It seems to me that regardless of what ship you bring, if the opposition has enough logistics ships, you won’t get a single kill. With logi reps landing every tick, it would take an absurd effort to get someone from full to nothing before the next rep lands.
In the early days of the game this sort of trick was also available in nanofiber modules, shield and armor hardeners, and others. To avoid battleships entering warp in one tick, or having absurd damage resistances, stacking penalties were applied to each additional module.
I’d propose a similar stacking penalty for remote logistics, where each additional ship remote repping a target has a decreasing effectiveness.
I agree with Stacking Penalty to Remote Reps. As an example, our small worm hole band was up against 18 Remote Repping Drekavac’s chained together. Nothing we could do to stop them from taking our Astrahus. Even the Stand Up weapons in the structure with fighters combined doing 2200 DPS was ineffective. Really no reason to have structures equipped with any fighters or Stand Up weapons since they can not fight off any fleet with remote repping capability. Come on CCP, do the right thing just like you did with nano fibers and battle ships warping away in under 1 second. It is for the good of the game!
This would be so cool to see how the meta reacts to this! Let CCP hash out the details. I love anything that causes chaos to the established meta. PVE/PVP.
Got my vote!
In a game of diminishing returns, there’s a few standouts like crowd control (indefinite EWAR, even tackle), remote reps and damage application (homogeneous blobs growing beyond server capacity seems more of a literally game breaking problem, IMHO).
It’s not that counters don’t exist (like ECM and neuts), but personally I’d rather see more interesting solutions than just bring more of the same or stalemates. One problem at a time, I guess.
how many bombs would it take to kill a rr drek?
This already exists to some degree.
Alpha strikes are really the solution here, which does lend itself to an n+1 style of fighting, but I don’t think the proposed change would diminish that - it simply would decrease n.
One interesting concept I’ve been toying with is using Vorton weapons as a counter to remote reps. The overall damage is lower per-ship, but spreading it across more makes keeping everyone fully repaired a more difficult task. By combing Vortons with alpha strike capabilities you could effectively lower the required alpha strike amount and simply pick targets logi haven’t gotten to yet. Adding in damps scripted for lock time could further complicate this for the logi wing. I don’t fly in large fleets, so there may be some nuance I’m missing here.
Interesting, I was a bit skeptical of the choice of wording, but seems to have made it into the patch notes:
Summary on EVE University:
Insignificant unless you’ve got over 30 capital modules or 100 subcap reppers… So in practice the limit is still the size of the buffer per tick?
It’s also interesting to note existing diminishing returns for damage (I don’t see how you could change one and not the other), but that is in the form of a hard cap and only applicable to structures. I think the concept could be applied a bit more generally and consistently. Looking at you Catalyst*(n+1).
We are excited to have new levers to use when balancing the role of logistics and other types of remote assistance in the future. We can make changes to the formula to move it towards effecting sub-capitals more, or capitals less, or other configurations entirely.
I wonder if this ever got a second pass?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.