Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:55:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 31/03/2008 10:58:12
Originally by: TornSoul
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.
Stacking nerfing blobs would not solve a "undefined" problem with blobing. You say you dont care about blobing either way and dont give any reason to way your suggestion will solve.
You solution creates bigger blobs. How?
100 people spread out on a gate. If you stacking nerf the attackers who jump the gate, they need to bring more numbers to bust the camp.
Most of the people here just dont understand what you are trying to do with this. You are presenting a solution that makes things worse. What problem are your trying to solve? Blobs are not a problem and never have been. The problems have been something else.
You trying to solve lag? Your idea would force people to create even bigger blobs, and servers would lag out more due to more complex code with same numbers.
You trying to make smaller gangs more useful? Small hit and run forces that are slowly grinding down a blob or catching stragglers that are joining a camp would get stacking nerfed, thus devaluing smaller fleet tactics and favoring more numbers.
Until you tell us exactly what problem you are trying to solve, it is pointless presenting a solution. You are telling us the answer is 42, but we dont know the question! --
Billion Isk Mission |
Lucia Warbler
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 11:33:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Lucia Warbler on 31/03/2008 11:34:01
Originally by: Bellum Eternus 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'.
This is interesting. How long range/area effect would you figure these DOT mines have? A slow battleship might take a while to escape such a "trap", not mention capital ships.
|
Jenny Spitfire
LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 11:34:00 -
[63]
Put in treu death and nobody blob because if they blob and somthing do went wrong they will loose more. It is quiet obvious ... --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Recruitment -KB- |
Shurikane
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 11:35:00 -
[64]
tl;dr
I'll keep my idea short and sweet.
One can anchor a POS module that fires an intra-stellar beam and has a smartbomb-like effect on its target, thus damaging it and all ships nearby. To acquire a target, a pilot must point whatever sort of module at the enemy, and the coords are relayed to the beam cannon. Forces blobs to split up into smaller squads.
An excessively large fleet will appear as a warpable signature on overview.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.03.31 12:00:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Shurikane tl;dr
I'll keep my idea short and sweet.
One can anchor a POS module that fires an intra-stellar beam and has a smartbomb-like effect on its target, thus damaging it and all ships nearby. To acquire a target, a pilot must point whatever sort of module at the enemy, and the coords are relayed to the beam cannon. Forces blobs to split up into smaller squads.
An excessively large fleet will appear as a warpable signature on overview.
It changes nothing about the problem. People will blob for 3 reasons: 1. They can 2. They have too 3. There is no downside.
All the ideas here only address the 3rd reason.
The fact that any alliance can afford to send their entire fleet against a single target because their own territory is practically invulnerable is not addressed.
The fact that in order to take out a POS with cynojammer requires a large fleet, even moreso if you also need to take out the enemy fleet guarding it is not addressed.
Just going after the 3rd reason without addressing 1 and 2 will not solve the problem. Even if you manage to force people into fleets that are less than 50 ships big. How would you suggest any subcapital fleet of less than 50 takes out an enemy cynojammer on a shredder POS with a defensive fleet of 50?
You need to adress the reasons WHY people blob.
|
TornSoul
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 17:35:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
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.
I tend to agree.
Originally by: Malachon Draco 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.
1 : The calculations arent *that* heavy... Couple of cosines and some multiplication etc. Really not an issue for 20 BS's 2: Yes it favors *all kinds* of defenders. Gatecamps and otherwise. Which is cool in my book actually. This is a whole other subject really but I'll add that I've always favored that for a succesfull attack the ratio of atatckers vs defenders should be in the order of 2:1 (attacker:defender) (very much simplified) 3: Your're missing the point. I have no problem with the proximity of ships within a blob, I'm simply using it, the proximity, as a tool. It is in itself not an issue for me. So we agree on this one. 4: With regards to POS etc, agreed. That would ofc have to be looked at as well if such a thing was implemented.
Originally by: Malachon Draco
The solution is to change game mechanics so that blobs are no longer desirable since you have multiple objectives. <snip> That way you enable attackers to do real damage in a short amount of time by killing moonmining towers. <snip> 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.
I couldnt agree more!!! Before POS where even introduced to the game, in fact before anyone but CCP knew about them, I submitted a (long) proposal to them excactly along these lines. When POS's did get in the game, it turned out (or looked as) if they had in fact used alot of my ideas - But not to it's fullest intent, which where along the lines of what you suggest. (the timing was such, that they had to have been working on POS's already at the time of my proposal, so I absolutly don't take credit for any of my ideas perhaps beeing used - It was probably too late for that at the time - At a guess)
On demand I'll make the original proposal/document available (If I can find it...)
Originally by: umop 3pisdn 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.
As already mentioned above - I actually personally favor excactly this (not the lag bit ofc)
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 17:41:00 -
[67]
Originally by: IamAcontractALT
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
I never claimed proximity had any lag effect whatsoever - See above
Originally by: Mar'Dur Taren 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.
Think BIG... Imagine that the PDA of a BS could have 20-50 cruisers inside of it (and it's adjustable), and same for cruiser vs. frigate. So having 5 or so repping you wont matter much. It'll give you a little disadvantage, which is only fair in a sense.
BIG Lottery |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |