Rethinking Nullsec

Avatar
good read.i love the thought of pirate factions controlling unused space. we should be killing them to keep our space not to farm isk
Avatar
Dont have enough logi, dont blame CCP, blame ur self centered sub-humans that is called ur alliance
Avatar
Yeah I think that is a great idea!!
Avatar
The initial dominion upgrade mechanics put all systems upgradable tobthe highest level in this way. It didn't really solve the problem. There will always be a 'best' anomaly, and once the 6 or do of those are taken people will move next door, creating sprawl.The only difference in this time was provi got curb stomped as their space was as valuable as any other for once.IMO in order to be truly scalable the earning potential of a system must scale with occupancy. Spawn able missions are a good way to achiever this. Another option would be to have an anomaly re-spawn as soon as one is occupied (say as soon as the first NPC is killed), Thpigh that doesn't have the advantages missions do regarding forcing docking and gate travel
Avatar
Some combination of the indexes of a system should directly impact the EHP of defensive structures in that system. Systems that have a high spread of indexes (perhaps another hooking in with mission agents) would be systems that are lived in and used. This should thenmake the defensive stuctures in these systems harder to grind through - outlying systems only owned to control an R64 moon would therefor be much easier to take. Abandoned space could be ground through rapidly but would take a large effort to actually destroy a smaller entities home - allowing both the space and assistance to get established for smaller alliances or coalitions.
Avatar
you lost me at ehp and grind....stop it. stop it right now
Avatar
All in all it sounds good, mission agents in nullsec. But more than now would a single afk-cloaky bomber/cov-ops pilot be able to shut down a whole alliance/mission hub, whatever, without ANY means to counter it!
Avatar
if you are a bunch of carebears then yes.people that actually enjoy pvp see a cloaky cyno ship looking for ratters and get excited at the idea of killing what comes through the cyno..
Avatar
You can propose all manner of wonderful systems that require a complete re-write of the game but they will never happen. While you still need to shoot some structures, with my proposal it stops becoming a horrible thankless hours long task. The current system does have some advantages in that your home cannot be ninja-hacked/plexed/other proposed method while your coalition is in it's off timezone. Station ping-pong is and was bad.
Avatar
and what exactly would stop a supercap blob from cutting through that inflated ehp like it was butter?
Avatar
pics or it didnt happen
Avatar
All this complaint is absurd from both sides. "My battleship fleet can't kill a capital fleet the same size" Really? You expect sub capitals to kill capitals in near equal numbers? Capitals aren't the problems, players are the problem. Never before have coalitions had so much money, such large forces and such good srp, yet the entire null-sec playerbase is to scared to field a fleet that will potentially field a fight. "We might lose this fight, so we aren't going to show up at all" Nullsec2014. This problem can not be equated to one single coalition but all of the player base as they took steps to avoid war, to avoid conflict, and then turn around and complain "MY GAME ISN'T FUN ANYMORE" The counter to Capitals should not be low-dps battleships and battlecruisers, just like the counter to a spider tanking domi fleet isn't frigates or cruisers.. The counter to the domi's is another form of battleship or the next scale of ship class. The viable counter to carriers is out there in the form of dreadnoughts, titans, or some form of META gaming involving current capabilities. The argument that "My inferior ships can not beat this superior fleet and therefore it must be nerf'd" argument is pathetic to the core.
Avatar
blaming the dog for being a dog, that gets you very far.the game is designed for humans so maybe ccp should take into account human nature when designing it.
Avatar
What about the notion of movement...Make it so rats slowly degrade in bounty if 1 alliance holds it over time, so that long held territories become less profitable from a ratting standpoint and the most profitable systems are the ones that see the highest levels of conflict. Maybe also make it so that the further a rat has degraded if sov flips to a new group, it "upgrades" those rats even more, thus making the longest held systems the most desirable. I think what we need to offer is more a carrot and less a stick. Eve is a game centered on conflict, and enticing the various alliances to engage in these conflicts rather than turtling up in massive alliances is nothing but good for the game.This movement of ships, conflicts, and sovereignty will allow the players to continue breathing life into this game.
Avatar
The same thing that stops them now - defense fleets are reinforcement timers. If you made cyno jammers more like SBUS (requiring a specific number) dotted around the system you would need roving bands of subcaps to hit them to allow in the supercap fleets. Allow the EHP to be boosted by system index and you start towards a realistically coded system that allows groups to deny hostile supers access to their core systesm and provokes small fights.I appreciate the golden egg would be a aytems that canont be gamed and swung by a huge majority or subcaps, caps or supercaps (thus reducing the need for coalitions), but nothing proposed so far will ever come near to that.Equally exotic new "let's re-write the entire sov code and mechanics) would be great but CCP will not do that - if it goes wrong they will destroy something that is at least functional right now and cannot be brought in by increments as per their current design strategy.
Avatar
My remote ecm self ecm radar comp lvl 5 guardian disagrees.
Avatar
Nullsec missions are the savior of nullsec? Hop in a cloakynulli tengu and do mission.
Avatar
That assumes that the missions would be doable in that ship. No reason they have to be. I mean ~CCP~ so they probably would but I can hope.
Avatar
Is this a troll? I can't tell; if it is its brilliant and if it isn't you missed the point of the article completely.
Avatar
I think that nullsec needs more FW oriented style of gameplay. Not in the sence of having the same mechanics but have the same outcome when it comes to capturing systems, Taking a unoccupied system is easy in FW, but Taking Home systems is really hard. Just look at the Houla siege, 9000 ships destroyed and two weeks with Minmatar and Amarr's finest duking it out before the Minmatar were able to repel the Amarrians. Loads of content and fun. Which I think Null Sec would enjoy aswell. But how to do it? That I dont know. the thing said above is a good way to alteast prevent afk space to exist in the same way as today. we will see what CCP does.
Avatar
I routinely do my PvE with reds in local, in places there are reds living nearby, on purpose. By going where other players dare not tread I make massively more isk than others who do the same type of PvE but are risk adverse. If those players let themselves get shut down by that single bomber they deserve it.
Avatar
Why the nerf logi BS again? It is only really detrimental to solo pilots.In whspace one would expect guardians to rule supreme by the above logic since there are no 200 man baltec fleets running round. Yet that does not happen, check the killboards.Why do you think that is? How can a 20-30 man fleet overpower 6 guards +- 2 triage archons?It's with EWAR! Every form is really detrimental to logistics: neuts, jams and damps. Apply them all at the same time and in good amounts and the guardians will fall. You can't just ignore a major part of the game, pretend it does not exist, and then complain that logi is the factor driving fleet size up and not the 60k coalition memberbase.The only problem i see are the pantheon carriers since there is nothing really that you can do to them other than bumping.
Avatar
Yes, logi is the problem. Those pilots are assholes.
Avatar
I have never heard it put better than this and I wrote 4000+ words on the topic.
Avatar
Two points: 1. The article specifically deals with Sov Nullsec now W-Space which is and should be its own unique part of the game.2. With logi its a scaling issue. You can overpower a few logi but it gets harder to overpower them all as more are fielded. If Ewar worked it would be used in major engagements but it makes more sense to just get those pilots into DPS hulls and use them for alpha.
Avatar
PS. If you don't like big empire gameplay and you hate being dropped by 200 carriers the maybe you should try something different like wh-space, LS or FW. There might be ppl that enjoy the style of combat that prevails in nullsec, and maybe even the lifestyle.
Avatar
Actually that makes quite a bit of sense and in my opinion would be a viable way to reduce the power of logistics without breaking them totally. If you leave a "rep hole" for incoming reps you also leave a resist hole for your enemies to shoot into.
Avatar
That's the issue. To get around logi, we bring 250 guys. Because that's really the only good way you get around logi.So if you want small to medium sized fights, get rid of logi.
Avatar
My point is that there are places where logi is fun and not out of balance and nerfing it would reach even the incursion comunity. Not fair.Although i understand now better the logic behind the lack of ewar in null.I still think some damps at least would be a good idea: 5 ships can force 20 logi to come closer and get exposed to dps.
Avatar
Bravo to you for making it that far. My advice for learning game mechanics: get in Rifters and die. You will learn how to solo, and the first time you eat a cruiser alive in your tiny crappy frigate because he is bad at eve it will be so much fun...
Avatar
Too many things I'd like to say, but moving house right now.Agree on the majority of macro points, disagree here and there on the micro. Sov being 'cheap' for example I have no idea how that's a good idea.Thanks for bringing in a ton of threads and making it coherent though! Nice write up.
Avatar
Ah, ECM again...ECM are random based mods. You can have 5 of them and maybe one or two of them can land a jam... I don't think i've ever had all jams applied ... ever.Lately i just fly an Arazu with 5 damps. They always land and those 5 damps can bring 2 logis in DPS optimal most of the time :)I don't have to pray to the random god for my ECM to jam anymore.
Avatar
Ah, but they would be losing low or midslots for those local reps. That costs their fit somewhere else. Remote reps impose no such cost on the ship getting rep.
Avatar
Yes, indeed, you are missing something :)It's called NPC 0.0 aka NPC null...You don't have to be in a 2000 man corp to live in null. You don't have to be in a renter corp to live in null.
Avatar
With missions, you lose the old AFK, low-interaction income generation and replace it with a much more dynamic, interesting, and active type of gameplay.
Avatar
A thought: What would happen if publords had to genuinely worry about renters becoming squatters and making a legit play for sov? What would that require in the way of changes to make it a thing? What about sov subversion?Just spitballin' here...
Avatar
Great read, I really like the suggestions.
Avatar
The missions thing strikes me as a terrible idea. You assume way too much about how this would play out. People already have alts that run highsec missions or incursions to gain isk because nullsec is too risky to be worth it (this isn't true, but it's their perspective, so it's what happens). So do you know what happens if you have 1 or 2 mission hubs in a region and drive everyone to it?People go to highsec.End of story. If you try to play out a scenario in any way that ends up with some risk to the ratters, then they go to highsec. Any story that plays out with equal or less risk might as well be the same as it is now. You've come up with this mechanic and basically said "oh yea, people will play it like this, and we'll have standing fleets, and reds in local, and a paradise with milk and honey". Only it won't, players never treat mechanics the way CCP, or you, or anyone else intends. If for some reason they don't go to highsec it'll only be because they've found a way of running missions that is just as safe as the current system.Besides, the problem with the current system isn't the anomaly ratting or the simplicity of it. To be honest, that's the best part. I love pvp and the only reason I pve is to afford that. I don't want to spend hours accepting a mission, traveling several jumps, completing some mind numbing objective, traveling back, turning in said mission... it only adds tedium. Even if you invent new missions every day there are only so many iterations you can have of > Fly to point A > kill everything > fly back. The details might change, but you can only do so much with it, it's not -really- different.I love ganking a ratting carrier that's fallen asleep on his keyboard, but lets face it, that isn't really the goal here. The goal is to make people form standing fleets and not POS up till the enemy leaves. Missions aren't the way to do that. Farms and fields, if anything, is.Create things that can be messed up by small fleets in a matter of minutes. If I come in and toss a torch into your wheat field, someone needs to undock and put out the fire quickly before it gets out of control. It forces defenders to come to the rescue immediately rather than just letting things burn. This shouldn't be anything so drastic that it can't be undone in a day or two, but it shouldn't be anything so trivial that it's easiest to dock up and let the reds rape and pillage at will. Edit: Someone mentioned guerrilla warfare, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.The idea isn't new. There is nothing currently in the game that a fleet of 10 in nano ships can do that any sov holding hostiles care about. 10 reds come into a system with 100, everyone docks up because a fight isn't worth it. What are they going to do? Shoot SBU's with 10 people? The ESS was a good start, but even that isn't worth it 90% of the time, especially if intel reports hostiles and someone empties it out quickly. Even if they don't, what? you lose 10m a person? 20m? You know how much I would have to lose from that thing to make it worth me risking a ship? When I was in null I could earn 100m an hour pretty easy. You would have to screw up my income for several hours to make it worth risking an even more expensive ship to save.Missions will not have the effect you are looking for.
Avatar
I really like all the talk about breaking nullsec into smaller power-blocs. I've wanted something like this as long as I've played EVE. Why cant I take 30-50 active pilots and hold a nullsec system(we used NPC null because that's what was necessary). Perhaps 150-200 active people to hold a small pocket? Its something no one would bother trying with current game mechanics, unless you just want to pay to rent the systems you need.As to income generators, I love the idea of sov nullsec missions as well. Upgrades could directly affect mission types/profits available, and it is scalable to whatever population you care to shove in a system. I'd like to see a system that generates lucrative missions that require jumps into hostile territory etc as well, but people may skip that kind of content if the risk/reward is off.In addition, I would also like to see more guerrilla warfare type mechanics added at the same time as fight generators. Make me want to come kill that roaming gang while I'm missioning instead of just safing/docking. Deployables with modest HP that steal bounties/mission rewards in a significant way, or slow down production resulting in overage fess that need to be paid before delivery. Being able to hack a customs office stopping PI production while active, disrupting market orders etc. This also gives me interesting ways to generate fights or interdict systems. Active attackers and Active defenders would be ideal!Love the article, and I hope a more diverse nullsec with dozens/hundreds of smaller powers isn't just a pipe dream.
Avatar
That kind of thinking is why we have sov structures with massive amounts of EHP that require super carriers to grind though in any reasonable amount of time.
Avatar
Could limit remote reps for the ship receiving the reps. Say max of only two ships may remote rep one ship or something similar. Could also implement stacking penalties on RR, similar to other remote boost modules to increase scan resolution.
Avatar
Pardon my lack of comprehension here, but I quite frankly still, through about 4 of your posts do not understand what your goals are. Again, what is it you are trying to accomplish?
Avatar
If you get into a fight and both sides lose lots and the winner is decided by eve kill, why do you think that is fun?I like to have a game where decisive wins are possible, where it is possible to do everything right and therefore not lose a single ship. Those are the fights i remember.Once i had a 10v10 fight on a stargate: we had 2 sythes, 2 curses and 3 dps. They had superior logi (scimitar) and firepower (5 talos).https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_r...We won: first 2 neut cycles shut down the enemy dps and the next took down the scrammed logi.A kitsune can jam from 110 k away, a SB can blow drones out of the sky, a celestis can make the enemy targeting speed worse. Just because you can't deal with logi doesn't mean it should be removed.
Avatar
I think the missions should both be made by the game AND by players, and not just revolve around security missions. Mining, gas harvesting, and PI missions (amongst others) should be options for players to create. The alliance needs jump fuel? Make a mission for it
Avatar
Personally I think the counter to remote reps is to boost the specialization ships. Falcons could be viable, but they are worthless, have crap tanks, expensive, etc etc..... Add to the dampeners and the ecm capability of the recon class ships. Make people have a counter to Logi, but at least give them a viable ship to do it in.
Avatar
No because then newer players with more numbers in T1 logi get hit harder then T2 logi in smaller numbers which doesn't help newer players at all.
Avatar
1. Logistics: They need to stay in the game, if you remove them you just eliminate one core gameplay and only create fights with t1 cruiser hulls because they are cheap. Nobody will ever fly Faction BS or T3 doctrines again if they die to anything. removing or nerfing Logistics would destroy the "endgame". Buff Recons and EWAR cruiser so they have a tremendous effect on logistics. DPS > Recons > Logis = Paper, Scissor, Rock. Currently nobody flies certain Recons because they just suck.2. SOV with people living in it: YES, but you need change the cloaking mechanics. You just need 1 afk cloaker in each system and a BLOPS gang in nearvy lowsec/npc 0.0 to completely shutdown any activities in surrounding sov. This needs to be adressed aswell.
Avatar
"the big guys bring more logi and power through it" they cannot power through it, because of the one hardcoded limitation in the game, namely the 256 fleet members. Taking a typical Tengu fleet doctrine, their recons have 76% as their lowest resist, their tengus 84%. It would require 4 to 6 times as many logis as there are today in one of these fleets to give the same defensive power. But that means you have to remove a lot of tengus from the fleet to make room for all these logistics, making the offensive power of this fleet paltry at best.Of course, the possibility exists to lower the resists and simply going for more shield hitpoints in the form of extenders, but the diminished total EHP means that the opponent has a better odd at actually killing it before the repair comes (and even through the repairs, as they would still be less efficient than today).Bottom line is, I dream of seeing people actually fielding pure brawling setups with no logistics and just powering through an hostile fleet, leaving a see of wrecks from both sides on the field... forgive me for being a romantic !
Avatar
This is GREAT article!!!
Avatar
Agree here totally, die, a lot, then die some more, maybe a bit on the side too, eventually it becomes second nature and you really start to just enjoy the thrill of hunting or even choosing the right engagements and how to split a group to get opportunity kills.
Avatar
I respect you even more as you are a Goon; however, you admit problems with game mechanics even though as of now they work in your favor aside from stagnant PVP. Great Job!
Avatar
Excellent article well thought out. Some thoughts though;1. CCP love big fights its their blue ribbon for promoting EvE, hence why the code, pos's, Alliance/Corp & Sov mechanics have been such a low priority on their radar. The fact is CCP wants coalitions, but dont want to put into place any mechanics that would govern them. Plus lets face it even if CCP did implement mechanics to govern them, it wouldnt matter much, as players would just resort to out of game agreements & we still end up with things like the BOLTARD accords.2.There needs to be a review of true sec system values & improved popluation of decent true sec values. 3. Any changes made have to take into account Moon mining & its impacts. What ever happened to ring mining? That would of meant corps and alliances needed miners aka more industrial activity, it would help boost the nul sec population as more miners sought better rewards, whilst taking on more risk.4. Any changes CCP wants to make, MUST be implemented sooner than later, we cant afford to wait another year, little lone another 5!!!The longer this drags on the more people are getting frustrated with the current situation and are deciding to unsub and that dosent just hurt CCP but hurts the game over all.
Avatar
Healer mafia +1, 10 mill a cycle or no reps.
Avatar
So you think removing logi will suddenly stop people from wanting to take max numbers into a fight?
Avatar
Didn't you hear that THE SANSHA'S NATION WISHES TO EXPAND ITS BORDERS
Avatar
Because missions are definitely a "dynamic, interesting and active type of gameplay"....i
Avatar
And You dont have to go to nullsec at all, bubbles are shite, all the best stuff happens in lowsec anyways
Avatar
ECM isn't guaranteed though, reps are, massively different.Although I do believe both should suffer stacking pens.
Avatar
The sov aspect is just orders of magnitude bigger than me, but I have thought about the logi issue a lot. Why not just make reps sig-based? i.e. the large reppers that t2 logis have, only rep the full amount on BS-sized targets (just like large guns only do full damage to BS-sized ships). Med reppers apply full reps on cruisers & above. This has the added bonus (in my view) that t2 logis would be less invincible, since guardians repping other guardians wouldn't be able to apply their full reps, and the t1 logi cruisers don't rep near as much as the t2 variants.
Avatar
You're joking right? are Guardians all of a sudden immune?
Avatar
Well you are taking the option to counter the ecm, tat in its own right is working as that slot could be used for something else.
Avatar
1.a. A system as described at the end of the article does not necessarily remove larger fights, it just puts them into an emergent system where the scale of the fight reflect what you have willing to fight spontanously. Asakai was still a large fight, despite being almost entirely emergent.1.b. The Botlord accords is not a problem. They are the natural politics of EVE (NAP, MDP etc.). The anomaly is the coalitions rather than the accords. A political environment where you have 100 actors with an array of accords, yet remaining neutral in terms mechanics, is not necessarily bad.2. An agent-based system would allow faction stores and rarity to control the value rather than truesec. Instead of low truesec or rarity of moons, just have reasonable rarity of agents. That's sort of how the system works now with Pirate faction agents being much more rare than Empire agents, and certain empire corporations being much more rare than other empire corporations. The system is already in place, it is just being underutilized and has been left forgotten, barring a few individuals who make alot of ISK thanks to it's obscurity.3. Yes, the incentive to mine should be restored, and same as always, the old system (even if not perfectly balanced) had the right basic mechanics with different asteroids in different spaces and with different rarity to, with some overlap, create co-dependence and mobility.4. What they need to do (but are sadly not doing) is learn how to prioritize correctly. Same as with the "little things", there are important things that can be done without re-coding the game or spending a monumental amount of effort. The problem with the "little things" iterations is not that they are small incisions, it is that they are rather unimportant ones. We know the code is crap, we know that the strings are entangled and that it's a pain to work with the system - but alot of things can be done by simply understanding the core mechanics of the game and manipulating figures.They are perfectly capable of doing that (poorly-) in certain areas of the game - such as rebalancing ships - and dealing with moons, missions and belts is really as simple if they just put their mind to it and did what needs to be done. As with the missions, the mechanics are already in place. There are agents out there, there are asteroids and NPCs out there - they have never been removed - they are simply not being used because there are more profitable options (which were implemented despite us never needing them). It's a question of restoring balance, not recreation.
Avatar
I am trying to explain to you that the problem is fundamental rather than superficial in an end-result. It doesn't matter how specific player-groups behave, or what their name is. There are balance issues which promotes that kind of behaviour and those ring true regardless of what space you are in, or what kind of culture is currently being cultivated there. Whatever is "OP" in sov-null is also "OP" in FW. There is no "play style of FW" that isn't dwarfed by 250 Carriers or 1000 Megas, as the article kindly puts it. Telling the author to play FW hardly solves his problem.For example, in brosec dojo-throwdowns the use of ECM is usually frowned upon. You could tell any player who is annoyed about ECM to go do lowsec-roams in Cruiser-gangs and take part in that subset of the game. However, nothing stops me from running Falcons there, and nothing stops me from running locator agents on those players and specifically targetting them consistantly with ECM just to piss in their cornflakes. It's better to balance ECM and tell people to grow a pair.The same goes for 250 Carriers and 1000 Megas. Any group possessing that kind of "apex" (to use Mittens wording) would dominate FW same as they do Sov-null. The problem is on a much more fundamental ship-meet-ship on grid level, hence the article rather than the author joining FW.WH is probably even worse, since even though collapsing mechanics (and terrible collapsing tactics) makes it tedious to move an overabundant force into WH, it is still all about structure mechanics and an occassional force-sweep is all that is needed to strip the owner of everything they have in there. It is still much easier to just roll over the infra like an unopposed locust swarm, if bored enough, than to build it up and use it. There is simply no one who cares enough to do it. That is hardly a good reason to tell people to get into WH.
Avatar
Very well done, Innominate. Not much more to say than that. I think you've laid out a reasonable framework. The devil is always in the details, but those really are CCP's domain. Let's hope they are listening. Again, excellent piece.
Avatar
Why not make rat bounties decrease with influx of neut pilots into constellation. Fleets will have to form to deter these gangs so people can actually make isk at a rate worth doing, a null sec factional warfare so to speak. Bounties proportionally scaled with the density of players in the constellation. Number of anomalies would need to see an increase in line with sovereignty. Same multiplier could apply to mining which would reduce the ability to spread out, requiring denser populations to maintain better yields and bounties. Regarding the logi suggestions i would like to see different applications of the remote logi ability in the form of remote 'resistance damps' or long range cap neuts.
Avatar
Heh. That part of it does amuse the living shit out of me...
Avatar
I won’t pretend to know anything about null, I never lived there, but have been thinking about how null has stagnated and as a result the rest of eve. I have always thought that CCP should have add a colonizationaspect to null and perhaps a lesser extent low systems. My Idea is that all of null would be near worthless, but would allow corps to colonize and upgrade a system. By setting up outposts a corporation could mold their system to suit their needs. By placing more and larger outposts a corp could upgrade the type and size of asteroid fields, Moongoo, PI, even perhaps make a mission base added to their system, and as the number of colonist grow they the colonist would pay more for protection paying more to kill the rats in the system.System would be upgraded by placing and protecting your outpost. As the number of outpost and colonies grow the wealth of the system would grow. But the corp would have to protect their system from both pirates and other people or loose there system. A fully colonized system could have perhapsfifty outpost or more and all of them at risk from both pirate and other corps. As a corporation you would want to protect your colonies for if you didn’t it would affect your bottom line. You would also have a mechanic where corps in Null could do both guerrilla warfare against a much larger alliance by destroying their outposts while they were deployed elsewhere, or the mechanic could be used to draw out a fight, if a corp attacked a particularly valuable outpost the defends would want to form up and protect it.
Avatar
I just wanted to point out that RR Carriers are not immune to either ECM, BECM, DECM or Damps. They have alot of slots to overcome it, but they also have rather limited sensors when popped. It is afterall just a larger version of the RR Cruiser. The RR Super is another beast with it's immunities. Even though they can create cap they are also dependent upon creating cap, and require base cap to create cap which leaves certain opportunities with both cap-bombs and concentrated cap-war which forces at least a medium sized group to adapt chains and risk over-under capping. I'm not saying any of it is clearcut and easy, but there are definately ways to deal with them. That is leaving capital-counters to said capital ships out of the question.
Avatar
Simple solution for RR is to do like they have done ships with drone bonuses by dropping the bandwidth and number of drones they can fly.. Just drop the number of ships a RR ship can target. If a Guardian could only target 2 ships with reppers running it would stop spider tanking.
Avatar
The only problem with it is that it doesn't change anything in effect, it is still a question of EHP (the effective sweetspot of resistance to hitpoints for remotes). If you compare that to the article's suggestion of remoting resistances, then resistances have diminishing returns so there would be a definate cut-off to it's stacking potential. On the other hand, the article's suggestion doesn't flesh out how it intends for the stacking diminished resistance buffs to relate to the undiminished stacking of guns. Hence, I still prefer my own suggestion of making it target-based and letting it scale back and forth between hostile locks and friendly locks in some way. However, the article at least considers using diminishing returns as a balance factor against stacking, whereas your idea mostly seems to go out of it's way to hurt T2 and T3 which are already doing rather poorly. It does nothing to Supercaps which rely much more on raw hitpoints, relative resistances, already. The only thing you would achieve is further reinforcing the fact that larger ships with more hitpoints are better and more ships are better thanks to stacking more unmitigated guns.
Avatar
If it is just stacking penalty based on number of reps, you will get games with little reps taged onto your attackers to screw up stacking. It would be better to just have a stacking penalty based on reps received per second, or per 30 second interval.
Avatar
It would be interesting to make local in null like WH's. This would mean that afk ratting would no longer exist. It would also mean more battles in null due to people who roam actually doing it effectively.
Avatar
Sounds like a pretty cool idea actually. It may eliminate the use of Corp contracts though
Avatar
What about RR stacking penalties? Simple and quick to code. Seems like your idea may be overly complicated. Good. Just complicated.
Avatar
Turning logi into versions of command ships is less than ideal. It's just two versions of boosting ships. Still against turning sov into a PvE based system. Fighting over timers is still at least PvP. Orbiting plex beacons, grinding anoms, or mining roids to hold a system just means mandatory PvE as a condition for joining an alliance. It would also end any significant wars. No one would be able to fight on any sizeable scale because now there must always be a PvE grinding force left behind. Instead of 1000 Megathrons you get 500 Megathrons fighting and 500 cloaked/nullified Tengus NOT fighting. The meta still remains based in sheer numbers.Current sov is based on total exclusion of anyone not blue. Allow sov holders to create mission agents open to the public. Their completing missions boosts the sov-holder's claim while the sov holder uses their wealth to reward missioners. Alliances would want traffic to their systems, as it would boost their sov claim, employ more than just alliance members, and give some substance to the transfer of wealth beyond simply renting space. Give non-blues a reason to come to your sov other than conquest.
Avatar
Most of the buzzwords for the past month or two don't address the core issue. Some of those things have turned poisonous in an already sick system but that's a symptom of the body they occupy. Pretend for a moment remote reps don't exist, pretend carriers and supercarriers don't exist either, pretend there is no endgame apex force yet established.Lets take a typical non-station system which just came out of it's Armor reinforcement timer, and lets call our defenders "alliance A" and the aggressors "alliance B". Both are in a similar timezone and are of roughly equal size. Alliance A is at an inherent disadvantage because the burden is on them to commit and save the system, while fleet B can bring the appropriate subcap counter. (Or they grind it in stealth bombers when alliance A stands down)To have any hope of winning the field despite a bad doctrine match-up, alliance A needs to reliably field more pilots than B. To reliably get those numbers they enter into defensive pacts and "blue" up with their neighbors, running 'coalition' defense fleets to push off aggressors. Most of the time they reset after the conflict, but somewhere along the way they realize their larger joint fleets could be used offensively, so they invade alliance B and kick their teeth in, possibly hoovering up some talent. Alliances C, D, and E sit up and take notice at this point, because a new coalition power bloc just wiped a solitary alliance off the map, in response they form their own regional defensive pacts/coalitions. Eventually the cycle repeats. Regional blocs meet, fight, die, and with each cycle the numbers get bigger, smaller groups get gobbled up, the good corps cannibalized into their conquerors, eventually after many cycles you end up with a diatomic nullsec, 2 mega coalitions left controlling most of EvE's resources, which is where we stand today.Supercaps, power projection, apex forces, slowcats, logistics, and other buzzwords of the week might complicate the problem, but they don't cause the trend towards coalitions, Dominion Sov does that because the defender needs a significant advantage beyond picking a timezone and a wall of EHP.My idea on functional Sov would be to deploy single use mobile structures (somewhat expensive) that scan for and reveal (spawn) Soverignty related complexes around the system (ungated like a large FW complex). Those complexes would have varying levels of defense based on the system indexes. If the indexes are 0 then there's no automated defenses, 5 or 6 guys in frigates can eventually take a system, but if it's well used space expect loads of gun batteries (including the L ones to stress capital tanks, sapping effectiveness from spider tanks without breaking them) ECM, warp disruptors, stasis webifiers, ect (preferably make the defensive setup player configurable). From there complex captures would go into a sliding scale like FW making the ihub vulnerable (no reinforcement timer, HP about the same as a Large POS). Spreading this over multiple systems instead of one timer would also alleviate ti-di/server issues.It's not going to immediately fix coalitions (nothing can), but by making sov warfare asymmetrical most of the other symptoms of "sickness" in eve fall back into balance. N3/PL drop a wrecking ball? well I guess they're only capping one of the 5 plexes spawned in system. Instead of 25 logi repping battleships to full in 1 rep cycle, it's 5 logi repping a wing of 50 and maybe holding reps, while the other wings assault different sites. It doesn't 'solve' rental empires, but it makes it impossible for groups to hold vacant space behind a wall of timers and billions of EHP. It doesn't prevent the CFC from doing a full deployment across EvE, but it does leave them pants down for MOA, BLdot, or any of a dozen NPC groups to slide in and take a piece of space. Blackops, ganking, and other cloaky faggotry also become viable tools of warfare preceding and during an invasion giving residents a reason to bait/kill them.Note that this doesn't nerf or break anything explicitly. Certain strategies become less useful, but in a straight up all hands on dick fight caps/supercaps are still fully relevant in the chain of escalation. That isn't to say the other stuff can't use some tuning but they don't need massive overhauls that are going to distract :CCP: from fixing the one issue that actually matters, which is SOV.
Avatar
The core problem isn't a lack of 'good' ideas about how to fix nullsec, if anything there are too many good ideas which don't all mesh with each other. If CCP are listening, it is with one ear over the din of everyone else who thinks they know just how to fix it better than everyone else.
Avatar
This is a great article that pretty much sums up everything. Now how do we force CCP into making these changes? Refuse to have big fights? Cancel all our subs?
Avatar
Nerf Nerf Nerf! God this shit gets old! All the nerfing is losing more people than its bringing in. People spend all this time training just to have it nerfed try making the other stuff better and introduce more content min missions and sites instead of the same story over and over again that would be a great start.
Avatar
Maybe rats should attack sov structures? That would make unattended sov structures decay over time.Suppose rat attacks on sov structures escallate. First one little rat comes sniffing around. If nobody kills it, after thirty minutes, a larger rat comes along and starts gnawing on the sov structure. After another thirty minutes, a second big rat joins the first. The rat force doubles every thirty minutes, until the sov structure is destroyed.OK, doubling every thirty minutes might not be quite right: after twenty-four hours, there would be 2^48 or approximately 256,000,000,000,000 rats. Perhaps a ceiling on the number of rats?Or maybe rats should do occasional hot-drops against defending player ships? Or incursion-like spawns?
Avatar
Perhaps provide an inexpensive access-control structure that, when online, restricts the number and/or mass of ships _not_ blue to the owner of the structure that can enter the system? Such a structure would allow active residents of the system to buy an upper bound on the size of an invading fleet.Alternatively, perhaps an access-control structure could limit the number and/or mass of non-blue, i.e. invading, ships to the number and/or mass of active blue ships in the system? But perhaps there should be a lower bound on the limit, so that an invading low-mass scout or two could always get in, even if no ships blue to the access-control structure were active?Such access-control structures would mimic some of the ("good"?) aspects of wormhole behavior.The idea would be that a prospective invader would have to start by using a small fleet -- fleet small enough for the residents to handle -- to beat down the access-control structure before bringing in a large enough fleet to threaten the residents' revenue-producing infrastructure and operations.These half-baked ideas need refinement, for example to moderate the abilities of both invader and defender to "maneuver in time" to gain advantage by avoiding the opponent.For another example, access constraint should almost certainly be made less possible for systems along through routes than for systems in dead-end clusters.Perhaps missions in nullsec could yield Stuff (BPCs, components) suitable for use in building defensive and/or revenue-producing structures?
Avatar
In before nullbear tears.
Avatar
Reduce the volume of; most likely.Eliminate; not at all.
Avatar
At least:1. You get isk to do so2. It can be done with numerous kinds of ships, including sub caps like T1 cruisers etc3. It only requires a few people doing it in their off time, some of the time. No huge formups for "strat ops"If your alliance cant find a couple of people to rat for them to keep their sov, then you can find some in H/S or L/S to come out and do it for you.EDIT: then you have an incentive to defend them, they have an incentive to be there and everybody wins.
Avatar
Perhaps also disallow renting out space then big-alliances need to make their own money.
Avatar
With missions, you lose the old AFK, low-interaction income generation and replace it with slightly different AFK, low-interaction income generation
Avatar
Bullshit.Shooting force projection would solve most problem by allowing harassing and guerilla warfare to be a thing. Killing force projection would make the galaxy o lot greater, leaving space to smaller entities. A lot greater galaxy would make a far harder to defend territory if it becomes too large. And above all killing force projection would prevent all EVE to come to a fight in an hour to ruin the fight of two smaller entities. Force projection si what allows huge coalition to extend their influence all over the galaxy.There might be other problems, but force projection is the the greatest one of the game currently. All cyno moving things (caps, jump freighter, jump bridge and titan bridge) direly need a big and painful nerf.
Avatar
Well thought out and good read. Sounds very sensible.
Avatar
Go to jita, and try to tell me how many guys in your alliance are there. I bet you can't.Go to a 4000 man fight and tell me how many pilots are in each alliance present.It would be a really useful tool.
Avatar
So you think that players in Null Sec don't already perpetually "Grind Rats"??? Hint all Goons are j4gS.http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/...
Avatar
Only poors and renters grind rats.
Avatar
I think once you hold sov for 2 years the game mechanic starts randomly responding, changing a system to an npc mission system, have a small system incursion, allow the rats to take a system en mass and revolt, have empire encroach on your sov, have a hi sec system change to null, and a null to low or hi sec. More fluidity just like in our real world. Allow some systems to have random sov mechanics that change so that the outcome cannot be predicted, much like some of the WH mechanics.
Avatar
Don't think of it as "grinding rats". Think of it as "patrolling your space." You're going through systems you consider your "turf," showing the flag and busting any non-blue and/or NPC heads you find.
Avatar
"I disagree with this point about logistics because reasons, so I'm going to drag out some chestnuts about w-space because I didn't read the title of the article I'm commenting on."
Avatar
Confirming that a few game mechanics that need to be fixed means "EVE is dying".
Avatar
Require IHUBs be fueled to maintain sov. It's too easy to pay a bill, requiring sov owners to deposit fuel blocks in every IHUB on a regular basis would almost require that systems be owned by the occupant.
Avatar
I am not agree as far as the remote reps are concerned. If you bring in your fleet enough Ewar (such as Caldari jammers) they will focus the logis and you only have to deal with repair drones. The situation is driven by the monolithic doctrine to "allow" only few types of ship in fleets. Balance your fleet with Ewar and you will increase the gameplay diversity instead of that is a Shimufi combat mode...
Avatar
Just use a similar system to faction warfare and you'll see 0.0 space erupt with skirmishes!!
Avatar
evil goon with bright ideas !
Avatar
I was thinking of something like that, have "sites" in a sov system that give the players rewards for, lets say, preventing the enemy from mining a high value ore from that site, or another site with a good chance of faction drops for whoever can " capture" an acceleration gate to a combat site. Another site would give players LP to players who kill ships belonging to an enemy alliance (perhaps assassination contracts from the NPC factions? for those that have low standing with faction?) Im just bouncing ideas here, there are ways to provide content, it just takes time and effort of a community to bounce ideas until one sticks. This article does a good job at stating many of the problems of nullsec and tries to recommend solutions for said problems.
Avatar
Interesting read :)But look for a "fix" for Alliance or blocs behavior is just impossible because is try to fix the human interaction itself. The trend in any social net is to joy the most "big" or "powerfull" side and with that human constant we cannot expect new null player doesnt feed the majorities looking for the sense of safe. Is maybe the only thing, no matter the mechanic, that cant be controlled.
Avatar
While I can understand your desire to remove logistics ships from the battle, there are much better ways to do so without nuking them off the face of the earth.Option 1: reduce their Sensor Strength. This makes them far more susceptible to jamming, or makes them have to devote far more in the way of midslots to ECCM modules.Option 2: Reduce their locking range/scan resolution. This forces them to again either give up midslots/lowslots to get the same range as they do now, and makes them more susceptible to sensor dampening, or forces them to come in closer to a fight, making them easier to remove from the field.Option 3: Nerf the hulls themselves some - reduce their rep range, reduce their speed/resists, increase their signature radius, etc. Once again, this reduces the logistics effectiveness and makes them weaker.Remember that now CCP is moving to deploying a new release about every 2 months or so. This means that they can afford to iterate on these things, which means that they can start working down on the "OPness" of logistics until they get them to a point where they want them, without having to smack them with a nerf bat, and then wait 6 months to see the results.I can understand your frustration at working against hordes of logi's in every fight. But just because you don't like them doesn't mean that you need to completely nuke them off the face of the earth - which is exactly what your suggestions would do to them.
Avatar
I used to play EvE. Though your ideas for fixing the game are sound, the games flaws are too fundamental to waste time on. I think CCP needs to take lessons learned and either do a complete over haul or make a whole new space sim.
Avatar
While it would require a fundamental change, I think an interesting avenue to explore would be to require that sov for each system be defended, on a regular basis, from NPE attacks. If not enough players are there to mount a defense, the system is lost. Add to that a mechanic whereby gates can be lost as well. They could be re-constructed, with effort, but it would put a value on each system in eve that currently doesn't exist.This would also introduce the idea of creating / "discovering" new systems to erect sovereignty for even larger corps, as they could create a new gate to a star not currently on the map, avoiding the entrenched areas. If there's no interest in keeping it, the NPEs will eventually kick them out, and close down the gate. The entire system would be self-healing to provide just the map that's needed for the activity in the game.
Avatar
*even larger corps -- meaning that individual corps, rather than alliances or coalitions, could establish their own sov by creating new systems. Also, this introduces the dynamic of smaller groups leveraging NPC assaults on a system as a force multiplier for their own efforts. This would work both ways, but it would make things much more interesting for smaller groups. Imagine an incursion level NPC fleet coming to attack on periodic intervals, one that would ignore non-sov holders unless attacked.
Avatar
And perhaps instead of regular intervals for NPC attacks, perhaps the attacks could come after a certain period of inactivity in a system. This would benefit the smaller orgs, as they tend to have smaller areas of sov, and are more active. Larger alliances / coalitions with sprawling, largely empty areas of sov would have the most to lose -- which is one of the problems here.
Avatar
Not sure how Viable as I have not really thought about all the repocussions that would come from it , HOWEVER, how would it play out if we treated an active rep on a ship the same way we would a triage module for carriers. Any active reps from your ship places your own ship into the state where any incoming reps do not work.
Avatar
(Again)
Avatar
Confirming that broken game mechanics often lead to the death of video games.
Avatar
Sov should be based on both residency and total power. "Head Shot Difficulty" = 2^N * [Activity]. If there is no activity in system then it should be trivial to take a system. If you have a station and lots of activity, then it should be very difficult.
Avatar
Yes, confirming that EVE is dying, as evidenced by the problems being solved and subs increasing each year.
Avatar
Of many Null discussions and solutions over the last year, this is clearly the most well thought out.Bravo !
Avatar
So,like after destroying the TCU, a DED spawns,in an alliance tournament style format?
Avatar
This sounds like the whole Urban / Rural topic IRL
Avatar
No. You do. I want to be able to easily identify the numbers without having to count.Same way if I gave you a spreadsheet of names, you couldn't tell the alliance, but if you could apply a filter you would be able to.
Avatar
Whatever I'm suggesting is as easy to find out as clicking my icon and go reading my posts.For now, I'm simply pointing out that "go play faction warfare" or any other attempt to split the sandbox apart or suggest either players or designers pursue theme-park behaviour (anymore than they have already done) is not only fallacious but also stupid as it has a negative long-term impact on the game. Whatever ails the game concerns us all and FW is not void of any issues in Null. One fairly contributing factor to the state of the game is the "go play faction warfare"-attempts of overcomming balance issues in the sandbox by sticking one's head into the sand.And yes, a sandbox means a singular integrated world. The game was designed to be just that and things like FW (which you have to sign into to take part in it's content and give up other potential content) are anomalies to that design principle.It's not that things like FW or WH are inherently evil. They started out as interesting test beds for mechanics to deal with balance issues, only, as so much else in this game they have (in a slight paradox) been left festering for five years with little iteration, and once iteration have come they have been treated as separate environments with some sort of "equal right to exist" (to the greater intergrated sandbox or the old security system based barriers) which means that resources have been split apart and no part of the game have been given sufficient, continued, attention. It's that seperate-but-equal figment which is a fairly sizable slice of the issue. Rather than looking at how to improve the experimental mechanics involved with FW and WH to adapt on a broad front - FW and WH have been pursued as games within the game.It's an attempt to please players who partake in a certain subset of the game, an opposing design-ideal that is very conservative and attention-demanding, tailored to fit specific existing content, rather than making sure the game at large is in a healthy state to generate content a variety of players can enjoy. As a result many of the subset-sandboxes are also very ill-competetive and successful groups tend to gravitate out of them with little else to do - leaving alot of interesting and innovative groups split apart with little interaction between them. Then, they fizzle out.The balance of the game remain the same and regardless wether you are in Sov or FW, the successful are often either lowtech-sizable or capital-wielding. FW has never been exempt of that.
Avatar
Remote Rep -> the cycle should be tripled in length and the amount as well, but the total amount should be spread out in even ticks among the whole cycle, and not one huge burst. This would allow to reps to still work, but u could alpha targets a lot better or nail target that are just getting reped as the hps will be gradually gained.

Nullsec is broken. It’s clear to everyone directly involved in nullsec and to anyone else who’s paying attention. It’s been broken for years, and what we’re seeing today is simply the result of those problems being allowed to grow unchecked.

Some of this is our fault as players. We’ve gotten good at this game, and our organizations have gotten even better. Anytime CCP throws some new problem at us, we’re superb at figuring out a way to overcome or bypass it. We’ve taken it to the point where the amount of time and effort devoted to keeping nullsec working is simply beyond the ability of most players, and few organizations are left that can keep up.

Still, it’s not fair to blame the players here. Players will always eventually end up playing optimally within the game mechanics, regardless of whether those mechanics are detrimental to the game as a whole. In small games, the community can often prevent this, but as a player base expands the community norms lose power and game mechanics take over.

Most of nullsec's current circumstances are the result of old problems. Some, such as alliance sprawl, go back as long as we’ve had alliances, but the worst of it can be traced to Dominion.

In 2009, CCP deployed Dominion sovereignty and supercapitals. Shortly prior to that, fleet broadcasting was added, which made logistics ships work properly; when combined with the removal of AOE doomsday, this made them viable as on-grid repair ships. Since then, these three systems have been continually troublesome and have only been touched when they were so game breaking that they could not be ignored.

When these problems were young, small tweaks would have sufficed to fix them. Today they are so entrenched that all but the most draconian of nerfs can be bypassed through sheer force of will and manpower. Eve as we know it today in nullsec is the same game we were playing five years ago, and we’re too good at it.

What the game needs is not small fixes or tweaks to slightly broken systems. Eve needs radical change. CCP needs to take an axe to the problematic systems rather than continuing to apply lipstick to pigs. They need to throw away boring gameplay and drop in something that is at the very least not so thoroughly understood.

On Difficulty

The typical and obvious response to problematic mechanics is to make them harder. It's the simplest way to deal with the problem. Under many circumstances it results in a simple, sane, and correct solution. In the competitive arena that is nullsec, however, it tends to be counterproductive.

The most recent example of this is the 50% increase to cap fuel usage. This change is directly targeting the major coalitions that regularly abuse their capital fleets for cross-galaxy engagements at short notice. As far as actually hurting them, it’s not really meaningful. They have the income to support it - and their pilots don’t pay for their own fuel anyways - so what do they care about fuel costs?

Those actually being hurt by this change are the smaller groups that can’t afford to fund their member’s fuel costs. The major coalitions are happily bouncing around the galaxy while "lesser" organizations are watching the costs pile up. All while the pilots operating their capitals for personal use are being punished for a problem they have no part in.

This is a typical result of CCP's attempts to balance nullsec. When things are made more difficult, it doesn’t slow down the isk- and player-heavy coalitions; instead, it prevents the weaker groups from being able to compete. Those weaker groups then have to make the difficult choice of either disbanding and joining other groups, allying themselves with stronger groups (coalitions), or being crushed by their competition.

Making things harder simply reduces the number of groups that can compete. Real fixes require making the activity unnecessary rather than trying to punish those who use it.

Admittedly, this is an argument that has been made before. But it is necessary to understand how we got here, why so many of the attempted fixes have failed, how to go about fixing them, and why this isn’t something that can be solved with a few tweaks.

There are four main problems at the root of things, all years old. Those big four are capital ships, remote repairs, sovereignty, and nullsec income models. None of them stand alone - they are so deeply intertwined that a change to any one of them will reverberate through them all.

Capital Ships

The Mittani wrote an excellent article entitled ‘Apex Force’ covering this particular part of the problem. Of the big four, this is probably the best understood, with anyone taking an honest outside look agreeing that it’s a problem. As such, I’m going to skip it here and assume in everything coming up that it has been properly fixed.

Remote Reps

The least addressed problem has been remote reps. Since they were first brought into fleet doctrines, they’ve been a problem that has steadily grown. The problems they bring up have previously been discussed by FearlessLittleToaster.

The first question any FC asks when they form a fleet is “Do I have enough logis?” It has become an absolute requirement to have sufficient logistics ships to keep your fleet alive - you know your opponent will be trying to do the same. Once a fleet has sufficient logistics, the only way to defeat it is to do enough damage to ensure a kill before logis can lock and cycle reps. This has led to an arms race between tank and damage, with fleets using tankier ships to attempt to survive the incoming alpha-strike - and more ships to ensure alpha-strike kills.

This single effect, more than anything, has driven fleet sizes upwards. By setting a minimum time-to-kill before a target becomes effectively unkillable, players are forced to bring enough damage to win that race. Years of EHP inflation has only served to drive that minimum damage higher.

It’s not just large fleet fights where they’re problematic. Nowhere is the problem of remote reps more obvious than in small scale fighting. CCP themselves recognize this problem officially in the rules of the alliance tournament by restricting teams to a single remote repair ship. The only type of logistics that aren’t a major imbalancer are the T1 frigate logis, which die easily enough to not be an issue.

Much of the difficulty with carriers and supercarriers is their infinitely (i.e. until the server breaks) scalable spider repair capability. While eliminating the spider tank is not sufficient to fix them, it is part of what is required to do so.

Along with the problems logistics cause, they’ve also taken much from us. Prior to logistics, weak, expendable fleets could crash into much larger, more valuable fleets with the opportunity to at least inflict some damage, sometimes managing to to come out ahead despite being completely wiped out.

With the rise of logistics, this is no longer possible. A weak fleet that attacks a stronger fleet faces massacre without inflicting any damage at all. If your fleet doesn’t have enough damage, or doesn’t have enough logistics, engaging is a waste of time; the terrible outcome is all too predictable. There is no longer any logic behind saying “screw it, we’re going to lose but we’re going to take some of them with us.”

There seem to be only two reasonable ideas for dealing with the problem of remote reps.

The first and simplest is to nerf the tank on logistics ships. At the very least, an FC could maybe kill enough of them to come out ahead. I’m not really a fan of this because it doesn’t significantly change fights, it just ensures that logistics die, and die early, rather than nothing dying.

The second (and more interesting option) is to end in-combat reps entirely. Simply disallow the remote repair of ships that have the 60 second aggression timer. A new shorter timer might be viable, but the existing timer is pretty close. I’m sure many of you will be groaning at this, but please bear with me.

While the removal of AOE doomsdays made the biggest difference, the addition of broadcasts set the stage by making it possible for logistics to quickly lock those who needed repairs. Prior to broadcasts, logistics were still used in a so-called pit-crew mode. The logistics would set up at a POS or in a safespot for damaged ships to warp to, get repairs, and re-enter the fray.

Under that model, tacklers were much more important, as was manual piloting. Being able to prevent the target from warping out was key to getting kills. On the other side, the defending pilot’s skill mattered too. Instead of keeping at range on an anchor and broadcasting for repairs, the defending pilot had to worry about how they were going to warp out and if it was even possible. Far more player ability was required to stay alive, and the number of pilots able to escape and return to the fight made a difference.

It would be silly to take an entire class of ship and force them to sit at a POS during fights, though. They need a new role, one that adds to the fight rather than nullifying it. Their overall place doesn't need to change too much - supporting the work of the main fleet is and should remain their job.

Instead of remote reps, give them new "assistance modules", with logistics having hull bonuses to all of them. Add remote armor/shield hardeners, which allow the targeted ship to survive longer, but do not prevent an inevitable death. CCP could create highslot versions of remote sensor boosters and tracking links, allowing logistics to use them without ruining their fit. Even things like remote damage boosters may be a good idea. There are numerous other possibilities to allow logistics more diverse roles in a fight.

With logistics having a bevy of options for on-field assistance as well as remaining important for pit-crew work, the removal of in-combat reps wipes out some of the worst problems facing fleet fights without making logistics unimportant.

One flaw in this plan: bombs. Bomber harassment would result in the eventual death of any fleet as long as they dropped a bomb at least once every minute. As bombers are already troublesome enough, being hit by a bomb probably shouldn’t trigger the no-reps timer.

There is a possible variation on an aggresson timer based mechanic, which is to implement a stacking penalty instead. This eliminates the bomber issue, but would require capital remote reps to have reduced repair amounts on subcaps. Otherwise, the problem of logistics ships just becomes the problem of triage carriers, further expanding the gap between the big and small alliances.

The idea of removing in-combat reps entirely is a bit extreme, but radical change is what is needed. Even if such a radical change proves impractical, remote reps are a major problem that needs to be dealt with.

Just another evil goon.