Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 17:23:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Goumindong
I.E.
x + x => 2x
x+x can never be less than 2x
However that's excactly what the stacking penalty does.
This is simply a "stacking penalty" on a ship scale - With the one added effect, that you can actually do something about it (move out of the way)
And yes - It's artificial and what not - So is the stacking penalty.
But if it improves overall gameplay - Hell I'm all for it (even if some ridiculous ingame reason has to be invented)
And I've put this idea here excactly for people to discuss, among other things, if it would improve overall gameplay or not.
Sofar most seem to be slagging the idea (some with more reasonable arguements than others) - So be it.
I still think it would do the job - Or I'd not bother putting it here in the first place.
Whether the job actually needs doing is a whole other keddle of fish - And isnt relevant for the discussion at hand.
BIG Lottery |
Daelin Blackleaf
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 17:35:00 -
[32]
What if past a certain point resists increased exponentially the more damage is applied.
For example with less than the threshold amount of damage per second incoming standard mechanics apply, beyond that the emergency shielding (or whatever we choose to call it) kicks in and begins feeding on the destructive energies to increase it's own efficiency.
The resists on the emergency shielding increase until you reach a point where you are hardly damaging the ship at all (and the emergency shields are glowing with energy).
It's not a complete solution but it would at least force fleets to split up into squads and fire at more than one target at a time, this would give it more of a fleet feel and less of a "It took me an hour to get here and I died in 2 seconds" feeling. It would also make fleet combat more interesting than interstallar roshambo.
Something like thiswould alleviate the problem somewhat without disposing of fleet combat all together the idea of which is actually good even though in practice it fails miserably. We still need more significant goals for smaller groups but fleet combat should remain an important part of EVE.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 17:38:00 -
[33]
Originally by: TornSoul
However that's excactly what the stacking penalty does.
No it doesn't. read it again.
|
AeonPhoenix
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 18:00:00 -
[34]
I agree with your sentiments with reducing blob warfare but I don't like your idea.
Can't you come up with something else based more on gang and fleet bonuses/penalties?
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 00:33:00 -
[35]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Unless the OP tells us how he wants a end battle to look, I doubt anyone can say if this solution is valid or not
Alright I'll say it again : I don't care
*Some* people have expressed a wish to end and/or curb blob warfare. Why they wish this..? Again, I don't care.
It's purely "academical" to me.
If you dont care, then why write about curb/stacking nerfing people close to each other?
To give you an example of why this concept is not valid, let us talk about a purely "academical" situation of someone saying that they dont like mining. What would you think if an idea about stacking nerfing mining amounts if the miners are near to each other?
I think you are looking for a soution to a very valid issue. But from experience, the people who tend to be in groups simply want less lag. They want epic fights but just dont want the lag. Your solution would create more lag which is why it would make the bad parts of blobing worse. --
Billion Isk Mission |
VinkNut
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 00:39:00 -
[36]
Edited by: VinkNut on 24/03/2008 00:39:19
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 02:07:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Unless the OP tells us how he wants a end battle to look, I doubt anyone can say if this solution is valid or not
Alright I'll say it again : I don't care
*Some* people have expressed a wish to end and/or curb blob warfare. Why they wish this..? Again, I don't care.
It's purely "academical" to me.
If you dont care, then why write about curb/stacking nerfing people close to each other?
To give you an example of why this concept is not valid, let us talk about a purely "academical" situation of someone saying that they dont like mining. What would you think if an idea about stacking nerfing mining amounts if the miners are near to each other?
I think you are looking for a soution to a very valid issue. But from experience, the people who tend to be in groups simply want less lag. They want epic fights but just dont want the lag. Your solution would create more lag which is why it would make the bad parts of blobing worse.
/thread
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 12:13:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Kerfira on 24/03/2008 12:15:22 As I see it, there is two game problems with 'blobbing', or rather, there is one potential problem and one of game limitations.
The potential problem is that big alliances can overrun small alliances. I'm saying 'potential' because it is a game design question whether CCP wants this to be possible. Given that EVE is supposed to be a tough game, I'd say they do.
The more serious one is the game limitation exposed by blobbing, and I'm of.c. talking about lag. Blobbing as such is not a problem, but lag is! Without having any numbers whatsoever, I'd say that lag is one of the biggest annoyances in this game that alliance members encounter, to the point of it potentially causing quite a few players to quit the game. Now, a lot of people will just say "Fix lag, CCP!", but unfortunately this is unlikely to happen. Why I conclude this is because of the InfiniBand thread that was in General a month or two ago. It had some good feedback from devs and they more or less admitted they couldn't do much for the problem of a high nunber of players fighting on the same grid.
So essentially what we (or rather CCP) got left is one question: "Is lag (with the player burnout it causes) a price worth paying for having large fleet battles (which attract players)?"
If CCP decided they wanted to reduce the lag, they'd have to reduce blobbing. Now, this is NOT an easy task since the natural human behavior when faced with an enemy is to bring friends (known in EVE as 'band-wagoning'). So, CCP would have to try to change normal human behavior, and would also have to change some of the blob-inducing game mechanics. The game mechanics that would need changing would be primarily related to sovereignty warfare, which is currently (high HP) geared totally towards blobs.
To change human behavior, they either have to use a stick or a carrot.
The 'carrot' could be a total game change that made blobs unnecessary, but I don't believe that's possible (no really good ideas for how has surfaced for it, and 2>1), so that leaves the stick.
The 'stick' could be either limitations on how the game functions (like this thread suggests), or introducing dangers to blobbing. The limitations that has been suggested over the years have mostly shown themselves to be either exploitable or otherwise flawed, so they don't seem a good option. Introducing dangers to blobbing was first attempted done with the titan doomsday, but it was flawed since it was first of all too expensive, and secondly because it was also effective against non-blobs. The titan has since been nerfed so its now more of a defensive tool. Another attempt was made with the bombs, but it has proven to be effectively useless, since a blob is not a tightly bunched group of ships but just a mass of ships on grid, secondly because of the inbuilt limitations of the bomb (doesn't explode if the bomber dies or goed off-grid), and third because of the lag in blob situations makes the bomber dead meat.
I think this outlines the current game situation with regard to blobbing fairly well.
My personal opinion is that I really like the concept big fleet battles, but I hate being lagged out more. Thus I think CCP should probably continue adding dangers to blobbing, BUT they HAVE to be well thought out ones. If they manage to make it too dangerous to blob in game-breaking numbers, then sovereignty warfare has to be changed as well.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 13:50:00 -
[39]
If there was no lag, and true line of sight were involved, Blob warfare would be pretty Epic (think: opening scene to SW Episode III). --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
TornSoul
BIG Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.03.30 22:32:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
To give you an example of why this concept is not valid, let us talk about a purely "academical" situation of someone saying that they dont like mining. What would you think if an idea about stacking nerfing mining amounts if the miners are near to each other?
Stacking mining amounts would not solve the problem of someone not liking mining... They'd still not like mining... Only way to solve it would be to remove mining all together. Weird example - Or I just dont get it... Explain better if that's the case.
Originally by: Lord WarATron
I think you are looking for a soution to a very valid issue. But from experience, the people who tend to be in groups simply want less lag. They want epic fights but just dont want the lag. Your solution would create more lag which is why it would make the bad parts of blobing worse.
My solution would only create more lag, if the numbers where kept the same. And the aim of my solution is *excactly* to reduce the numbers - Leaving plenty of horsepower left for the extra calculations.
Besides, If you've followed the (many) discussions about lag, you would also realise that removing lag is basically impossible. It's a Sisyphus task.
Add more CPU horsepower so the people that where lagged before now can fight without lag. Cool. Only, then more people will simply enter the scene - and we have lag again. And it takes less and less new people on the scene to render, say a doubling of CPU power, as uselesss as it was before. The CPU requirements are exponential.
This is why the only solution (apart from limitless CPU power) to the problem of lag with blobs - is to reduce the number of people in the blob (ie. removing the blob)
There is no other solution.
Crying for more horsepower is *not* going to solve the problem - Long term.
Unless you realise this, you can not come up with a solution for the problem.
BIG Lottery |
|
Siddy
Paisti Paisti Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.03.30 22:48:00 -
[41]
spreading blob do no good if it still the same odd 500+ ships on the grid.
improving the code and rewritting it from the scrach to suit this will do much more good.
Also if certain alliance's grew a SPINE and and stop blobbing.(yes goons, im talking to you) It whuld help.
The thing that culd help the cause is reduction of actual server trafick. There is lots of information goin back and forth and the way current servers handle queues is too stiff. Once the 100% capacity is reached, the slowdown in exponential proportions, for every 1% it reaches over the peak level, preformace drops 3% for everyone.
|
TornSoul
BIG Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.03.30 23:17:00 -
[42]
Thats only a short term solution though.
Like I said (and as CCP has pointed out) more horsepower (or better code, to better utilize the horsepower at hand) doesnt help in the long run - As more people will simply enter the battle.
And double the CPU horsepower (or code double as effective) doesnt mean that double as many players can enter the battle.... It's an exponential growth curve...
The only real long term solution is to _somehow_ "cap" the blob.
BIG Lottery |
Psorion
The Nine Gates Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 00:10:00 -
[43]
Bring more Dreads, Dooms days destroy blobs 'dead' :)
|
DogSlime
Wilde Cards
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 00:58:00 -
[44]
I have no experience with bombs, but I thought bombs were introduced as an anti-blob measure?
From what I have read, bombs aren't too good at the moment, but would improving bombs help? This isn't a suggestion, it's a question.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 02:31:00 -
[45]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 31/03/2008 02:34:00
I don't understand CCP.
They say they want to increase numbers in lowsec yet the ore about the same value as highsec, the missions are about the same and now they introduce heavy interdictors.
There is pretty much at least two or three pirates in any lowsec system, any mining barge picked up on sensors in lowsec wil recieve massive attention, and wouldn't last some more thoughts into the open.
My thoughts for reducing blob warfare;
Some kind of gate bandwidth or energy charge, where gates simply don't have the power to jump 50 ships+ all at once through a stargate in one go, would probably help server reduce lag/confusion if their is a gradual trickle through and encourage cyno use.
However.
This would encourage massive gatecamps to pick off invaders at will in smaller numbers at a time. I believe a rather tough penalty should be inflicted on those staying at a stargate for more than 5 minutes, say possibly an exponential capacitor penalty of being within a gates vicinity when it fires depending of the number of ships.
For example, 1 ship may take a 10% cap energy penalty, whereas 3 ships may take a 30% cap penalty each and so on, in an effort disperse massive blobs and stop them from forming on gates.
Of course some people really won't like this idea and wouldn't like me for attacking the gatecamp system at all.
|
Saori Rei
Cruoris Seraphim
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 03:05:00 -
[46]
Want to defeat a blob? Make bombs cheaper.
|
Reem Fairchild
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 07:07:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Saori Rei Want to defeat a blob? Make bombs cheaper.
Anyone who thinks that area of effect weapons like bombs or doomsdays will do anything whatsoever to reduce the size of fleets or spread them out (and this includes the CCP devs), should just go ahead and replace the captain of his brain ship. Cause he's drunk at the wheel.
The only thing weapons like that do is make people bring heavier ships with heavier tanking. Nothing else, at all. They bring the same numbers, and they fight in the exact same way. The only thing people are forced to change in response to weapons like that is ship types.
|
Malachon Draco
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 07:21:00 -
[48]
Bad idea.
1. How much lag will this cause if you jump a fleet in. Imagine jumping in 40 BS in 20 seconds time. It will have to do a recalculation every halfsecond. 2. Favours defender at a gatecamp. Defender can setup sufficiently spaced apart, while attacker has almost zero DPS to start with. 3. Furthermore the problem with blobs is not their close proximity. Its the lag that comes with so many ships on grid. 4. Does nothing to counter the cause of blobs, which is game mechanics which encourage or even force people to blob.
The solution is not to penalize blobs. Under current game mechanics, blobs are a necessity. The solution is to change game mechanics so that blobs are no longer desirable since you have multiple objectives. In my opinion, the best way to reduce/remove blobs is by forcing people to defend. Currently an alliance can afford to stuff 200+ people in a single system and not defend anything.
What I would do is move sovereignty POS to planets. And then change the industrial POS that you have around moons to not be able to carry strontium. That way you enable attackers to do real damage in a short amount of time by killing moonmining towers. I would also make repairing station services cost isk. It should not be possible to put a carrier on the station to rep it. It should cost isk or minerals and lots of it.
If you make stuff vulnerable, people will need to defend. They can't send hundreds of people to blob a system because if they do that someone could come and cause tons of damage to their industrial infrastructure.
|
umop 3pisdn
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 07:48:00 -
[49]
I can see you've put a lot of thought into this and thats good, the only thing that I think you should look at is attackers vs. defenders, the attackers are already at a disadvantage when jumping into a prepared enemy in terms of lag and ship placement.
The defender has all his buddys and their drones loaded already as well as the system, the attacker loads everything afresh when he jumps in.
The defenders can just spread out all over a gate, making it harder to FC but still effectively the same, everyone just goes their own way till they reach optimal range from the gate. The attackers are all in a ball and probably in a bubble right on the gate, with this plan they will all have overlapping damage reductions, making the balls out option of "storming the gate" even less appealing.
If the fight happens at a POS, the defender can spread out again whereas the attackers will either warp in as a ball and be penalised or warp in a line (some warping at 20km, others 30km etc.) to the warp in point and be disadvantaged by optimal ranges again.
Perhaps fleets should be capped at 50 people instead? yes you'd just have 5 fleets instead of 1 BUT, how many good FCs does your average alliance have? 3 if they are lucky? and can they have them all online at once? 70%+ of 0.0 residents are idiots, when in a fleet point and click is all they are capable of. Making them think for themselves would be a better solution imo and would allow more skilled but less numerous groups to do better against them.
Just some thoughts
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 08:09:00 -
[50]
Originally by: TornSoul
junk.
Probably the worst game design elements are the ones that are not only bad, but just don't make any logical sense from a realism standpoint, even when realism isn't a priority.
Your ideas just force arbitrary rules into the game to push people apart and don't have any real working reason as to why that is. Additionally, the calculations that will be required to compare every ship in a fleet to every other ship in the fleet and then compare their area around each would be insanely stupid.
How to fix the blob: have area of effect DOT (damage over time) weapons that are basically like the bombs we have now that are used by stealth bombers, but they stay in effect for 30-60 seconds, denying the enemy the use of local space. By firing multiple volleys of these into an enemy fleet, you force them to spread out, or move away from a particular area of space as you contaminate their fleet with DOT 'mines'.
The best part about this is that it's just not some arbitrary game play rule. People can see what's happening and react to it, giving them a chance to reduce or remove the effects, and it also gives the opponents control over the game play and how they wish to apply their tactics.
Sure, this concept has a lot of checking going on between the mine and the ships, but at least it's not 24/7 like it would be if it were checking between every surviving ship in a fleet with all the rest of the ships, all the time, over and over again.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
|
Cosmar
Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 08:23:00 -
[51]
I don't like it. It penalises suport/utility ships, that are supposed to be part of combat.
IMO the stacking penalty (if any), should be on the number of ships that fire on the same target.
So say up to 5 ships fireing on the same target do full damage. Then from then on start doing some stacking penalty to damage received (depending on target signature radius, so for example you can have lots of ships shooting effectively a huge titan, but not lots of ships doing the same to a cruiser).
This way you can bring lots of ships to a fight, but you have to use them for more then primaring one guy, then the next, then the next, etc...
|
IamAcontractALT
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 08:29:00 -
[52]
Edited by: IamAcontractALT on 31/03/2008 08:30:10 The main cause of lag in many fleet battles is jump in lag combined with pvp lag. Not that people are close to each other, but because the game seriously slows down when 100 people jump though a gate at the same time
|
Sniggerdly Hater
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 08:42:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Vito Parabellum Hi! This is eve online where the battleships are several hundred meters long. When you are looking at a huge blob of ships, that huge blob of ships is actually a huge blob of ships. The ships in the middle and on the far edge of this huge blob will not be able to fire on the hostile blob without hitting a friend, if it was for real and not a simplified game ofc.
Nonsense. They may as well be 1000m long, but be damn sure that the ships would have been designed in ways to minimize their profile so you'd end up with a lot of empty space ahead.
Not to mention every ship would have some coordinated aiming/navigation system and weapon guidance system that considers the actual weapons envelope and allied ships. And possibly an inbuilt f1 to f8 single key somewhere in the bridge so you don't have to run off and grab one of those macro friendly keyboards.
|
cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 08:51:00 -
[54]
as a pirate i get blobbed constantly and the best solution is to go get a carls junior jalapeno hamburger and play call of duty 4 they get bored after 30mins
|
Siddy
Paisti Paisti Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:33:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Siddy on 31/03/2008 09:35:29 any capacity limitations favors the one who stacks the system first.
Any stacking penalty dosent realy mean a thing since you are still bringing more people = more HP to burn and still more damage to deal.
Splitting blobs will not work as long bringin huge apeswarm guarantee almost certain victory against everything but BoB.
There is not many things in EVE that can stand against 500+ man swarm, even if you bring themin t1 cruisers. And if you dont have an alliance who can raise diciplined force that got a clue, bring near equal nubers is your only option to compede.
Cut the DPS potential of that swarm means nothing since it is still big, still laggy and will still whipe the floor of anything but the most best of there if fighting 1/2 outnumbered.
Best thing is to shift the intrest of the game away from the need of megablobs. Put more intrest in lowsec, create more possibilities for small gangs and REMOVE THE GODDAMN LOCAL CHAT AS AN INTEL TOOL!
Sooner or later the magablob will become so boring people will go do something else and the situation will resolve itself.
|
Erotic Irony
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:44:00 -
[56]
Originally by: cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN as a pirate i get blobbed constantly and the best solution is to go get a carls junior jalapeno hamburger and play call of duty 4 they get bored after 30mins
this one goes out to you o7 ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Ioci
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:48:00 -
[57]
Alot of what Siddy said is true. You can't nerf a game to correct itself. Every game I play has 'blob'. SWG, you go to Restuss and there are 20 players surrounding you when you load Overt. Leave the zone and they unstealth in hoardes. Lord of the Rongs, one of the newest on the market has a strictly PvP zone and it's impossible to solo. You are going to get ganked into oblivion.
Dark Age of Camelot.. actually they are different. They have a stealth toon who can sniper you and a patient player can run one of those solo and take targets. The only way you might incorporate that into Eve would be to have a cloaked sniper ship that has a pretty low dps, using very limited weapons. I'm not sure if that could be done or not but it would follow the line of thinking Siddy was on. An alternative play style. |
Malachon Draco
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:55:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Ioci Alot of what Siddy said is true. You can't nerf a game to correct itself. Every game I play has 'blob'. SWG, you go to Restuss and there are 20 players surrounding you when you load Overt. Leave the zone and they unstealth in hoardes. Lord of the Rongs, one of the newest on the market has a strictly PvP zone and it's impossible to solo. You are going to get ganked into oblivion.
Dark Age of Camelot.. actually they are different. They have a stealth toon who can sniper you and a patient player can run one of those solo and take targets. The only way you might incorporate that into Eve would be to have a cloaked sniper ship that has a pretty low dps, using very limited weapons. I'm not sure if that could be done or not but it would follow the line of thinking Siddy was on. An alternative play style.
This is not about whether you can solo or not. You're right btw, you can't solo. But the issue here is that you get such huge groups that the lag kills more people than any kind of tactic. The problem is that there is NO reason not to blob. Why spread out when you can focus on one target?
|
Mar'Dur Taren
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:05:00 -
[59]
Has anyone mentioned the fact that people will use the crowding tactic to eliminate a targets DPS? I think this would cause trouble with the basic idea. I also would like to have my frigate escort along to clear out the tacklers. A bunch of those working in close to the battleships would have an affect.
|
Overwhelmed
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:10:00 -
[60]
If you had prefixed the OP that it was just a fun thought experiment and recent insights into graphing, I'd support the post. As it stands, it is completely backwards.
Many, many games have counters for tightly-grouped "blob warfare." Here, I'll show you the modern "solution":
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |