Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lothris Andastar
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 21:51:00 -
[1]
Two Words: Stacking Modifier.
We apply it to everything else, so why not ship damage? 1 Ship = Full damage, 2 ships = 0.8 damage from each ship and so on.
|
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 21:53:00 -
[2]
How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
|
Linium
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors Waterboard
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 21:53:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Linium on 22/02/2011 21:53:56 You are first to suggest this ever. Go away
|
Lothris Andastar
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 21:56:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jada Maroo How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
More ships still cause more Damage. 9 Ships will still cause more damage than 8.
What I mean is, make it so that a blob of 900 is no longer an autowin button.
Make it so that 1 ship = 100% damage, 2 Ships = 180% damage, 3 Ships = 260% damage etc. Tweak the formula (so maybe -10% every time) and we can actually go back to having a fun game to play.
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 21:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
Originally by: Jada Maroo How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
More ships still cause more Damage. 9 Ships will still cause more damage than 8.
What I mean is, make it so that a blob of 900 is no longer an autowin button.
Make it so that 1 ship = 100% damage, 2 Ships = 180% damage, 3 Ships = 260% damage etc. Tweak the formula (so maybe -10% every time) and we can actually go back to having a fun game to play.
soo... target your blues with noobships so that the enemy battleships get damage stack penalized into oblivion? ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Lothris Andastar
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:00:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
Originally by: Jada Maroo How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
More ships still cause more Damage. 9 Ships will still cause more damage than 8.
What I mean is, make it so that a blob of 900 is no longer an autowin button.
Make it so that 1 ship = 100% damage, 2 Ships = 180% damage, 3 Ships = 260% damage etc. Tweak the formula (so maybe -10% every time) and we can actually go back to having a fun game to play.
soo... target your blues with noobships so that the enemy battleships get damage stack penalized into oblivion?
Disregard Noobships and have it based of class. So 10 Frigs are stack penalised seperatly and 10 BS are done seperately as well. Yes, it means that 10 frigs and 10 BS will do more damage than 20BS (maybe, not bothered to math it out) but OH NOES MIXED SHIP TIPES WHAT DO?
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
Originally by: Jada Maroo How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
More ships still cause more Damage. 9 Ships will still cause more damage than 8.
What I mean is, make it so that a blob of 900 is no longer an autowin button.
Make it so that 1 ship = 100% damage, 2 Ships = 180% damage, 3 Ships = 260% damage etc. Tweak the formula (so maybe -10% every time) and we can actually go back to having a fun game to play.
soo... target your blues with noobships so that the enemy battleships get damage stack penalized into oblivion?
OR IT GOES BY LARGEST NUMBER TO SMALLEST like every other stacking penalty ingame
of course this is still a terrible idea go away
________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Irani Firecam
The Clean Up Crew Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:04:00 -
[8]
1. Make some friends 2. Form your own blob 3. ??? 4. Profit
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:07:00 -
[9]
How about this, for every person that locks onto a target that much smaller its signature radius will be. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 20JAN11
|
Barakkus
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:11:00 -
[10]
How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes. - - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring
|
|
Zyress
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:11:00 -
[11]
I don't know about stacking penalties but friendly fire could make blob warfare at least more difficult if you needed a clear line of sight to a target you were shooting at and friendlies that get in the way get hit. I can't imagine how you would avoid hitting a tackler though and if a big blob is firing at a target anything in between the blob and the target should be decimated, couldn't shoot through the ship in front of you. Thats the line of thought I would be going on though if I were looking to reduce blobs
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:15:00 -
[12]
More stuff for smaller crews to do and limitations to the blobs ability to jump ahead of interlopers.
That is all the fixing you need, rest will sort itself out when blobs are continuously bypassed and the orchards they failed to protect (by blobbing) are burned to the ground.
|
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:18:00 -
[13]
Too many calculations
The hamsters would strike.
Slade
:Signature Temporarily Disabled: |
Jimmy Jazz
Warp Asylum Ltd
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:19:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Irani Firecam 1. Make some friends 2. Form your own blob 3. ??? 4. Crash the node
fyp
|
JonnyRandom
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:23:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Barakkus How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes.
I like this guy's idea better.
|
Jovan Geldon
Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Barakkus How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes.
This idea is the proverbial diamond in the turd.
|
Berneh
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:03:00 -
[17]
horrible idea GTFO your wrong !
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:07:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
Originally by: Jada Maroo How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
More ships still cause more Damage. 9 Ships will still cause more damage than 8.
What I mean is, make it so that a blob of 900 is no longer an autowin button.
Make it so that 1 ship = 100% damage, 2 Ships = 180% damage, 3 Ships = 260% damage etc. Tweak the formula (so maybe -10% every time) and we can actually go back to having a fun game to play.
soo... target your blues with noobships so that the enemy battleships get damage stack penalized into oblivion?
OR IT GOES BY LARGEST NUMBER TO SMALLEST like every other stacking penalty ingame
of course this is still a terrible idea go away
yeah remembered that bit of info after I posted, but didn't want to edit the damn thing so I left it as such, as a testament to my ignorance, or lack of memory, or both.
I do agree that the idea sucks monkey balls. ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Apollo Gabriel
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:08:00 -
[19]
The only thing that I can think of off the cuff here is make locking time much longer with more ships as it takes longer for your ships computers to eat through the possible targets. Of course ECM would need some major rework as well.
***** Signature may appear without warning! ***** Please do not feed the trolls, it builds dependency.
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:13:00 -
[20]
THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION IS SHIP EXPLOSION DAMAGE!
Thats right if a ship goes boom it does an aoe damage affect.
EX if you kill an Avatar titan, when it goes boom it does the following.
Special affect of old doomsday white light blinding the screen. AOE distance 150 km Damage 32,000 EM damage.
That will stop blobs easily and turn the tides in battle, especially those blobs of motherships.
|
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:14:00 -
[21]
Blobs would still happen. The FC would just have the squad commanders each separately call primaries for their squad. Each squad kills a ship. More squads = more kills, hence it would be better to have a bigger blob.
Ships exploding upon entering grid: So whoever gets there first wins. Isn't that the issue now with large fleet warfare, the issue we are trying to get rid of?
Any artificial limit to number of ships encourages each side to blob bigger, in hopes their side will get most or all available slots. Even if you did a limit by corporation or alliance, people would just divide up into multiple corps or alliances, all set blue to each other, to get the advantage.
I think we need to accept the blob, and ask CCP to make server performance degrade gracefully, equally for everyone, when the lag hits.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:25:00 -
[22]
you have to understand why blobs happen
Why doesn't it happen in real life combat? Do you think in WW2 when 2 sides brought 100s of tanks each, all 100 tanks aimed and shot at single enemy tank and kept switching "primaries" till 1 side won?
Why do you think that didn't happen? it wasn't cause damage had stacking penalties.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:33:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ephemeron you have to understand why blobs happen
Why doesn't it happen in real life combat? Do you think in WW2 when 2 sides brought 100s of tanks each, all 100 tanks aimed and shot at single enemy tank and kept switching "primaries" till 1 side won?
Why do you think that didn't happen? it wasn't cause damage had stacking penalties.
That did happen in naval battles...
|
Minamel
Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:33:00 -
[24]
I will defend my mighty and large alliance with THIS epic armada of.. um.. fiiivvee ships.
|
Suitonia
Gallente Genos Occidere Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:36:00 -
[25]
Terrible Idea. ---
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:36:00 -
[26]
Adding restrictions is not the way to go. You need to add something positive instead of number-crunching. The fact is numbers have always counted for something and no matter what you add [except if its something stupid]. People need to be more tactical in their thinking. Split a blob into bite sized chunks, break it down using warp disrupt probes & bombs.
Im more in favour of ship sub-systems that can be individually targetted from battleship and above [ which woould be good for gang sized fighting] and being able to destroy stargates [only in 0.0] to cut off the enemy.
|
Burial Day
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:39:00 -
[27]
I think this is a great idea
And for everyone knocking it, I want to know whether you've played other genres competitively
|
garus banta
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:47:00 -
[28]
You die to a blob.
Consequences:
1. You get insurance ISK, cushioning the blow. 2. Market receives your modules. 3. You buy your modules back for less.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:53:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Burial Day I think this is a great idea
And for everyone knocking it, I want to know whether you've played other genres competitively
The main reason people are against it is cause it's counter-intuitive. It's just unnatural.
It also has some major flaws: what happens with supcap and POS bashing? suddenly they are a lot harder to kill - especially with the log out timer. The only way to effectively kill supercaps is to blob them with other supercaps
And how can damage stacking be calculated? weapons don't apply continuous damage, they apply instant damage at different time internals. The probability of 2 weapons hitting at exact same instant is very low, so virtually no weapons would be stacked.
|
Medarr
Amarr ZeroSec Excuses.
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:03:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar Two Words: Stacking Modifier.
We apply it to everything else, so why not ship damage? 1 Ship = Full damage, 2 ships = 0.8 damage from each ship and so on.
Walk away slowly and never post again.
|
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:12:00 -
[31]
What the hell is the matter with you, everyone loves blobs, nothing is more fun that epic battles that work in super slo-mo lagging left, right, up, down, side to side.
--WIS/Incarna/Ambulation where microtransactions come to play, and uh bars.-- |
Aiwha
Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:18:00 -
[32]
So make blobs even bigger.
Right.
Go away please.
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Your avatar makes me want to follow you to a rural farmstead, give you all my worldly goods and call you The Aiwha.
|
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:22:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Jovan Geldon
Originally by: Barakkus How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes.
This idea is the proverbial diamond in the turd.
seconded!
and thnx for the lolz!
BTW, the solution is one word: LineOfSight ______________ Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦ Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.` Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
Stuart Price
Caldari FLA5HY RED The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:28:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Stuart Price on 23/02/2011 00:35:15 Edited by: Stuart Price on 23/02/2011 00:30:40
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Ephemeron you have to understand why blobs happen
Why doesn't it happen in real life combat? Do you think in WW2 when 2 sides brought 100s of tanks each, all 100 tanks aimed and shot at single enemy tank and kept switching "primaries" till 1 side won?
Why do you think that didn't happen? it wasn't cause damage had stacking penalties.
That did happen in naval battles...
To a large degree, yes it did. Land battles, not so much for a very important reason.
Manoeuvre.
From the earliest days of warfare the primary goal of the man in charge was bringing as much of his firepower to bear on the enemy while restricting that enemy's ability to do the same. Technology evolved but this core doctrine remained the same, tactics evolving with the tech to do so.
The major consideration is where your forces are in relation to the enemy and how quickly they can move from one place to another.
Ships of the line (from when boats were made of wood and had a satisfyingly insane amount of guns strapped to them) sailed in lines simply so that they could all pour their fire into one target as they all passed it until it was gone, then pick on another. Simple, until you factor in the wind - it became a contest to see who could get the wind advantage (enabling them to pick their targets and stay on them while also allowing their own crippled ship the opportunity to drop from the line and retreat). Of course, someone (Sir George Rodney) ruined all that when he found it was loads of fun sailing his ships in between the spaces in the enemy line so that the broadsides passed down the entire length of the enemy ship instead of through both sides and out (messy) but it was a tactic that still relied on manoeuvre.
Once everyone had ships capable of moving independent of the wind and packing turreted guns capable of slinging frankly insane rounds across miles of sea then it got stuck in a period of everyone shooting one target at a time until it died and the people brining the most ships with the highest rate of fire and accuracy winning (until the aircraft carrier came along and cheap planes sank everyone's expensive battleships).
Manoeuvre and logistics in eve is incredibly, phenomenally easy. It's trivial to move pilots and assets across vast distances in very short periods of time, at all levels (jump drives and then warp drives for intra-system movement). Actual distance and speed means very little in large engagements (whilst intriguingly, meaning everything in solo/small gang actions).
Until there is a way of addressing this without making everyone rage the 'BIGGEST BLOB WINS' doctrine will usually bring success.
That said, in the biggest engagement there's still a lot of advantage, in theory at least, to the concept of Platoon Firing.
If 20 ships can alpha a target in one volley (they usually can't but you get the idea), why use 100? Using those 100 ships are broken down into 5 platoons, each with a separate target then the fleet doing so will kill five times faster than the fleet all firing at one target at a time.
I would also, in a perfect world, be interested in seeing something approaching suppressing fire come along, whereby taking fire yourself reduces your own effectiveness at dishing it out. If done well, you could have situations where the most dangerous targets are suppressed while you kill the weaker ones - at the moment suppression is the job of e-war ships (which is why they are primary - the concept works) but it's something that could be explored on a wider basis maybe?
I dunno, I'm throwing out a lot of stuff, most of which probably isn't helpful.
TL/DR: It's not the size of the wave, it's the motion of the ocean - or it should be at least, but it isn't :(
Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
Burial Day
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:53:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Burial Day on 23/02/2011 00:56:47 Edited by: Burial Day on 23/02/2011 00:54:28 Edited by: Burial Day on 23/02/2011 00:53:53
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Burial Day I think this is a great idea
And for everyone knocking it, I want to know whether you've played other genres competitively
The main reason people are against it is cause it's counter-intuitive. It's just unnatural.
It also has some major flaws: what happens with supcap and POS bashing? suddenly they are a lot harder to kill - especially with the log out timer. The only way to effectively kill supercaps is to blob them with other supercaps
And how can damage stacking be calculated? weapons don't apply continuous damage, they apply instant damage at different time internals. The probability of 2 weapons hitting at exact same instant is very low, so virtually no weapons would be stacked.
Well yeah it is very "unnatural" or artificial, but within an artificial world, that's not really a great argument.
Every game has a huge amount of unexplainable artificiality. You get shot in Call of Duty, your gun flinches an inch (rather than knocking your character down). Fill in your own examples. Great developers add in artificial pros/cons to any given strategy so that PvP becomes a matter of high-level analytical thinking (in addition to the tactile skill involved, which can sometimes overcome poor planning).
The whole idea behind PvP, the underlying factor, is competitive fights. If you try to stack a team in Battlefield 2, the server will auto-balance the sides. If you try to queue up for a WoW arena with your entire guild, the game won't let you. I don't know why EVE players seem so unanimously unfamiliar (and repulsed) by this idea.
The specific details are irrelevant - we're not professional game designers here; none of these suggestions are going to be brilliant. The idea behind what he's proposing - that PvP should not be a matter of whose corp consists of the biggest poop-sockers - is vital to any competitive game. If you don't want a competitive game, you are all just carebears in disguise
For those unacquainted with the genius of Shawn Elliot: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poop+socker
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:54:00 -
[36]
OP, admit it.. you just want blue bars for your feature&ideas thread once it gets moved over there
Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody! |
Lothris Andastar
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 04:29:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Tres Farmer OP, admit it.. you just want blue bars for your feature&ideas thread once it gets moved over there
I find your lack of faith disturbing!
Seriously though, this is the only possible way to make the game fun and fair again.
LOS was tried, but used up too much CPU.
|
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 04:47:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar Two Words: We apply it to everything else, so why not ship damage?
Because it makes no sense, whatsoever.
Stunning EVE Online Theme for PS3 |
FeralShadow
RipStar Mining Industries United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 06:14:00 -
[39]
The line of sight idea I think would really solve a lot of the problems. If someone says "yeah well your big ships can't then attack tacklers without friendly fire" well.. yeah. You should have other small ships to counteract THEIR small ships, and those small ships wouldn't friendly fire much because they'd be closer to the tacklers. This would also bring an aspect to the game, namely formations, that would be very welcome. So when you lock a target and you have it selected to fire upon, you should see on your weaponry whether or not it will hit the target, or hit another target on the way to that target. Obviously some sort of notification that will change as you switch targets, indicating "There is line of sight to target" and "There is not line of sight to the target". Possibly it will include what ship/person the weapon will hit so you can move out of the way.
Anyways, this is wishful thinking, it will probably be a few years before the technology can allow this on a large scale, but it will offer a lot of new solutions to some tricky problems.
-Feral _______________________________________________ "If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura
|
Meridius Dex
Amarr Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 06:29:00 -
[40]
For years I've thought the solution to blobs and focused fire silliness (the poor bastard who's called primary and melted in 10 seconds sure isn't enjoying his EVE experience, is he?) was simply making a formula of maximum incoming damage based on signature radius. I don't know what the exact number would be (game devs would be able to come up with the precise formula), but something like:
Maximum incoming DPS to any ship = 300% of signature radius.
This means big, stupid blobs with no skill would lose out to disciplined fire teams who know how to spread their fire. If done right, it is also a not-so-stealth buff to active tanking (that's why the exact formula would have to be carefully crafted to not imbalance things the other way) and an additional nerf to MWDs (always a good thing, as CCP has continuously tried to encourage more AB use).
- Dex -
|
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 06:33:00 -
[41]
Quote: Maximum incoming DPS to any ship = 300% of signature radius.
That means EVE would be full of faction fitted ships that are unkillable. As it's easy to tank 300% of sig - especially for t3
you want everyone to fly invulnerable t3's?
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 06:38:00 -
[42]
I love people who have no clue about the game posting revolutionary 'fix' ideas that are discussed for the first time in the history of mankind!
I simply love them!
Please continue |
Ohanka
Caldari The Lone Patrol Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 06:51:00 -
[43]
Stupid. what about those who enjoy large fleet battles? sure supercaps do need a nerf but this is silly.
if your on about lowsec then travel in a group. there is no room for solo pvp anymore.
|
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 06:55:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Meridius Dex This means big, stupid blobs with no skill would lose out to disciplined fire teams who know how to spread their fire.
This is already the case. Take 100 vs 100 fight (all BS) Group A is operating as big dumb blob, one primary. Group B is operating in 4 fire teams of 25 BS each, one primary per fire team.
Group B will always win, it's simple maths. Say 10k alpha per BS, 250k EHP per BS. Group B instapops four BS per weapon cycle, group A instapops one BS per weapon cycle. 75% of group A's firepower is being wasted wasted.
Operating in fireteams and spreading fire also allows smaller fleets to destroy larger blob fleets, as the rate of ship loss is higher for the big dumb blob than it is for the fireteam.
No ridiculous 'damage cap' is necessary, all that is required is for people to use their brains.
Damage cap is for idiots that don't know how to play
Stunning EVE Online Theme for PS3 |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 07:02:00 -
[45]
It would help if CCP didn't nerf speed a while back. As speed is the best counter to the blob.
Speed should play more important role in large scale combat. Not only it helps fight the blob, but it also makes combat more FUN, and this is a game after all. We play it for fun.
|
TgrFox5
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 07:22:00 -
[46]
I think an interesting fix would be to instead give solo pilots the power to come out even in a fight with a blob. What I mean by that is you can atleast trade ships. So if your flying a solo hurricane and you get blobbed a mechanic which gives you enough time to take down atleast another hostile ship. Obviously you will still die but you will have a chance to kill something.
For example, you jump into a system in your hurricane and waiting on the other side is an onyx, 2 drakes, rapier, and i dunno whatever else. You probably won't make it back to the gate, and you won't be able to burn away from them so what do you do? You pull a star trek and divert power from your engines to your shields for x amount of time (until your engines burn out). This gives you a hardened shield type effect which will hopefully give you enough time to take down one of your enemies.
|
Mina Sulva'r
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 07:38:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
Originally by: Jada Maroo How does it even make sense that more ships = less damage?
More ships still cause more Damage. 9 Ships will still cause more damage than 8.
What I mean is, make it so that a blob of 900 is no longer an autowin button.
Make it so that 1 ship = 100% damage, 2 Ships = 180% damage, 3 Ships = 260% damage etc. Tweak the formula (so maybe -10% every time) and we can actually go back to having a fun game to play.
soo... target your blues with noobships so that the enemy battleships get damage stack penalized into oblivion?
Disregard Noobships and have it based of class. So 10 Frigs are stack penalised seperatly and 10 BS are done seperately as well. Yes, it means that 10 frigs and 10 BS will do more damage than 20BS (maybe, not bothered to math it out) but OH NOES MIXED SHIP TIPES WHAT DO?
I kinda understand his logic on this. I'd prefer the stack penalty starting after 5 ships. So the 6th BS does .80 of max damage, the 7th does .60, with the maximum penalty of .20 damage after the 9th ship.
Course spider tanking would be impossible to break, or more accurately it would be too easy to switch and rep targets before they popped. And then CCP would have to rework the remote rep amounts and blah, blah...bleh.
Truth is its better not to mess with what works, no matter how much everyone (or almost everyone) hates the blob, and the lag that come with it.
|
DarkAegix
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 08:02:00 -
[48]
Edited by: DarkAegix on 23/02/2011 08:03:57 If we imagine that lag were somehow fixed there would still be an issue with blobs. This is because of primaries being called, and your poor ship unluckily insta-popping. Just look at all the EVE trailers. They have many ships shooting other ones, not 1000 Drakes all firing a volley at a target.
I propose that there be a maximum to how many ships can target you. The larger your ship, the more enemies you can have firing, of course. But, issues arise when all ships in a single fleet target each other, and thus the entire fleet cannot be targeted. Or if many enemies are firing at you it'd be impossible to receive remote reps. This could be fixed by removing this limitation for logi ships, as well as ships in the same fleet. But then there's the problem where one fleet would split into two separate, friendly, fleets which completely lock up each other.
Ach, someone please come up with a better idea than mine
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 10:02:00 -
[49]
Line of sight and friendly fire , but that would make servers cry with current CCP level.
20 people would crash the node. Less then in counterstrike.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 10:12:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Stuart Price (until the aircraft carrier came along and cheap planes sank everyone's expensive battleships)
That's just because they were nubbins and placed the battleship at A1ûA4.
Quote: Until there is a way of addressing this without making everyone rage the 'BIGGEST BLOB WINS' doctrine will usually bring success.
àalso, until there is a way to win space without bringing a blob, because that's the amount of ship it takes to kill a space-holding object in any reasonable amount of time. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
Chinwe Rhei
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 10:18:00 -
[51]
The problem with your proposal is that it encourages you to bring the biggest ship possible so even more supercaps and whatever. People would be yelling on the comms for tacklers to stop firing. If you used drones you'd probably get kicked from the corp. There's something to be said about smaller ships taking a bigger one.
There's already a limit to how much firepower you should focus on one target, it's their EHP.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 10:37:00 -
[52]
I wish I received a million isk every time someone pukes a poorly thought out and extremely harmful "idea" onto the forums. I'd be so rich in just one day, I could buy jita.
Buy. Jita. All of it.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 12:03:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Batolemaeus I wish I received a million isk every time someone pukes a poorly thought out and extremely harmful "idea" onto the forums. I'd be so rich in just one day, I could buy jita.
Buy. Jita. All of it.
Nah. Someone would just 0.01 your buy order, and you'd end up with Sobaseki instead. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Marista Do'Marrultier
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 13:05:00 -
[54]
Maneuvering and strategy has always placed importantly in any large scale engagement. Naval combat often included this via maneuvering into fog and mist to reduce direct visibility or generating smoke to do likewise.
Perhaps some form of LOS occlusion would help break up these blobfests? Nebulas/artificial static fields/Visual holography?
How about hologramatic decoys to artificially plump-up your apparent fleet size? or frigs trailing across swathes of target-blocking mines (targettable themselves so they can be removed in short order but providing short term cover). Any number of potential things could work in this. |
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 13:11:00 -
[55]
How to beat the blob.
1. get a cov ops
2. hang around in local till they get lax.
3. find the stupids
4. ???
5. enjoy the BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWW
|
Herrring
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 14:18:00 -
[56]
I was actually pretty disappointed when I first started eve as ships could fire through other ships to hit the locked target.
It would bring so much to large scale pvp(even small scale), if formations to not hit friendlies were of any importance.
However I am content with the current version of eve since I know no computer would be able to handle all that info with 1000 people on a single grid.
|
FlopSter
Caldari Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 14:30:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION IS SHIP EXPLOSION DAMAGE!
Thats right if a ship goes boom it does an aoe damage affect.
EX if you kill an Avatar titan, when it goes boom it does the following.
Special affect of old doomsday white light blinding the screen. AOE distance 150 km Damage 32,000 EM damage.
That will stop blobs easily and turn the tides in battle, especially those blobs of motherships.
^^ Agreed this will blow the hell out of subcap fleets, but would not effect supercaps enough unless there was more dmg done to larger ships from the explosion. Your example of 32k dmg would make a supercap laugh...but I do like the concept. You wouldn't think explosions in space would cause 0 damage. Also need to figure out how bumping causes dmg in < .5...that would rock :D
|
QFX
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 14:32:00 -
[58]
SRY TO BURST YOUR BALLS KID, BUT THIS IS NOT YOUR ****TY WORLD OF WARCRAFT YOU'RE USE TO PLAY!! EVE IS MEANT TO BE LIKE THIS. IF YOU CANT STAND THEN STAY OUT OF THE MOTHER****ING FIRE KID!!
|
Slapsy
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 14:44:00 -
[59]
Originally by: FlopSter
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION IS SHIP EXPLOSION DAMAGE!
Thats right if a ship goes boom it does an aoe damage affect.
EX if you kill an Avatar titan, when it goes boom it does the following.
Special affect of old doomsday white light blinding the screen. AOE distance 150 km Damage 32,000 EM damage.
That will stop blobs easily and turn the tides in battle, especially those blobs of motherships.
^^ Agreed this will blow the hell out of subcap fleets, but would not effect supercaps enough unless there was more dmg done to larger ships from the explosion. Your example of 32k dmg would make a supercap laugh...but I do like the concept. You wouldn't think explosions in space would cause 0 damage. Also need to figure out how bumping causes dmg in < .5...that would rock :D
Make damage proportional to sig radius, then?
|
Apollo Gabriel
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 15:09:00 -
[60]
Honestly I don't think that damage would be as much as some of you think, sure for the biggest ships but remember the explosion happens, and spreads over an expanding sphere, so 1/r^2. It would add an interesting and computationally taxing effect to battles, as smaller ships could take quite a hit if too close, but I don't think it will be the "sci fi" movie effect many of you are thinking.
Some numbers are: The damage you take would be your cross sectional area times 1/r^2. In eve, I thin they would equate that to signature radius x 2 pi (just for estimation purposes)
Then at 1000 m (which I think is pretty close even for blob)
Frigate:~ 35 m, Fraction of damage = (2pi 35^2)/(4 pi 1000^2) ~ 0.00061 or 0.061% of the explosion, Cruiser ~130m, Fraction of damage = (2pi 130^2)/(4 pi 1000^2) ~ 0.0085 or 0.85% of the explosion, Battleship ~ 460 m, Fraction of damage = 0.1058 or 10.58% of the explosion.
Now if you go to 2000 m separation, you reduce these numbers by 4, if you go to 5000m separation you reduce them by 25.
Again these numbers are rough, but you can see that unless everyone is on top of each other, then it won't be amazing damage, although it might add new strat to try and trigger explosions... idk
***** Signature may appear without warning! ***** Please do not feed the trolls, it builds dependency.
|
|
Viggen
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 15:14:00 -
[61]
Shield tank players would cry with their massive sig radius, and before long it would just be big blobs of afterburner armour fleets and we'd be back to square one.
Eveboard Viggen |
Slapsy
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 15:17:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Honestly I don't think that damage would be as much as some of you think, sure for the biggest ships but remember the explosion happens, and spreads over an expanding sphere, so 1/r^2. It would add an interesting and computationally taxing effect to battles, as smaller ships could take quite a hit if too close, but I don't think it will be the "sci fi" movie effect many of you are thinking.
Some numbers are: The damage you take would be your cross sectional area times 1/r^2. In eve, I thin they would equate that to signature radius x 2 pi (just for estimation purposes)
Then at 1000 m (which I think is pretty close even for blob)
Frigate:~ 35 m, Fraction of damage = (2pi 35^2)/(4 pi 1000^2) ~ 0.00061 or 0.061% of the explosion, Cruiser ~130m, Fraction of damage = (2pi 130^2)/(4 pi 1000^2) ~ 0.0085 or 0.85% of the explosion, Battleship ~ 460 m, Fraction of damage = 0.1058 or 10.58% of the explosion.
Now if you go to 2000 m separation, you reduce these numbers by 4, if you go to 5000m separation you reduce them by 25.
Again these numbers are rough, but you can see that unless everyone is on top of each other, then it won't be amazing damage, although it might add new strat to try and trigger explosions... idk
What about making the explosion an EWAR effect of some description?
|
Skex Relbore
Gallente Skexcorp
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 15:27:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Ephemeron you have to understand why blobs happen
Why doesn't it happen in real life combat? Do you think in WW2 when 2 sides brought 100s of tanks each, all 100 tanks aimed and shot at single enemy tank and kept switching "primaries" till 1 side won?
Why do you think that didn't happen? it wasn't cause damage had stacking penalties.
There are two reasons why it doesn't happen in real life. Command and control and the fact that it doesn't generally take an entire forces firepower to destroy a single target.
It's much harder to identify a single target on a battlefield in current times (though it's getting better) then in the game. But believe me as technology improves you'll see more of it in battles where it matters.
It generally only takes a single round from a weapon system to kill an equivelent (or even superior opponent in battle. Hell sometimes a single shot can take out multiple opponents in the cases of area affect weapons.
It only takes a single well placed shot from a tank to kill another tank or an infantry soldier to kill another infantry soldier so it would be silly to focus your entire force on a single target while your enemy is tearing through your force.
On targets that are hardened enough that a single unit can't cause terminal damage you can be damned sure every possible effort to focus fire is made.
Even in EVE there is a point where FC's will have different firing groups. No point in having 100 ships shooting at a target if 50 can alpha one into wreckage.
The problem is that greater numbers is generally the best tactical advantage you can come up with. All tactics are designed to try and minimize that advantage if you are the inferior force and maximize it if you are the superior.
Technology can change the equation to some degree but in EVE all combatants have access to the same tech so you're not going to have a case where Joeschumakatelli's alliance is going to unseat NC because of a technological breakthrough.
Another major factor enables non-conventional warfare compared to EVE is the presence of perma-death. In RL if your special ops team manages to take out a squad of troops in an ambush they are out of the conflict forever. Loses take longer to recover from you have to draft them then train them before being able deploy them. In EVE they just grab another ship and they're back in the fight.
Even the idea of forcing multiple conflict points and secondary/tertiary objects doesn't do anything to remove the value of numbers. If you have 5 objectives that have to be accomplished to achieve victory then the force with 500 available pilots still have the advantage against the force with only 200.
Now one thing I think would be useful at least in undermining the Cap ships online aspect would be to lock some infrastructure objectives behind ship type limited acceleration gates in dead space pockets. It wouldn't eliminate the blob but at least it would create a place in the battlesphere were capitals can't be used.
|
Veebring Greetings
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 16:29:00 -
[64]
Stickyfoam bombs, goo missiles and the problem is solved.
|
Morganta
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 16:37:00 -
[65]
we already have a blob control lag
|
Frank Shitlitz
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 17:17:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Morganta we already have a blob control lag
Wierd.
I thought lag was the incentive to blob.
|
Spurty
Caldari V0LTA VOLTA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 17:19:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Frank ****litz
Originally by: Morganta we already have a blob control lag
Wierd.
I thought lag was the incentive to blob.
QFT
Hoppit!
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 17:42:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Barakkus How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes.
Depending on how large the blob is, this is actually not far from the truth! ________________________________________________
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 18:29:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Honestly I don't think that damage would be as much as some of you think, sure for the biggest ships but remember the explosion happens, and spreads over an expanding sphere, so 1/r^2. It would add an interesting and computationally taxing effect to battles, as smaller ships could take quite a hit if too close, but I don't think it will be the "sci fi" movie effect many of you are thinking.
Some numbers are: The damage you take would be your cross sectional area times 1/r^2. In eve, I thin they would equate that to signature radius x 2 pi (just for estimation purposes)
Then at 1000 m (which I think is pretty close even for blob)
Frigate:~ 35 m, Fraction of damage = (2pi 35^2)/(4 pi 1000^2) ~ 0.00061 or 0.061% of the explosion, Cruiser ~130m, Fraction of damage = (2pi 130^2)/(4 pi 1000^2) ~ 0.0085 or 0.85% of the explosion, Battleship ~ 460 m, Fraction of damage = 0.1058 or 10.58% of the explosion.
Now if you go to 2000 m separation, you reduce these numbers by 4, if you go to 5000m separation you reduce them by 25.
Again these numbers are rough, but you can see that unless everyone is on top of each other, then it won't be amazing damage, although it might add new strat to try and trigger explosions... idk
Now this could be interesting. I think there should be more rule specifically for capitals and their explosions, as of right now capital battles are decided by who ever brings the most supers to the field, what if ship explosions destroyed those fighter bombers? how would the tides of battle be turned then. Also this would be a great way of reducing lag.
Ok back on topic, yeah i kinda like the sig radius idea, and make damage proportional. But the damage done should remain race specific. Amarr EM, gallente thermal etc.
|
Zyress
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 19:13:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Viggen Shield tank players would cry with their massive sig radius, and before long it would just be big blobs of afterburner armour fleets and we'd be back to square one.
We'd be crying about it being em Damage first, it is after all our hole, and why wouldn't explosive damage be explosive damage type anyway?
|
|
Zyress
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 19:16:00 -
[71]
On a side note AOE weapons would of course be the best and easiest to implement deterrent to blobs
|
Feligast
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 19:32:00 -
[72]
Originally by: TgrFox5 I think an interesting fix would be to instead give solo pilots the power to come out even in a fight with a blob. What I mean by that is you can atleast trade ships. So if your flying a solo hurricane and you get blobbed a mechanic which gives you enough time to take down atleast another hostile ship. Obviously you will still die but you will have a chance to kill something.
For example, you jump into a system in your hurricane and waiting on the other side is an onyx, 2 drakes, rapier, and i dunno whatever else. You probably won't make it back to the gate, and you won't be able to burn away from them so what do you do? You pull a star trek and divert power from your engines to your shields for x amount of time (until your engines burn out). This gives you a hardened shield type effect which will hopefully give you enough time to take down one of your enemies.
Explain to me please how four ships make a blob? And we do have that provision.. it's called "thermodynamics."
|
Shoopa Whoopa
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 20:49:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 23/02/2011 20:49:31
Originally by: Feligast And we do have that provision.. it's called "thermodynamics."
Or siege mode.
|
Diz Trakta
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 21:40:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar Two Words: Stacking Modifier.
We apply it to everything else, so why not ship damage? 1 Ship = Full damage, 2 ships = 0.8 damage from each ship and so on.
Three words: Lamest idea EVAR!
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 17:06:00 -
[75]
About the idea of ship explosions causing damage to nearby ships: It has a big problem: High sec.
So in high sec ship A kills ship B, and neutral ship C dies in the explosion. Who gets concorded? Who gets the global criminal cool down, and the sec status loss? If its A or B, that mostly ends all high sec wars. If its no one, then high sec is no longer high sec(gankers will blow up corp mates to kill the target), the majority of eve players cancel, and due to lack of income CCP closes the servers.
So, no ship explosion AOE damage.
|
Chuck Sands
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 18:42:00 -
[76]
The two words you were looking for:
Perpetuum Interference.
|
Jno Aubrey
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 18:45:00 -
[77]
I second the notion of Friendly Fire. I think that would cut down on blobs, and put a premium on skill and tactics over raw numbers. I suspect it will never see the light of day.
That's assuming blobs are a Bad Thing of course. I'm not convinced (except when I am being blobbed). __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate. |
Apollo Gabriel
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 18:52:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Vincent Athena About the idea of ship explosions causing damage to nearby ships: It has a big problem: High sec.
So in high sec ship A kills ship B, and neutral ship C dies in the explosion. Who gets concorded? Who gets the global criminal cool down, and the sec status loss? If its A or B, that mostly ends all high sec wars. If its no one, then high sec is no longer high sec(gankers will blow up corp mates to kill the target), the majority of eve players cancel, and due to lack of income CCP closes the servers.
So, no ship explosion AOE damage.
lol, I like your if A then Z logic.
You raise a good question, but not one that can't be solved.
Let A and B be members of corp X, let C and D be non-WT and non corp X, let E be a WT
1) If A blows up B, then A gets the GCC and sec status loss if a non-WT is damaged.
2) If A suicide ganks C and D gets hit, then the GCC and sec status transfer to A.
3) If A kills E (a WT) and he hits C, then we have an issue.
4) A sets self destruct in order to damage C, then we have an issue I think 1) and 2) are straightforward and reasonable, now 3) and 4) presents a dilema, however I think one that can be solved with some thought. Be back later
***** Signature may appear without warning! ***** Please do not feed the trolls, it builds dependency.
|
LHA Tarawa
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 19:38:00 -
[79]
So, whenever I know there is a big fight coming, we log in our alts in cheap firgs, bring them to the location, and have then start shooting at our capitals. That way, when the enemy capitals show up, their damages gets massive stacking penalties behind the tiny damage being caused to our ships by our blob of throw away frigs.....
Yeah, great suggestion.
|
Phocas Lebournes
Northbridge Services Group
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 20:55:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Irani Firecam 1. Make some friends 2. Form your own blob 3. ??? 4. Profit
Awesome avatar!
|
|
Charoline De'Lanari
Azure Horizon
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 21:05:00 -
[81]
Introduce splash damage to both missiles and guns
as it is now, explosion radius, target speed and sig affect total missile damage, low sig radius ships getting less damage, as most of the explosion goes into space.
Guns on the other hand are affected by optimal, falloff and tracking, making them prone to miss as it is now that means the fired round is wasted either in part (lightly hits, etc.) or total (completely misses).
Why not make it so that the portion of potential damage that does not affect the targeted ship is instead dealt to ships in close proximity to it - that would make sense both with missiles and guns - a missile exploding in a blob would damage whatever is near, whereas stray bullets/laserfire might hit other targets instead.
Not sure if it's possible or how hard it would be on the server, but nontheless it would be wicket cool
|
Tom Sasaki
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 21:06:00 -
[82]
All we need are ships with bonuses for smartbombs, area & damage with high resists to their own racial type. Make it another tier of BS or somesuch :P
A tool to make those blobs melt that have more versatility and survivability than bombers :)
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 21:10:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Vincent Athena About the idea of ship explosions causing damage to nearby ships: It has a big problem: High sec.
So in high sec ship A kills ship B, and neutral ship C dies in the explosion. Who gets concorded? Who gets the global criminal cool down, and the sec status loss? If its A or B, that mostly ends all high sec wars. If its no one, then high sec is no longer high sec(gankers will blow up corp mates to kill the target), the majority of eve players cancel, and due to lack of income CCP closes the servers.
So, no ship explosion AOE damage.
good point high sec is a problem, but that doesnt automatically rule it out.
Implementation of a mechanic like this should first be implemented on CAPITALS ONLY.
now as for a high sec fix. I will admit i dont know the exact mechanics of the game but. It could be as simple as this.
If true local security is >=.46 // this is the cut off for 0.5 space. Then implement pretty lights explosion.
else // low sec and lower
implement pretty lights explosion implement omg it hurts boom
end if.
sometiems there is a simple solution to these problems.
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 21:12:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Barakkus How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes.
We call that the "stealthed SB fleet waiting on stragglers" method. ---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 00:16:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Feligast Explain to me please how four ships make a blob?
Numbers are irrelevant. When pubbies complain about blobs they mean any group larger than their own.
|
Darth McDarth
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 00:48:00 -
[86]
It's actually quite simple.
Make a ship that's essentially a nuke.
Something freighter-size, but loaded with explosives. Not able to enter hisec, or use any jump bridges/titan bridges/anything like that. It can only travel by gates, and is extremely fragile, requiring an escort.
It's basically a suicide ship. Warp it into the middle of an enemy fleet and detonate.
Does 100k omnidamage to everything on grid, and 2mill bonus damage to supers. Cynojams the system for 10 minutes, and prevents caps from jumping out for 10 minutes.
Make it cost as much as a jump freighter so it is inefficient to drop on small gangs.
100% foolproof and impossible to exploit.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 00:57:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Darth McDarth It's actually quite simple.
Make a ship that's essentially a nuke.
Something freighter-size, but loaded with explosives. Not able to enter hisec, or use any jump bridges/titan bridges/anything like that. It can only travel by gates, and is extremely fragile, requiring an escort.
It's basically a suicide ship. Warp it into the middle of an enemy fleet and detonate.
Does 100k omnidamage to everything on grid, and 2mill bonus damage to supers. Cynojams the system for 10 minutes, and prevents caps from jumping out for 10 minutes.
Make it cost as much as a jump freighter so it is inefficient to drop on small gangs.
100% foolproof and impossible to exploit.
Then me and my alt can camp 0.0 choke point gates, cloaked, then any time something expensive jumps in, detonate and destroy everything.
Also any time I see an alliance freighter on jump bridge or near station - uncloak - detonate
And every alliance is going to have hordes of these things camping all the important routes, just waiting for a chance to insta kill anything that costs more than 50 million to lose
|
Darth McDarth
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:06:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Darth McDarth on 25/02/2011 01:06:58
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Darth McDarth It's actually quite simple.
Make a ship that's essentially a nuke.
Something freighter-size, but loaded with explosives. Not able to enter hisec, or use any jump bridges/titan bridges/anything like that. It can only travel by gates, and is extremely fragile, requiring an escort.
It's basically a suicide ship. Warp it into the middle of an enemy fleet and detonate.
Does 100k omnidamage to everything on grid, and 2mill bonus damage to supers. Cynojams the system for 10 minutes, and prevents caps from jumping out for 10 minutes.
Make it cost as much as a jump freighter so it is inefficient to drop on small gangs.
100% foolproof and impossible to exploit.
Then me and my alt can camp 0.0 choke point gates, cloaked, then any time something expensive jumps in, detonate and destroy everything.
Also any time I see an alliance freighter on jump bridge or near station - uncloak - detonate
And every alliance is going to have hordes of these things camping all the important routes, just waiting for a chance to insta kill anything that costs more than 50 million to lose
They would sacrifice a 4.5 billion bomb to kill a 100 mill ship? Edit: also, no cloaking. Goes with the freighter thing. Kind of like a zephyr. Can fit one module, and only one.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:07:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 25/02/2011 01:08:10
Originally by: Darth McDarth
100% foolproof and impossible to exploit.
After one minute I have already thought of a dozen scenarios where I could abuse the living **** out of your garbage "idea".
And however seriously believes AOE prevented large fleets...you need a reality check. And a brain examination, because there's something seriously wrong with you.
|
Exordium8
Minmatar Not a Shell Corp
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:08:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: Darth McDarth
100% foolproof and impossible to exploit.
After one minute I have already thought of a dozen scenarios where I could abuse the living **** out of your garbage "idea".
Pretty sure that was intended as sarcasm. It's obviously exploitable. --------------------------------- Pillage, then burn. Everything is air-droppable at least once. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload.
|
|
freshspree
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 04:45:00 -
[91]
Edited by: freshspree on 25/02/2011 04:46:08 LMFAO @ the comments on this thread. My opinion is that CCP should upgrade the servers to meet the needs of the ever growing population.If you have a decent computer of let's say a windows index of 6.0 or better, you shouldn't be getting any sort of lag due to your hardware. The problem is because the servers can't keep up.
|
Apollo Gabriel
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 05:37:00 -
[92]
Originally by: freshspree Edited by: freshspree on 25/02/2011 04:46:08 LMFAO @ the comments on this thread. My opinion is that CCP should upgrade the servers to meet the needs of the ever growing population.If you have a decent computer of let's say a windows index of 6.0 or better, you shouldn't be getting any sort of lag due to your hardware. The problem is because the servers can't keep up.
LMFAO @ you
So CCP makes it 100% lag proof, it is so fun, that 1000 more people join the fight. I really invite you to rethink your position when you sober up.
***** Signature may appear without warning! ***** Please do not feed the trolls, it builds dependency.
|
Tarin Adur
Gallente Don't Taze Me Bro
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 06:32:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Ephemeron It would help if CCP didn't nerf speed a while back. As speed is the best counter to the blob.
Speed should play more important role in large scale combat. Not only it helps fight the blob, but it also makes combat more FUN, and this is a game after all. We play it for fun.
QFT.
|
Mortania
Minmatar Mining Manufacturing Missioning
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:39:00 -
[94]
Stop trying to kill the blob, embrace the blob.
Why does the blob suck? Because of lag, because each ship adds load and things get worse with each ship.
How to solve? Remove the load each additional ship adds. Easier said than done of course, but possible.
Primary idea: remove autonomy of individuals in blobs.
Allow a maximum of X autonomous units per fleet action. If it's 200 v 200 that the system can handle, then X=200.
If there are 400 ships, then 200+ people lose autonomy. Squads act as a single unit for load. They move the same, the target the same, they fire the same, they warp to the same place, etc. Think Ender Wiggin (or Allegiance if anyone played that game), or Voltron, or hex style war games where entire fleets are represented by a single cardboard chit.
Now fleet actions become about bringing the right number of ships (hint: as many as you can) creating the proper squad compositions, and focused fire comes along for the ride for free. Yeah, trust of your squad commanders go up as they are controlling many people's ships, but it's mostly that way in a good fight anyhow.
If it's 10000 v 10000, then entire wings become single units.
Pros: The load remains the same no matter how many units come into the equation. Now blobs = good.
Cons: People give up autonomy, but in a well run fleet, they basically do anyhow.
Caveat: 5 min napkin idea has many holes in it, they always do, devil is in the details. Each additional ship is never going to be 100% free, but you can bring down the load a TON by combining actions. ---
Destroying asteroids one at a time, to make the universe safer. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:42:00 -
[95]
Originally by: freshspree Edited by: freshspree on 25/02/2011 04:46:08 LMFAO @ the comments on this thread. My opinion is that CCP should upgrade the servers to meet the needs of the ever growing population.If you have a decent computer of let's say a windows index of 6.0 or better, you shouldn't be getting any sort of lag due to your hardware. The problem is because the servers can't keep up.
They upgrade the servers about every 18 months. We had 2 huge hardware overhauls last year. It isnt cheap you know. Maybe a good ccp bake sale to borrow the computers from norad or something.
|
Meridith Akesia
Tempest Legion Freemason Core
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 08:54:00 -
[96]
This has to be one of the most stupid proposals to fix blobs i have ever read.
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 09:16:00 -
[97]
That would be a silly solution and too many "exploits" exist (think snoball launchers on your enemy's current target = huge damage reduction).
Now that many new games use some physics engine, CCP should make the game more realistic, for example add line of sight, splash damage and friendly fire calculations, which would result in a similar effect (and nerf turrets for fleet fights). Also, fleet fights using the terrain will be more fun (think asteroid belts).
Also, making that fast enough is an interesting problem to work on for programmers.
PS. splash damage in the early versions of EVE was sometimes confusing, e.g. in belts while ratting => concord, but it's nowhere near as confusing as repping + GCD problems were until recently.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Jasper Grimpkin
Trader's Academy
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 09:33:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Barakkus How about every ship entering grid past a certain threshold just automatically explodes.
win |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 09:38:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Now that many new games use some physics engine, CCP should make the game more realistic, for example add line of sight, splash damage and friendly fire calculations, which would result in a similar effect (and nerf turrets for fleet fights). Also, fleet fights using the terrain will be more fun (think asteroid belts).
Also, making that fast enough is an interesting problem to work on for programmers.
PS. splash damage in the early versions of EVE was sometimes confusing, e.g. in belts while ratting => concord, but it's nowhere near as confusing as repping + GCD problems were until recently.
1) turrets don't need a nerf, thank you.
2) what make you think that adding "add line of sight, splash damage and friendly fire calculations" will reduce server load? You want leave them to the player PC to calculate? It will open a canload of cheats options.
|
Tub Chil
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 10:32:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Tub Chil on 25/02/2011 10:32:40 My similar idea about this
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1425271
|
|
Alotta Baggage
Amarr Imperial Manufactorum Armada Assail
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 10:51:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Mortania Stop trying to kill the blob, embrace the blob.
Why does the blob suck? Because of lag, because each ship adds load and things get worse with each ship.
How to solve? Remove the load each additional ship adds. Easier said than done of course, but possible.
Primary idea: remove autonomy of individuals in blobs.
Allow a maximum of X autonomous units per fleet action. If it's 200 v 200 that the system can handle, then X=200.
If there are 400 ships, then 200+ people lose autonomy. Squads act as a single unit for load. They move the same, the target the same, they fire the same, they warp to the same place, etc. Think Ender Wiggin (or Allegiance if anyone played that game), or Voltron, or hex style war games where entire fleets are represented by a single cardboard chit.
Now fleet actions become about bringing the right number of ships (hint: as many as you can) creating the proper squad compositions, and focused fire comes along for the ride for free. Yeah, trust of your squad commanders go up as they are controlling many people's ships, but it's mostly that way in a good fight anyhow.
If it's 10000 v 10000, then entire wings become single units.
Pros: The load remains the same no matter how many units come into the equation. Now blobs = good.
Cons: People give up autonomy, but in a well run fleet, they basically do anyhow.
Caveat: 5 min napkin idea has many holes in it, they always do, devil is in the details. Each additional ship is never going to be 100% free, but you can bring down the load a TON by combining actions.
I love the blob.....
Originally by: Magnus Andronicus ur character looks like a f***ing clown dude.
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 17:47:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
2) what make you think that adding "add line of sight, splash damage and friendly fire calculations" will reduce server load?
Nothing, I never wrote that it will. It will increase server load, but fix blobbing.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Sigma Special Tactics Group Fleet Coordination Coalition
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 17:52:00 -
[103]
Fix Blobs:
1. No more gates. You pick an adjacent system to warp to and a distance from the star to land at, engage warp - Captain Kirk style. 2. Remove local. 3. Area of effect damage for all explosions, be it ships or ballistics. Get too close and *pop*. 4. Make clone vats require as much material going in as coming out. This means you need to collect corpses, this means no more SB disco if you want that protein.
(5. Don't fix lag )
|
Feligast
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 18:44:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Skunk Gracklaw
Originally by: Feligast Explain to me please how four ships make a blob?
Numbers are irrelevant. When pubbies complain about blobs they mean any group larger than their own.
Seems like they're saying "I lost, so it was a blob!" Numbers truly are irrelevant.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 19:21:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Originally by: Venkul Mul
2) what make you think that adding "add line of sight, splash damage and friendly fire calculations" will reduce server load?
Nothing, I never wrote that it will. It will increase server load, but fix blobbing.
Reducing battles to a 10 ships vs 10 ships full of lag environment?
As your solution increase server load by several orders of magnitude it will reduce maximum number of ships by several orders of magnitude, i.e. from 1.000 on grid to 10 on grid.
|
Utaldail Krull
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 19:28:00 -
[106]
A) Quit whining and grow a pair B) This is the BS cry baby topic I would expect to see in a WOW forum. C) Quit whining and grow a pair Don't believe everything you read here. |
Miss Xoco
Minmatar Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 08:18:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Miss Xoco on 27/02/2011 08:23:49 I tell a very easy solution, what CCP makes out of it its theyr beer or cookie.
To avoid blobbing on expensive ships which really hurts because there is just no fair competition, no matter how powerful the ship is, no matter how skilled its pilot, it simply gets crashed by amount unless they arnt using it at all. Which is actually the case. How many are using really expensive stuff for PVP? Just the elite who can afford to lose a lot.
Now i think blobbin should still be allowed on cheap T1 ships because you CAN FULLY insure them with very low ISK loss, so i dont see the problem.
However, its a problem when the ship is very expensive because there is NO adequate insurance to even nearly cover it, and insurance is mainly for active PVP use, when you know that the risk of losing it is very high. But CCP want the players to "feel" the loss of a expensive ship.. working as intended.
Still, a T2, faction and capital ship (capital means frighter too) should have the ability to fit a special module:
Destructive Energy relay field (or something like that)
Ability: High slot, need to be enabled and will use cap, 50% damage cut, or 100% increased resist (will still be penaltized by other resist) against any damage exceeding a certain damage level from X-targets or X-damage amount.
Rat KI: Will always us the "Challenge KI", means they always attack the most expensive ship on the battlefield, so that ship can be a PVE tank and others can fully focus on supporting it without always having a PVP randomness, means there will actually be a tank and not random damage everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |