As a result of the TMC article, a suggestion of adding stacking penalties to remote rep modules was floated and didn't seem to be immediately shot down. Which then started my gears turning. Math ain't my strong suit, so I'm not even going to pretend to say where the decimal point should go. But if you've ran the numbers, hey, let me see them.
So, stacking penalties for remote rep modules. TL; DR: I like the idea.
For starters: I don't want fewer or more logi pilots specifically. I want as many logi ships on field as there are players who enjoy flying them.
But as the TMC article notes: in larger fleet fights, with rare exception, there's zero utility to fighting outgunned. Once you field enough Logi/alpha in comparison to your enemy, your enemy dies without killing anything. That's great for you -- assuming they undocked at all. But if they don't, then everyone loses. (Except trolls, but, well, Internet.)
The idea, of course, is encouraging battles and creating a balance that doesn't encourage blueballing.
A solid example that HERO encountered was the taking of GE-8JV from Against ALL Authorities. With NCDot coming in overwhelming numbers for an important timer, there was zero utility for -A- to leave the (relative) safety of their POS shield. They poked their heads out to try and pop some little ducks that strayed from the flock, but at no point were they seriously considering going out with a bang. They'd just be slaughtered with no real damage to show for it.
And hell, I don't blame them for not giving it a go. I wouldn't have.
While, from a strategic standpoint, that was great for us, it certainly didn't benefit the line member who wanted to get into a big fleet battle. Sure, we'd prefer to win, but we've had far more fun engagements on our own undock or roaming into Provi than we did there.
So, some possibilities of implementing a stacking penalty to remote rep modules:
The (slight) weakening of N+1
What a lot of TMC commenters ignored, and what I'm going to say right now: Larger armies should indeed win an engagement. Yes, they should always, in theory, emerge victorious.
But by having the stacking penalty, you increase the likelihood of the smaller army getting their shots in before they go down.
A 1000 vs. 900 battle, if both fleets fight perfectly, should never end with 1000 - 0.
The 1000 fleet should win if both fight perfectly, but there should be casualties. 1000 - 900 ending in 500 - 0 is, in history, more likely and in-game more balanced.
With perfect skills and perfect FCing on both sides, N+1 should emerge victorious, but it shouldn't be a flawless victory in the Mortal Kombat sense. But, if you're fielding even 50% of your opponent's fleet, there should be utility in battling. The reasons for why are endless:
- With the possibility of causing damage to the fleet correlating to what's being fielded, one may lose the engagement, but be able to "blunt" a larger offensive.
- "If we're losing this, we might as well take some of them with us."
Fuck blueballing.- For nullsov blocs on the defending side, now comes a tactic of going down swinging, taking as many enemies out as you can, and then reshipping quickly to try and knock the attackers out. If the station is important enough, you'll lose the ISK war, but you can hold the field. And more ships die, which is always a good thing.
Will simply implementing a stacking penalty magically do all of this? I suspect not. Other suggestions included:
- Stacking penalty to lock time.
- More AoE options. (A BC/BS sized Heavy [non-stealth] Bomber. Which, hm.)
- A buff to capacitor warfare.
All of these at once would probably obliterate the utility of Logistics, but these options are intriguing to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment