Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2654
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 17:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size. Now ignoring the fact that there are ways to mitigate this, I'm curious about a few things.
You say that larger groups should not have an advantage over smaller groups by virtue of their size. First of all, this is not something you can just change because it's basic tactics that larger groups generally overpower smaller ones. This is not some variable CCP developers can go into the code and set "smallerFleetsHaveAdvantage=1;".
Furthermore, even if they could somehow force a mechanic to nullify the advantage that larger groups have over smaller ones in combat, why SHOULD they? That's basically sending a message that "we don't want you to cooperate in large groups, smaller groups are better." Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"? I often have a chuckle at the people who scream "omg blobs". They woulda been the poor extra on TV or in a movie like Battlestar Galactica/Star Trek/Babylon 5/Star Wars battle screaming "Effing Blobbers" right before they got their dumb ass vaporized. The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO. EVE: friendship is harsh and cold Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 17:28:00 -
[62] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.
No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements.
- When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win. - When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out).
Noone would seriously want to change that.
I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change.
Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose). |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 17:31:00 -
[63] - Quote
Op, only guys have size frustration issues. Size doesn't matter, all it matters it's what you do with. Learn to use it |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2654
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 17:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
Name Family Name wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.
No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements. - When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win. - When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out). Noone would seriously want to change that. I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change. Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose). Shooting structures isn't a great purpose for small gang either. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Skydell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
453
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:02:00 -
[65] - Quote
dexington wrote:Katran Luftschreck wrote:Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.
So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).
Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc. What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?
You mean squads and wings? Nothing.
|
CraftyCroc
Gunpoint Diplomacy
189
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:04:00 -
[66] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.
So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).
Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.
This is epic idea |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2654
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:05:00 -
[67] - Quote
Skydell wrote:dexington wrote:Katran Luftschreck wrote:Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.
So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).
Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc. What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet? You mean squads and wings? Nothing. Needs a nerf then. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow C.L.O.N.E.
1096
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:10:00 -
[68] - Quote
This is just another symptom of the 1985+ parenting strategy of telling kids they are special, and better than everyone else. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2661
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:27:00 -
[69] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:This is just another symptom of the 1985+ parenting strategy of telling kids they are special, and better than everyone else. Your wreck is indeed special if you had deadspace modules. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Thomas Orca
Zero Fun Allowed Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
136
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
Name Family Name wrote: Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).
What about gudfites? |
|
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow C.L.O.N.E.
1104
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:50:00 -
[71] - Quote
Thomas Orca wrote:Name Family Name wrote: Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).
What about gudfites?
I thought ~gudfites~ involved hotdropping some moms onto a solo pvp drake. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Thomas Orca
Zero Fun Allowed Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
136
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:52:00 -
[72] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Thomas Orca wrote:Name Family Name wrote: Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).
What about gudfites? I thought ~gudfites~ involved hotdropping some moms onto a solo pvp drake.
If it's less than 10 supercarriers it's still small gang. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2984
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 19:09:00 -
[73] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.
What might that be? Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range. I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE. Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings). Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly. In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships. And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option. To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp. If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure. Otherwise no. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Gillia Winddancer
Shiny Noble Crown Services
219
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 19:57:00 -
[74] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Name Family Name wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.
No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements. - When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win. - When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out). Noone would seriously want to change that. I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change. Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose). Shooting structures isn't a great purpose for small gang either.
You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right? |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2984
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:02:00 -
[75] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right? Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories? Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Gillia Winddancer
Shiny Noble Crown Services
219
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.
What might that be? Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range. I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE. Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings). Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly. In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships. And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option. To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp. If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure. Otherwise no.
I certainly don't see why not considering there'd be no local. It'd almost be insane not to have it detect cloaked ships as the cloak is just a means of visually conceal your ship. Whether it should be easier or harder to find a cloaked ship in this kind of environment however would be a pure balancing issue. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2984
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:I certainly don't see why not considering there'd be no local. It'd almost be insane not to have it detect cloaked ships as the cloak is just a means of visually conceal your ship. Whether it should be easier or harder to find a cloaked ship in this kind of environment however would be a pure balancing issue. Well in that case I don't see anything glaringly wrong with your proposal, however I've only really skimmed through it. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2620
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:06:00 -
[78] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.
What might that be? Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range. I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE. Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings). Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly. In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships. And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option. To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp. If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure. Otherwise no. Why are you so afraid of the unknown?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2984
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:07:00 -
[79] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Why are you so afraid of the unknown? Why do you only ever post rhetoric? Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Gillia Winddancer
Shiny Noble Crown Services
219
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right? Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories?
I am not saying that small gangs should be able to fly around and leave scrapheaps of former PoS's behind them. I am saying that small gangs should have the ability to harass as a means of fighting the "big guys" or anyone else. The economic damages would hardly be massive in any kind of way, but enough harassment overtime would still have an effect.
The manner at which these small gangs handle the "response" of their enemies is up to them. Either they get harassed back or get a full blob on them...or attempted blob anyway.
Here is my counter question: do you want to see more people in low/null? Cause you know, I believe we are in the agreement that not everyone wants to join a blob super-power or some such yet at the same time have absolutely no way of doing anything against them that would cause any kind of damage over time.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2665
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:09:00 -
[81] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Why are you so afraid of the unknown? Why do you only ever post rhetoric? Because it's hard to actually make a point that doesn't get shredded like a rifter by an old-school tracking titan. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2984
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:11:00 -
[82] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right? Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories? I am not saying that small gangs should be able to fly around and leave scrapheaps of former PoS's behind them. I am saying that small gangs should have the ability to harass as a means of fighting the "big guys" or anyone else. The economic damages would hardly be massive in any kind of way, but enough harassment overtime would still have an effect. The manner at which these small gangs handle the "response" of their enemies is up to them. Either they get harassed back or get a full blob on them...or attempted blob anyway. Here is my counter question: do you want to see more people in low/null? Cause you know, I believe we are in the agreement that not everyone wants to join a blob super-power or some such yet at the same time have absolutely no way of doing anything against them that would cause any kind of damage over time. Good point. I thought you were referring to things like small gangs capturing systems and the like. The problem becomes how to scale such things so that these are not particularly advantageous for a larger fleet to do, but very effective measures when done by small fleets. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Gillia Winddancer
Shiny Noble Crown Services
220
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:33:00 -
[83] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gillia Winddancer wrote:You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right? Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories? I am not saying that small gangs should be able to fly around and leave scrapheaps of former PoS's behind them. I am saying that small gangs should have the ability to harass as a means of fighting the "big guys" or anyone else. The economic damages would hardly be massive in any kind of way, but enough harassment overtime would still have an effect. The manner at which these small gangs handle the "response" of their enemies is up to them. Either they get harassed back or get a full blob on them...or attempted blob anyway. Here is my counter question: do you want to see more people in low/null? Cause you know, I believe we are in the agreement that not everyone wants to join a blob super-power or some such yet at the same time have absolutely no way of doing anything against them that would cause any kind of damage over time. Good point. I thought you were referring to things like small gangs capturing systems and the like. The problem becomes how to scale such things so that these are not particularly advantageous for a larger fleet to do, but very effective measures when done by small fleets.
Which is why we go back to the problem of instant information with Local + d-scan and why the alternative of having the d-scan rely on signature radius becomes so tempting.
After that it is up to the players when it comes to how to utilize an environment where it takes a while to figure out if anyone is in a system and if so what ship is flown and it will be up to players whether they want to move small and swift or in a big blob. So what if a small group is chased by a blob? The small group will then have the advantage of detecting the blob before the blob detects the small group. That gives the small group a chance of getting the hell out, or if they are crazy enough, even attempt some kind of ambush by hiding in anomalies. Regardless of how things play out there will at least be a lot more possible outcomes because there is no instant information available to either side which automatically eliminates quite a few options.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2620
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:41:00 -
[84] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Which is why we go back to the problem of instant information with Local + d-scan and why the alternative of having the d-scan rely on signature radius becomes so tempting.
After that it is up to the players when it comes to how to utilize an environment where it takes a while to figure out if anyone is in a system and if so what ship is flown and it will be up to players whether they want to move small and swift or in a big blob. So what if a small group is chased by a blob? The small group will then have the advantage of detecting the blob before the blob detects the small group. That gives the small group a chance of getting the hell out, or if they are crazy enough, even attempt some kind of ambush by hiding in anomalies. Regardless of how things play out there will at least be a lot more possible outcomes because there is no instant information available to either side which automatically eliminates quite a few options.
Toss in the removal of structure mails (another instant information tool that promotes blobs) and you have my vote. Information through effort.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2985
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:43:00 -
[85] - Quote
Yeah, it's not like "your tower is under attack" mails have anything to do with that. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
ElQuirko
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
1011
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:46:00 -
[86] - Quote
dexington wrote: What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?
What's so wrong with that? Ten commanders. Many cooks spoil the broth; it will require far better coordination and command from the squad leaders. If you make it so the FC must pass orders down through the FC -> WC -> SC system and make it so only squad commanders can warp units, then we have some kind of progress in the system. CISPA - Readin' your secret corptheft mails since 2012 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2669
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:48:00 -
[87] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, it's not like "your tower is under attack" mails have anything to do with that. We gonna have to send newbies out on patrols? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2282
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:50:00 -
[88] - Quote
lol does Gillia really think removing local would help small corps/alliances in 0.0? |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
2986
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:52:00 -
[89] - Quote
Nerf intel channels. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2670
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 20:56:00 -
[90] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:lol does Gillia really think removing local would help small corps/alliances in 0.0? They'll never see the titan blob coming :v: Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |