after grinding SOV for months...EDIT:.Actually, it still doesn't make sense. I am a noob at EVE after all. Does EVE force you to take territory in sequence, ie: you can't take B until you take A?
Avatar
the way I got it "Hah" says that there is 4th counter to logi, the Alpha.. which is actually the problem that originated this piece cause the alpha requirement is pushing fleets to become bigger, so the alpha is not a solution..TBS I totally agree with you on the ECM part
Avatar
Well you know that response made me want to agree with you less, shit 2/4 areas of space don't involve bubbles.Next point if both sides are using logi chances are they will both be using RLD meaning that they meta could turn into point blank BS brawls (or maybe not) and in such a case a multiple redundancy RLD setup would be needed aka fit them on most ships
Avatar
At least it would be different! Also, what 4 areas of space are you talking about? No bubbles in highsec or lowsec, and then null, but whats the 4th?
Avatar
This argument only holds water until mass numbers reach the point that targets start getting one-cycled, and we got past that a long time ago. As I have said before, if Ewar were truly decisive in combat it would be used; to claim that it would work if people just used it overlooks most battles in the last two major wars. If it worked people WOULD use it, and though damps took a secondary role Ewar itself has been more or less absent.
Avatar
Fights tend to happen at point blank range in w-space, usually on wormholes. A mod like this would essentially be a huge "FUCK YOU" to logi in w-space.
Avatar
We do tell people that EVE is a terrible game...Personally, I have a lot of fun during the big slogging fights. But I'm also nuts.Just... don't fool yourself: any human endeavor where it's possible to get an advantage by abusing the 'rules', it will, and does, happen constantly. You can't make a game system where the system itself can't be gamed. You can't undertake an endeavor where the simplest and most effective alternative won't be used.Heck, look at the US Military's last two official 'doctrines': 'Shock & Awe' was almost literally a 'let's rip the support elements off what we have and go bigger for TV'. And what came before Shock & Awe? The Powell Doctrine, which was literally 'Employ overwhelming force at the outset, and continue to ramp up the power imbalance'.And remember, the biggest reason that wars of attrition don't tend to be fought in the real world is just that: attrition. When death isn't real, when the blocs can afford to replace materiel... the zerg will always be the cheapest option. Always. Call it whatever you want: call it the zerg rush. Call it the flight of a thousand rifters. Call it the Golden Horde, or How the West Was Won... manpower is the key.Sov grinds aren't fun. Doing something difficult, something you have to focus on and make a real effort at, something where you matter... that's fun. That's why I enjoy the big fights, too. I don't F1-monkey.Something else to remember: fleet composition does include tactical elements. It's not just 'everyone get in a line battleship and we'll slug it out'. Smaller ships like support cruisers of various stripes (recon, logi, ewar, etc) and tackle (interdictors, even 3-day old pilots in rifters screaming out into the black w/a warp disruptor and absolutely no awareness of how improbable their success would be), interceptors functioning as outriders to provide bounce spots, fast-locking battlecruisers to function as screening ships against bombers (and, I should point out, they'd do the same function against the RLD-equipped ships that have to come in close)... there's a lot of roles in a fleet beyond 'lock target, press F1'.Those roles simply aren't the most common ship in the fleet, and even they tend toward uniformity. Logistics, for example, will be in one of 2 hull-types (T1 or T2 versions of the same 2 hull types) with identical fits to ensure uniformity (and thus, reliability) of performance. And so-on down the line.Now, the thing you're looking for? '25 guys reship into X...'? That wastes time - it's inefficient. It's far more efficient to have your contingencies ready - or even already in-system, like having a second fleet w/bombers, or a cap-fleet waiting to be cyno'd in. But those assets have to be reliable, which means they're accounted as 'committed' the moment the fight starts, unless something significant comes up to change it.And yet - it still does happen. People get ordered to switch ships, "hey, you guys in interceptors, I need you to burn back and bring me dictors, ASAP', and the like.
Avatar
As someone who fights BNI for fun literally every single day and has been for the last month, even BNI doesn't hang around after the first few losses if they can help it.
Avatar
Or blapping Proteuses. Or Ahacs. Or [insert heavy, mobile doctrine of the month]. There is nothing keeping an entire heavy armor doctrine from fitting one of these and a web. Probes, dude. This can easily spiral out of control for reasons Nosirevbus outlines beautifully a few dozen posts above.Hell, when it comes to capital imbalance, RLD modules even make Fatcats dropping alongside boot carriers sound attractive by virtue of their massive buffer tank. This aggravates a ton of issues with EvE *except* large fleet fights, in which people have no present trouble blapping enemy battleships off the field with coordinated fire from multiple fleets. Welcome to EvE.
Avatar
The whole idea that you're going to have to deal with a blob of Rifters is nonsense. Build this module, and you're going to be dealing with an interceptor support fleet with RLDs, an AHAC support fleet with RLDs and Microwarpdrives that can dictate engagement and application range with gorgeous effectiveness when flown well [citation: Black Fucking Legion], and a mainfleet of blaster Baltecs with dual props and an RLD in the mid.The pastoral picture of Rifters dashing themselves against a bigger, badder enemy is dated. Even BRAVE can field fast, brick-tanked battlecruisers that probe, warp to 100km, and medium MJD into an enemy through defensive bubbles. There are no reasonable counters to some things.
Avatar
Can.... can I buy you a drink, lad?On a side note, Toaster, I love this article and the discussions taking place in the comments. Over time, I'm disagreeing more and more with the proposed solution, but you make compelling points that stand on their own well, and starting the dialogue on the balance of logistics and factors on effective reps on such a thoughtfully founded base only does good things. My hat is off.
Avatar
It's not the equivalent of swatting tackle when the mainline ship is both agile AND tanky.
Avatar
But its already who can undock more pilots in [ship]" and pop other party first. [ship] is battleships and guardians and nothing but, except caps.
Avatar
That was the whole point really. Its easy enough to identify a problem with eve; math alone pretty much proves the point of my first article, but a solution is so much harder because of the complexity involved. As far as I have seen when "solutions" to problems are implemented in a vacuum you get stuff like the Dominion sov system or supercarriers a la 2010.Unfortunately the only way to get the discussion started is to throw an idea into the shark-tank and subject it to mass critical review in the hopes that its good points will stand and its bad ones will be addressed. If eventually a nerf/buff/new module/sov revamp/something comes of all this that makes Eve more dynamic and breaks the stranglehold that the high-EHP meta has on sov warfare this will be more than worth it. I like eve, enjoy playing it, and want it to continue another 10 years with more people and more explosions.Also, on an unrelated note, I really do think the RLD would work and you are wrong. :)
Avatar
Beats the hell out of what we have now at least. Also, inties and HACs have their place but I think that truly expendable T1 frigates would find one as well were the RLD to become a thing. Its all about what you expect to accomplish before you die.
Avatar
When every single pilot in a fleet of cruisers with a quarter of a million EHP each is fitting an RLD, suddenly nobody is a huge target.
Avatar
This should not be a problem for large coalitions. Simply create a fleet how u normally would but have a seperate fleet with only ewar fitted to jam enemy reps. Most large fights have at least 2 fleets from each side anyway, Use one of those fleets as jammers. Problem solved.
Avatar
The main drawback I see to this idea is... additional downward pressure on ship sizes. On the plus side if it does not affect SELF reps, it could make ships like the Hyperion and Maelstrom suddenly more attractive.
Avatar
Damps - range damps, scan res damps, etc - are EWAR. You're seeing 'EWAR' and reading 'ECM'. These are two different things - one is a broad category that includes the other. EWAR is used constantly.
Avatar
The real problem is the alpha requirement isn't pushing fleets to get bigger - the size of the other fleet is. "Bring more dudes" is the oldest form of battlefield superiority known to man.
Avatar
not at all, its natural to try to have more ships than a foe, the problem is alfa needed to kill anything in enemy fleet, resulting in one-side fights where one fleet is butchered while the second counts no losses (except tackle hero's ofc)so unless you have fleet bigger enough, there is no reason to undock and engage, since your chances of damaging enemy are near-zero
Avatar
Right. But that's not a function of alpha-strike capability. Alpha-strike capability is a function of fleet size (and ship/fitting selection).
Avatar
I sincerely hope that you will get banned by CCP.
Avatar
No shit I said 2/4 areas of space don't involve bubbles (High+low) meaning 2/4 have bubbles (null) and then you asked what was the 4th area which is WH which is obiviously the second of the 2 areas that have bubbles. I'm really thinking you're abit slow.
Avatar
I agree that EVE online is a horrible game.
Avatar
the cause of n+1 is being totally over-analyzed and overly complicated. the real reasons for continually escalating the n+1 game is the simple fact that no one likes to lose. you can see this all over eve in every aspect of pvp combat. eve is chock full of stabbed farmers, stabbed travelers and people with with cloaks on inexpensive t1 ships. Any gate camp you encounter is likely to have far more firepower than necessary (with logistics) to take down the majority of traffic. When you design a game with an inherent risk of loss at any given time, people will go to any measure to avoid that loss. n+1 game play is an inevitability that grows out of the nature of eve, not any particular ship or lack of module.
Avatar
More modules that do different things - the game gets more interesting. Give us all kinds of modules, let players choose what to do with them. This discussion about "balanced" , "overpowered", could be had about - every other kind of module already existent in game, if it was not yet in game and introduced right now.More variety = more fun in the end, else we would have nothing else but dps and reps. No cap transfer. It could be imbalanced...
Avatar
Why can‘t I see the reply to my post?
Avatar
Like lockbreaker and void bombs, ECM/ECM bursts, and neuts?
Avatar
Your disdain for people rocking bling is your opinion. The rest of us might consider you risk averse instead afraid to undock more than a Navy Augor or Ahac.
Avatar
Also I wanna add you used a Baltec Mega as your example. It's a bad one for many reasons first of course being it does battle cruiser dps. It's a rail mega not a blaster mega. No logistics cruiser no matter how bad ass will tank 4 blaster mega's with webs on a target. So saying it tanks 4 "battleships" is not 100% accurate either. You're basing it off of a coalition fleet doctrine. One designed for general purpose mahem that can react to many situations. Well the rest of us know that counter fitting and intel wins fights. I don't have a "general purpose ship" I have three dozen specifics.
Avatar
Ever heard of Worm Hole space....Seriously man? GO FLY IN EVERY PART OF SPACE BEFORE YOU RECOMMEND CHANGES THAT AFFECT ALL OF IT.
Avatar
At what point when the entire comments thread is 80% people telling you it's a bad idea do you stop trying to push it?
Avatar
Yes, but specific to logi, perhaps affecting active hardeners.
Avatar
See now, a resist debuff module, that might be an interesting idea. Call it a... 'Defense Field Scrambler' or 'Polarized Resistance Scrambler', maybe, and it only works on active hardeners. Now the passive hardeners see more use (other than the ENAM) and the passive compensation skills start to matter again.
Avatar
As others have pointed out. You keep bringing up examples as if they apply universally. They don't and I'll explain. So basically in nullsec you rarely see mass e-war employed. But yesterday in black rise I saw 5 falcons in a single fleet. The day before I got an arranged 1v1 dishonored by a falcon and arazu alt.E-war is strong with the force. Just not in huge scale fights. Go out of your comfort zone, join a fleet that isn't pinged for. Roam a bit with a handful of friends and experience more of Eve because a lot of your examples only apply in big fleet.
Avatar
I actually like how you're handling all the negativity. I applaud your stoicism. That aside I hate you right now. +1 respect.
Avatar
That's basically the Mortal Strike which made Wow-pvp possible.
Avatar
This is moronic. It ignores Eve history entirely. Anyone else here remember not long ago when there was about 3 viable PvP ships that everyone spammed to the exclusion of everything else? Remember when it was nothing but Sabres and Drakes? Yeah, let's go back to that. That was great PvP. /rolleyes
Avatar
Seems a bit off. One module on one ship that would reduce the entire enemy logi efficiency by 50%If the enemy has 20 logi then one ship with this module would reduce their effectiveness to 10 whole actively piloted hulls. That's the equivalent of one Falcon perma jamming 10 logis at the same time with 100% success rate and no counter.And this "module" would of course be on the primary at all times.
Avatar
There's a few things that could change this without introducing a new module.First of all, hull damage should undermine armor tanks - as long as there's structure damage, all armor damage should be increased by a corresponding amount. As long as there is armor damage, shield damage should be increased. This would somewhat counter resists, as a ship what was pulled back from the brink would still be a softened target. This could be done by a flat, across the board reduction to resists corresponding to half of the underlying tank's damage %.. so a ship with 90% structure damage would see armor resists drop 45%. Close calls hurt a little more now, and those underlying damages that happen after close calls become important to have the ability to repair, otherwise they'll accumulate over the course of a long fight until eventually logi won't keep up.Second, make the effect of a RLD just happen naturally. Reduce remote repair amount by a ship's highest resist, so that logistics becomes based on EHP nor real HP. This makes a resist tank functionally the same as a buffer tank for the purpose of logistics.Third and finally, make changes to shift the majority of fights back to brawling ranges. Make lock times go up exponentially with range as you go above the base targeting range of a given hull, so that every ship is not a sniping ship and so that ships that want to engage each other at sniping ranges have to wait long enough to lock target to be probed down or caught by interceptors. Make specialized long range tackle long enough range to tackle at maximum weapons ranges - specifically,scripted heavy interdictors, strategic cruisers fitted as tackle, and combat recons, Make every engagement all or nothing and this will be exciting again - and the meta will correct itself back to smaller fights, as they economy cannot sustain B-RB or Asakai every day.

(Editor's Note: As always with balance discussion, the opinions contained in this article are those of the author, not of TMC.)

In my previous article, I examined the impact of remote repair modules and hulls with repair bonuses on player behavior, and why that impact was a negative force within EVE. In my opinion, the game is being driven toward larger fleets, fewer fights, and a limited set of fleet compositions for any fight involving a timed objective in nullsec. Because these timer fights determine who gets to enjoy the benefits of moons, stations, and sovereignty, they have an impact on the metagame that is disproportionate to their frequency, and can be said to be driving the meta. In this article I propose a fix for these issues: the introduction of a module called the Remote Logistics Disrupter (RLD).

So What is it?

Mechanically, this module would be identical in all respects to a Stasis Webifier, except that instead of reducing the speed of the target, it would reduce the amount that the target was repaired by incoming reps. The RLD would have no impact on the logistics ship, only the target of the repair disrupter. A ship with an RLD de-buff placed on it would receive a reduced percentage of all incoming reps regardless of how many ships were repairing it.

Following the normal stacking penalty progression incoming repairs would be reduced to 50% for the first RLD then 28%, 20%, and 17% with each successive tech one disrupter placed on the target ship. For tech two the progression would be 40%, 19%, 12%, and 10% respectively. As with stasis webs, after the 4th modules stacking penalties cause additional modules to have minimal further impact.

Why not a hard nerf?

New modules are a wild card. Why not simply directly nerf remote reps, or the hulls which bonus them? I think remote reps bring very good things to the game. Logistics reward well-organized fleets over kitchen sink ones, and add diversity to the game by enabling a combat role other than pure DPS. Crippling logistics would leave combat in Eve a poorer and less interesting place. Without effective and reliable repairs during battle, fights would become straight DPS matches where each side simply tried to obliterate the other more quickly than their own forces were reduced.

There is nothing inherently wrong with ships getting repairs in combat. The current issues stem from the fact that there are only two counters to hostile logistics: namely hitting the magic DPS number, or in some situations remote sensor dampers. Introducing the RLD would give fleets a whole new set of options for what to do when confronted with an enemy force supported by logistics.

Fleet Diversification

At its most basic level, the RLD would allow for far greater diversity in the fleets and tactics used for major fights. Under the current system there are only three roles that need filled in a fleet outside a few niche boost ships: High EHP damage dealers, logistics, and interdiction. Ewar may sometimes make an appearance but for the most part any pilot not sitting in a battleship (or maybe a signature tanking DPS cruiser), a logistics hull, or some kind of interdictor represents a straight loss of combat power. The current metagame forces fleet compositions that roughly resemble “175 Battleships/cruisers fit with long range guns, 55 Logistics, 20 boosters and probers or stay docked.”

With the introduction of the RLD this would change. Currently a new player flying a Slasher is more or less useless. With the RLD they would be a valuable asset. In fights where both sides lacked the massed firepower to volley enemy ships off the battlefield, having an effective and well-coordinated wing of fast tackle to prevent the primary target from receiving effective repairs could decide a battle.

Taking that one step further, many ship classes that currently see very little use in significant battles would have major roles to play. Assault frigates, interceptors, destroyers, waves of expendable T1 frigates, even heavy tackle cruisers or battleships would suddenly have a key role to play. Keeping RLDs active on the primary target, or clearing them off to protect your own ships, would become key jobs.

From One Answer to Many Answers

With the introduction of the RLD fleet commanders would have more choices to make regarding how to engage. Right now the requirement for maximum alpha strike restricts fleet composition to fits that use long range guns at medium ranges. Because sniping from extreme range lowers damage significantly, and because it is extremely hard to apply short range damage in one massive volley, this is the only setup that really makes sense for fights with large numbers of logistics.

With the ability to stop reps from working, even for short periods of time, this would change. A fleet could choose to snipe from 150km and use coordinated passes by a half dozen interceptors to RLD the primary target. Alternately, a fleet could just fit the RLDs on blaster Rokhs, crank up Klendathu Drop, then warp to zero and settle things like men.

None of this would fundamentally change the fact that the larger and/or better organized fleet would still win the battle most of the time. It would simply add new layers of tactical decision-making to how to win those battles, and more importantly change the scale of victory in many battles.

<--pagebreak-->Death by a Thousand Cuts

The greatest problem with the current state of the meta, and the problem that the RLD is intended to correct, is that losing a fight against a superior force usually results in a near cost-free victory for the winners. As a result, it seldom makes sense to fight; unless a fleet has the DPS to overcome enemy repairs there is no point in undocking. Over the course of a campaign, two competing major powers will deal with dozens of timers and hundreds of possible encounters. Very few of these encounters result in a meaningful fight. One side will arrive with logistics superiority. The other side will be unable to scramble the necessary numbers to break their rep due to time zones or a limited window to catch the target and so will simply stay docked. The only time this changes is if the objective is of such importance that it merits a mass formup.

The RLD would change this. It would give an inferior force the means to inflict damage on a superior one by lowering the minimum required DPS. If the smaller fleet thought they were better lead and organized, had a composition that could counter the enemy fleet, or were simply willing to die then engaging would make sense.

More importantly for the bigger picture, the entire calculation of cost and benefit would be altered to incentivize engagement. The current power of logistics encourages maximizing the power and therefore expense of  ships in major fleets. The most common limiting factor preventing fights is the number of pilots that can be found to fill a fleet. Since the most important requirement for getting in a fight is to hit the required DPS to overcome enemy reps, getting the maximum possible power out of each fleet member is critical. Ironically this makes flying expensive ships the cheapest way to win battles. Confront the enemy with massed logistics, repping DPS ships that require huge alpha strike to destroy, and watch the enemy choose to stay docked. Objective achieved without any loss whatsoever!

With the RLD one fact that is irrelevant to the logic of fleet compositions right now would become important when an FC was looking at fighting. Very roughly, as ships move up in size and tech level damage increases in a linear fashion while cost increases exponentially. Damage also becomes easier to apply as ships get larger, but if a player is willing to burn they can usually find a way to get a few shots off before they explode.

For example a Rifter fit with 250mm artillery, sporting a meta 2 Damage Control, and flown by a pilot in a low-level clone with ship mastery at level III costs somewhere around 1.25 million isk with rigs and ammunition. It deals 70 DPS from turrets and has 1700 EHP. Due to the current inability to impair logistics it would take approximately 25 of these Rifters to out-damage a single guardian repairing a Baltec Megathron. With the introduction of the RLD, assuming that the targeted Megathron had 4 tech two RLDs on it, it would only take 3.

A Baltec Megathron costs around 270 million isk, does about 500 DPS, and has 165,600 EHP. Assume a full Baltec fleet with 50 Guardians to rep the numbers play out like this:

  • Assume only 200 Rifters are firing at any given time because of boost ships, pilots not targeting the primary because they are dumb, and all the other reasons things go wrong. The total DPS for the Rifter fleet would be somewhere around 14,200 at 8km.
  • If all 50 guardians are one target, and that target has 4x RLDs on it, the total effective amount repaired each second would be 8,650.
  • That means each second the Baltec Megathron is being shot will take 5,550 damage after reps. With a total EHP of 165,600, it would explode in 30 seconds.

The Rifters would probably be obliterated by the Baltec fleet, but the chances of their taking a couple of battleships with them are near 100% as long as they are allowed to get in range.

A T2 fit artillery Rupture, filling roughly the same niche as a the Rifter above but two sizes larger and fit one tech level higher, costs around 35 million with ammo, plus a couple million more for a clone with enough skills to fly it well. It does 325 turret DPS with Quake and has around 14,000 EHP. If this ship was targeting a Baltec Megathron with 4 RLDs applied, it would out-damage a Guardian by a factor of 1.8.

A 7:1 loss ratio of Ruptures for Baltecs still works out in the Ruptures' favor. With the same numbers as above, they would be melting a Baltec Mega every 4 seconds. For some context, under the current system neither the Rifters nor the Ruptures could break a 50-Guardian tank under any circumstances.

While it seems from the examples above that the Baltec Megas would be doomed, keep in mind that it all depends on the RLDs being kept on the target ships. If the Baltecs had a capable anti-support wing keeping  tackle off the primary, or their interdictors were good at positioning bubbles and allowed the Baltec fleet to dictate range then the Baltecs would clean house. The outcome would depend on coordination and FC skill rather than being a simple mathematical equation dictated by the number of Guardians on the field.

Objective Valuation and Power Projection

Alliances such as Brave Newbies Inc. (BNI), Red vs Blue (RvB), and Eve University have all demonstrated that it is possible to organize huge numbers of low skill point players. However, until Brave Newbies joined up with Test Alliance, they had not tried to have an impact on nullsec. A rational desire to avoid losing fights to the overwhelming force fielded by a major coalition was a factor in that that decision. If BNI had tried to take an R64 “money” moon owned by Goonswarm, even one located in the BNI staging system, they would have been confronted with a wall of remote reps they could not break. The Goon fleet would show up with the assets to win not just the first fight, but every fight that BNI could possibly bring, so there would be no point in fighting.

With the RLD, this would change. Goonswarm could bring 180 Baltec Megathrons supported by 50 Guardians, but they would rapidly find out this was not the guarantee of effortless victory it used to be. Every few minutes a suicidal blood-crazed horde of T1 cruisers and frigates would descend, likely pulling a few expensive battleships or precious logistics into oblivion with each wave. Unless the Goon fleet had an open and rapid route for reinforcements, they might even be faced with annihilation as compounding losses depleted their combat power. BNI on the other hand would benefit from staging close to the fight in a way that they do not under the current mechanic, as they could simply undock reinforcements and threw them into the fight immediately. Attrition, currently a non-issue in most fights for the side that can out-rep incoming DPS, would become a consideration that could not be ignored.

More broadly the cost/benefit analysis would change for many objectives. Is an R32 moon or customs office 30 jumps away from your staging system worth holding if the people putting it into reinforced can bleed you for billions every time you show up to defend it? Bloc leaders and fleet commanders would have to do an assessment of what they were willing to lose in order to hold the field, rather than just “have enough reps, will win for free, jump.”

 The new FC decision making flowchart would look like this:

The RLD would greatly expand the tactical choices available for a fleet commander looking to pick a fight. It would allow small but well organized or large but low skilled entities to impose a price on massive fleets. It would cause the proximity to the objective to matter, as both sides would expect to take losses and therefore need rapid reinforcement. It would make many lower-skilled roles useful, from fast tackle to anti-support, creating a fleet niche for newer a player that currently does not exist. If the RLD worked on super capitals it would give subcap fleets a realistic chance of pulling down a supercarrier.

Adding the RLD to the game would shake up the current meta, and give any organization that wanted to break into nullsec a reason to expand its numbers with new players as well as high skillpoint veterans. Numbers, attrition, and smart ship choice would matter far more than they do now in both individual battles and longer conflicts. While the RLD would not be a standalone solution to the problems of nullsec and bloc expansion, it would incentivize content generation in the form of fights on a whole new level.

I am a notably incompetent Eve PvP player who has piles of isk. If you see me in your space just react like you would to a faction spawn that drops absurd killmails. Besides spaceships my interests include Science Fiction, cooking, military history, and real world logistics.