Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 02:24:00 -
[1]
Why do we Blob? We blob because there is strength in numbers, more firepower wins every time.
Why don't we use gang bonuses much? Well where to start, there's the fact that the bonus given are pretty pitiful, unless you put in some Serious training time, for example your probably going to want a Command Ship, which'll set you back roughly 120 days skilling time to use it properly, plus another 60 days EACH per type of warfare specialist skill.
I'd recommend you seek physiological counselling if you want to make full use of your CS and actually have 3 different types of types of Warfare link specialist at level 5, that’s about 300 days worth of skill training.
So... The idea....
"think rigs for fleets"
To start with: reducing slightly the rank of a few skills involved in using a CS to its full potential (mainly the information warfare specialist skill) and, another much bigger change involving a fairly large reworking of the current gang bonuses system...
Allow All ships to fit ONE -smaller- -new- Warfare Link, these behave just like the warfare links we have now except they require far fewer skills to use, are not effected by warfare link specialist skill, and only give a bonus of a few percent however that few percent is cumulative with all other similar links throughout the fleet.
What this means is you can have for example five ships in a gang, all with a warfare link that increases rate of fire by 4%, that 4% add's up for every ship in the gang that has one fitted, so 5 ships x 4% is a 20% rate of fire bonus.
How does this prevent blobbing?
In this system every type of bonus has a hard caped limit as to how high the bonus can get, for Rate of Fire for example the hard cap could be 20%, so the optimum number of ships to achieve a fleet wide +20% Rate of Fire would be 5 ships.
More importantly - As the number of people in the gang or fleet increases beyond a certain number the effect of the gang bonus decreases. <Click for graph>
So.... again... How does this prevent blobing?
Fairly simple, as mentioned once you pass a certain number of people in gang the effect of the bonus is smaller and eventually becomes useless. So, you have a gang with maybe 4 or 5 very good bonuses, the gang has an optimum size that is hard fixed - a number that would have to be decided on carefully - and a fleet wide gang bonus that could lead to some very specialised gangs that are actuley much stronger in certain areas and tactics than a gang that is too large to receive bonues.
For example:
Think for example if you had a cruiser gang where the bonuses added up to something like: +30% velocity -30% inertia +25% afterburner duration +20% gun tracking speed
...And then got into a brawl with a similar gang with bonuses such as: +20% armor hit-points +20% cap recharge rate +20% shield hit- points -20% duration of shield booster / armor repair
One gang capable of tanking huge amounts of damage, but with unchanged damage output, the other capable of moving and manoeuvring a lot faster with less cap problems and with a huge tracking bonus, personally I recon it would be a good fight.
continued... -
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 02:25:00 -
[2]
...continued...
Problems.
There are some problems with this idea, not least of which is balance - like everything it would have to be balanced so the bonuses DO outweigh just bringing another 30-40 people instead, but do-not make create impossible to counter tactics.
Another problem is Lag - this would if implemented properly do away with blobs, however according to some people, the new gang system actually creates more lag as the gang bonuses are recalculated every time a ship in the gang pops - regardless of weather or not it was giving out gang bonuses. This may or not be true, however my idea for this would be for gang bonuses to be applied on every jump, or every time someone leaves or enters a gang only - therefore limiting the amount of times that information has to be processed by the servers, and thus making less lag, its not completely realistic and the RPers will hate it, but the idea needs to make concessions to the state of the hardware and code.
Module spam - there would be a lot of bonuses, and that means a lot more crap on the market if each bonuses were to have its own warfare link like module. To prevent this, there would be only 6 modules: T1 high, T1 mid, T1 low, and T2 versions of the same. All of them regardless of what slot they are could give ALL the different types of gang bonuses selectable from a menu, the only reason for having the 3 different slot types is to give pilots more freedom of choice when it comes to "what module / gun shall I sacrifice for the fleet bonues" The bonuses could be changed and reselected at will but only "re-enabled" across the fleet by the fleet commander or by jumping / undocking.
Summery:
This I think does have to potential to make fleet fights really interesting again, not knowing what kinda of crazy setup an enemy fleet may have gone for, and then trying to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy in battle where the normal limitations of a given ship class or hull may not apply.
Anyway, been mulling this idea around for a while now, some will flame, many will think it too radical, or that its just rubbish, however - when it comes to preventing blobbing it is time to stop it with the stick and give us a carrot!
-
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Sicarri Covenant Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 02:30:00 -
[3]
Here's a simple, much shorter and easier way... you got a blob coming? Get a bigger blob
Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ... ~Liz Kali
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 02:38:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Here's a simple, much shorter and easier way... you got a blob coming? Get a bigger blob
And then next time you bring a bigger blob and before you know its your way past 200 vs. 200 and into nodecrashland unless of course a Titan comes along and blows you all away with a single F1 key.
Its not fun.
Smaller battles need to be able to accomplish more, numbers should not always be an automatic win, but more importantly there needs to be an incentive to not blob, and fleet battles need to be made more fun and more tactical than "primary: xxxxx F1, F2, F3..." -
|
Katarina Hetiako
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 02:39:00 -
[5]
Blobby, it's Mr. Blobby...
Ugh, wrong thread
Yup, I'm an alt... if only you could see my main... he's so strong and tough! |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 10:37:00 -
[6]
I see the TLDR crowd is out in force today. -
|
JabJabVVV
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 10:58:00 -
[7]
I think fiddling with stuff like this is all very well however it doesn't get rid of the two fundamental problems which make the blob such an attractive option in fleet fights:
1) You can warp all your ships together and maintain a very tight formation (ie if a hostile ship is in range of one ship in the fleet then it is in range of all ships)
2) the more ships you have shooting at something the quicker it dies, this follows a linear relationship.
To remove the blob you must solve either point 1) or point 2). With your proposed scheme organised people would just use many smaller gangs but still share common warp to points and so would achieve the blob and the higher bonus rates.
I think CCP are begining to address the issue with bombs (this addresses point 1 as it discourages tight formations) but personally I think they should enforce looser formations - have it so that when you warp you cannot land within several km of any other friendly ship, maybe even implement bump damage somehow for fleet fights. Another option would be to introduce sensor interference - ie the more ships you are close to the slower your lock time so the 'ball of death' formation so popular at the moment would be completely impractical (they would have to implement warp formations to help FC's with this as well). This would disperse the blob completely and should encourage more tactical fleet fights. Addressing point 2 (by stacking damage etc) is, imo, a far less satisfactory solution to solving the blob issue and wouldn't completely solve it in any case.
It should be noted that all my points assume that you do not disagree with the principle of overwhelming force as an option.
I also recomend that anyone interested in this sort of thing read this thread for an interesting few points and suggestions regarding 0.0 warfare (although it doesn't directly address the issue of making fleet warfare more interesting). ----------- When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things. |
Tradari
Gallente The BlackMerX
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 11:07:00 -
[8]
You could always try using the tier 1 battle crusier with command modules cheaper option maybe for gang bonuses.
Yours Tradari
|
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 11:13:00 -
[9]
This doesn't address the problem. The problem is not the size of the organizational unit (which is what your proposal addresses). Encouraging people to use smaller organizational units simply means they'll bring more of them. Which means more calculation of bonuses, and more lag. Counting the modules and tracking changes would also make the lag worse.
The problem is that there are no/few incentives for strategic dispersal. Strategic dispersal means getting your ships doing things in different grids (ideally, different systems) at the same time. That means having objectives that are best fulfilled by simultaneous strikes in multiple places, and having appropriate freedoms of movement and limits on intelligence gathering to make such an operation possible.
Tinkering with fleet bonuses will be just as effective as AoE weapons in breaking up the blob. Ie: it won't achieve anything at all. ------ Agony Unleashed is recruiting. |
Mike Yagon
Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 11:44:00 -
[10]
Interesting idea, however, I don't think creating more warfare links will be the answer. Allowing them to stack is an ok idea, but then stacking penalty should apply.
Currently, when you have Command Ships to 5 and the appropriate implant, the bonus is really not that bad however. But yes, it takes a lot of time, creating a really specialized role in the fleet. (But isn't that what EVE is about? Specializing and finding your niche?)
By creating these mini-warfare links you will open pandoras box of balance issues. You don't need tanking mods if you have a claymore with speed mods, and some other ships with the mini-warfare link speed mods. Basically, Nanophoons all over again.
Adding to that, you suggest that the module exists in 3 different slots, both T1 and T2 version. This will make things even more difficult to balance. This means that on some ships you basically sacrifice nothing, and gain a lot. This is not how fitting modules tends to work.
Finally, you suggest that all of the modules can do all of the different effects. This means that you don't have to dock, you can switch on the fly, which creates really versatile, and quite possibly, impossible to balance modules. There are reasons why modules with certain effects go into certain slots.
I think that although in root the idea is nice, it will create too many problems and will definitely not solve blobbing. Even if the effect diminishes over gang size, as long as it works people will blob.
Originally by: Alski Why don't we use gang bonuses much? Well where to start, there's the fact that the bonus given are pretty pitiful, unless you put in some Serious training time, for example your probably going to want a Command Ship, which'll set you back roughly 120 days skilling time to use it properly, plus another 60 days EACH per type of warfare specialist skill.
I'd recommend you seek physiological counselling if you want to make full use of your CS and actually have 3 different types of types of Warfare link specialist at level 5, thatĘs about 300 days worth of skill training.
Actually, it took me 40 days each to train Siege, Armoured and Skirmish Warfare Specialist from the base skill level 0 to the specialist skill level 5. Maybe you need to train Empathy and Presence.
------ In Carebear We Trust |
|
Vana Gank
Gallente Kebabtossers
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 12:47:00 -
[11]
Your intention seem to be right. But as someone else statetd - it wont stop blobs because the organasion is somewhet different.
You'll see 20 gangs of 10 ppl each instead - moving around. Adapted. (Unless I missed something wiht your suggestion). :)
So - how do we discourage "moving about with 400 ships" vs 40 ships? Anti-Gravity? the more ships there are, the more they are automatically dispersed by distance? Heh, I have no idea - and yeah - that was a joke :)
|
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 13:28:00 -
[12]
Blue Orange speaks the truth.
Right now, EvE alliance conflict is in the napoleonic/American Civil war era - huge armies, calling single target after single target.
Its easy to co-ordinate & simple compared to the logistics of attacking multiple POS's over multiple systems and distributing firepower amongst targets.
I'm making no attempt to discredit the efforts put in by people to resolve the issue, but the above and many other suggestions are a ways of offering a fix to the effect, not the cause.
|
Vasiliyan
TELKOM Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 13:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Alski
More importantly - As the number of people in the gang or fleet increases beyond a certain number the effect of the gang bonus decreases. <Click for graph>
This is the most interesting anti-blob idea I've seen in a long time. Why? Because it offers negative marginal returns to size, a reason to turn people away from your gang.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 13:52:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Laboratus on 16/05/2007 13:53:00
Originally by: JabJabVVV I think fiddling with stuff like this is all very well however it doesn't get rid of the two fundamental problems which make the blob such an attractive option in fleet fights:
1) You can warp all your ships together and maintain a very tight formation (ie if a hostile ship is in range of one ship in the fleet then it is in range of all ships)
2) the more ships you have shooting at something the quicker it dies, this follows a linear relationship.
To remove the blob you must solve either point 1) or point 2). With your proposed scheme organised people would just use many smaller gangs but still share common warp to points and so would achieve the blob and the higher bonus rates.
I think CCP are begining to address the issue with bombs (this addresses point 1 as it discourages tight formations) but personally I think they should enforce looser formations - have it so that when you warp you cannot land within several km of any other friendly ship, maybe even implement bump damage somehow for fleet fights. Another option would be to introduce sensor interference - ie the more ships you are close to the slower your lock time so the 'ball of death' formation so popular at the moment would be completely impractical (they would have to implement warp formations to help FC's with this as well). This would disperse the blob completely and should encourage more tactical fleet fights. Addressing point 2 (by stacking damage etc) is, imo, a far less satisfactory solution to solving the blob issue and wouldn't completely solve it in any case.
True, very true. However, both issues could be fixed with the bomb idea (that is being implemented, apparently) and collition damage for guns+missiles and friendly fire. This would make it both possible to protect a friendly ship by taking hits for it, and would require formations to actually become organised formations, homeworld style, so they don't just end up shooting friendlies in the back.
Great post, great post, by the way.
Quote:
I also recomend that anyone interested in this sort of thing read this thread for an interesting few points and suggestions regarding 0.0 warfare (although it doesn't directly address the issue of making fleet warfare more interesting).
That thread in the link. Awesome. Desi wrote an impressive post. And the thread even has Hippoking. No thread is complete without HK...
Oh right. The topic.
Op has a fundamental flaw in the first claim he makes. Firepower is meaningless if you cannot use it. Hence a good commander will always be >> more numbers. With good maneuvering you can acchieve local superiority in engagements even if you are outnumbered 10:1 in local. Just look at how BE does it. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Radioactive Babe
Red Frost
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 14:06:00 -
[15]
As someone else mentioned, it does not take anywhere near that amount of time to train the specialist skills ... The only one that takes huge amounts of time is fleet command 5 (56 days for me :()
People who fly gang warfare ships sacrifice tank and damage to give their gang those bonuses, you seem to want to have the gang bonuses AND the tank/damage ... there has to be a downside otherwise everyone would have a gang mod on their ship all the time
For small gang warfare you need someone who has a good range of leadership skills (ingame and out of game) ... yes it takes a few months away from your training schedule to get lvl5 of all 4 specialist skills, but I just picked one, armoured warfare specialist, to train to lvl5 because I fly Amarr, and trained the others to lvl 4 ... so my damnation can fit 6 gang mods if necessary. Fitting 2 or 3 armoured warfare mods, plus 3 or 4 other mods depending on gang makeup. You sacrifice tank and damage to do this though. |
Radioactive Babe
Red Frost
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 14:08:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Laboratus .........Just look at how BE does it.
With dictors, cloaks and sensor dampners? |
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 02:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth Blue Orange speaks the truth.
Right now, EvE alliance conflict is in the napoleonic/American Civil war era - huge armies, calling single target after single target.
That's a very interesting point. Looks like I should read up a bit on the military history of that period. But thinking about Clausewitz's analysis of Napoleon's tactics, it's an excellent way of describing the current state of alliance warfare (as far as I can tell).
It would be interesting to know what changed, when that era of warfare ended. (Did it ever really end?) ------ Agony Unleashed is recruiting. |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 08:13:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Radioactive Babe
Originally by: Laboratus .........Just look at how BE does it.
With dictors, cloaks and sensor dampners?
I'm more refering to how they move and position themselves. Have you fought them? How many of your gang was in firing range? %? How many made efficient use of their ships? %? How about the enemy gang? %? ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Radioactive Babe
Red Frost
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 08:52:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Radioactive Babe on 17/05/2007 08:51:29
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Radioactive Babe
Originally by: Laboratus .........Just look at how BE does it.
With dictors, cloaks and sensor dampners?
I'm more refering to how they move and position themselves. Have you fought them? How many of your gang was in firing range? %? How many made efficient use of their ships? %? How about the enemy gang? %?
I havent fought them in several months (pre ecm nerf) and then they flew ravens with loads of multispectral's and attacked mostly single ships at gates
Getting off topic there .... basically the op's idea will make his proposed gang mod a basic fitting on every ship in the game |
Demarcus Gainah
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 10:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Vasiliyan
Originally by: Alski
More importantly - As the number of people in the gang or fleet increases beyond a certain number the effect of the gang bonus decreases. <Click for graph>
This is the most interesting anti-blob idea I've seen in a long time. Why? Because it offers negative marginal returns to size, a reason to turn people away from your gang.
Its already been said before, but it in fact makes no sense whatsoever. Why doesn't it make sense? Well, instead of seeing one huge gang of X people you'll see two huge gangs of x/2 people, both warping into the same point, and have double the gang bonus calculation related lag.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |