EVE Search - Disturbing new combat tactics

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Warfare & Tactics

Disturbing new combat tactics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Reilly Jax Amarr Freespace Technologies	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:29:00 - [1] Hello folks, as a casual observer i have begun to notice a rather disturbing trend of tactics relating to fleet fights (starting with the providence war and moving to the north).Even more disturbing is that they're acceptable and legitimate (that they are backed by CCP's inaction) Put as many people at a strategic location as possible before the enemy can get there. the result of this is that nearly everyone, if not everyone, who tries to load an unstable grid will fail and die quickly without any ability to affect their survival. Of course this lends to some neat combat situations, it is no longer about superior numbers, better ship fittings, superior fc target selection, or anything else that you can attribute to skill in eve. The battle is decidedly over when one entity has their massive fleet in position first, weather they're attackers or defenders. Now i've thought about the whole thing and tried a bit of fleet "root cause analysis". and this is where my knowledge of fleet tactics kind of wanes. Is it considered a tactical victory once you are on grid? meaning the real fight is getting there first.. and the fleet on the other side of the gate should just chalk it up as a defeat and save their ships for another day. Or is it considered a tactical failure to jump into a situation like that (even if you have superior numbers). reading posts and getting the opinion of many i know in the conflict it seems to me (at least locally) that it is considered to be a tactical failure to engage in that situation. I would like to know what some of the more experienced folks have to say in regards to the tactical victory or tactical defeat ideal. thanks for your time RJ
kano donn	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:37:00 - [2] d-day invasion? Maybe ccp is trying to add a form of environmental tactics. Maybe they cant do anything? possibly they have a fix in the works with planetary interaction?
Jack bubu Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:44:00 - [3] You must be new to eve since this is not a new "combat tactic"
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Punic Corp.	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:48:00 - [4] Originally by: Reilly Jax Put as many people at a strategic location as possible before the enemy can get there. the result of this is that nearly everyone, if not everyone, who tries to load an unstable grid will fail and die quickly without any ability to affect their survival. That's not new. That's what 0.0 large scale warfare over territory has always been like. ----- 'In Eve, as in real life, if you are bored it's your own fault.'
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:49:00 - [5] Uhhh, started in the providence war? The only "tactic" being used in the providence war was the providence blob choosing not to fight at all. Blobbing to break the server has been used for years and years. Unless CCP invents some quantum computer server or limits the amount of people in a given system we will always have such problems. Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose.
TheLordofAllandNothing Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:56:00 - [6] Whilst the problem is heavily exacerbated by ccps terrible dominion netcode , yes this has been going on for years, bob did it during their max campaign. When you can't beat something, you learn to work with it. _______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =(
cluster 1 Gallente GTE Limited	Posted - 2010.04.10 21:56:00 - [7] Like all things in EvE it just calls for more dynamic tactics. And the mesure of success can only be determined by the ultimate motive of the attacking entity In the case of an all out sov war the aggressors have to attack several systems and then the defenders can only block out a single system. This tactic will always favour the aggressor as the defenders cannot stand up to this sort of assault when multiple systems are vunerable. However if the attacker has specific targets such as a high end moon etc then the attacker may end up with significant higher losses due to the "jump in" issue, but may end up capturing the goal, this usually ends up in both sides claming a victory. In the current NC/SC situation where the objectives are a combination of sov/moons/kills and the end game is not a straightforward result as the SC do not want space ect. the tactical uper hand is very hard to determine. personally i think that indavidual skirmishes are less important than the long term effects on the alliances concerned. I feel that the NC will be proud of there results so far, however after a couple of months of attricion, the fleet numbers will start to dwindle and the resolve of the casual player will be the overall determining factor in the tactical game of EvE 2010
Spurty Caldari D00M. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2010.04.10 22:03:00 - [8] The original doomsday grid wide weapon was CCPs first attempt, then came bombers So far, nothing real appears to have been done to curb 1000+ blues issue. The overview is where CCP needs to focus. This is how people pick targets. Standings allow you to remove them. Standings cost nothing. Therefore there is effectively zero inhibition to create swaths of blues. No incentives to drop blue standings. Temporary use if huge numbers should always be possible, buy at a ludicrous cost financially. Politics are too cheap in the sand box Originally by: Hurley I WAS NOT QUITTING SoT AND WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT JOINING IT. PL/SoT MADE A MISTAKE AND ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT OR FIX IT.
Lashnar Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2010.04.10 23:09:00 - [9] Wait, why wouldn't the attackers tell CCP to put the system on a different spike? Jita works fine. (Well, with a computer that can handle EVE in the first place) Welcome to EVE.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.04.10 23:22:00 - [10] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 10/04/2010 23:23:38 Originally by: Lashnar Wait, why wouldn't the attackers tell CCP to put the system on a different spike? Jita works fine. (Well, with a computer that can handle EVE in the first place) Yea, the last huge fleetfight in Jita was epic, almost half the people in local in caps battling it out at the 4-4 undock... Edit: In case you didnt catch the sarcasm, the Jita systems resource requirements are completely different.

Boomershoot Caldari Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2010.04.11 01:06:00 - [11] Edited by: Boomershoot on 11/04/2010 01:06:13 > Take "The Art of War" > Open at Junzheng > Strategy about how to move an army > LoL at EVE FCs > Read whole book again > LoL at EVE I love these threads :3
Apo Lyptica	Posted - 2010.04.11 05:06:00 - [12] what are you talkin about? its how the federation beat the klingons in the war over mars candy company, back when moms friendly robot company was producing bending bots.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.04.11 07:29:00 - [13] Originally by: Reilly Jax Hello folks, as a casual observer i have begun to notice a rather disturbing trend of tactics relating to fleet fights (starting with the providence war and moving to the north).Even more disturbing is that they're acceptable and legitimate (that they are backed by CCP's inaction) Uh, this tactic was being used in the North (by both sides) before it was used in Providence. I was there in P-2TTL; TriCo did it to the NC to take P-2, then the NC did it to TriCo to take P-2 back. And it was being used in Fountain before that. Now luckily, although the lag is still bad, it seems to have improved considerably since Dec 1st. Props to CCP, they have done some good work there. But even if the situation was returned to the late Apocrypha standard and then improved considerably from that... this tactic would still be viable in the current Northern conflict. Both sides can easily bring over 1000 pilots. And of course, this tactic heavily favours the defender. That's why you wont see much direct sov warfare for a while. Stations wont actually change hands in any quantity through direct, massive battles. They will change hands through treachery, diplomacy (but I repeat myself) or if and when the fighting has become so overwhelmingly one-sided such that the attackers can arrange for 5+ stations to come out of reinforced at about the same time and keep doing it. (Remember, you have to win 5 battles in a row to take a station. The defender only has to win any one of those battles to reset the process)
Abrazzar	Posted - 2010.04.11 07:42:00 - [14] I don't know. Couldn't you, when the enemy piles all their capacity in one system, just romp around other places in his space and incapacitate a random number of other targets, so the enemy next time has to choose which one to defend with a piggy pile and which ones to leave undefended? I mean, it only needs one scout to check if the grid is even loading and then the rest don't need to jump. Though considering my general inexperience in 0.0 warfare and mob psychology, I'm probably missing something. --------
Hyveres Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.11 07:48:00 - [15] You know I was part of jumping into a camped gate with a 300+ fleet yesterday and while it took a minute or 2 or 3 or 4 to load the grid we eventually loaded. The trick is not logging off since that means you wont be able to load grid and fight back. And yes you will loose a few ships before you load but the hostiles will also be affected by lag for targeting and gun cycling meaning you do not loose that many. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound
Dasola Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.11 10:44:00 - [16] well if you know that enemy has heavily camped certain spot in space, dont go there. Strike them where theyre not. Dont be so simple tactis on head on towards enemy. Theres more then one way to fight a war. As someone allready mentioned: the art of war, good to read. and if your doing fc right, you know wheres enemy is camping. you have spy's and scouts to keep you informed.

CCP Shadow C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.11 14:40:00 - [17] Moved to Warfare & Tactics.

Dinsdale Pirannha Gallente	Posted - 2010.04.11 17:48:00 - [18] So given that the "be there first tactic" is extremely effective, and CCP has no way of allocating the computing resources required (hell, I doubt even CERN even could come up with a network computer capable of handling the load), maybe there is another way. Create an ingame construct. First 100 pilots an alliance has in system, no charge per ship. Second 100 pilots added, 20 million/pilot. Cost would now be 2 billion to have 200 pilots in a system. Third 100 pilots added, 30 million/pilot. Cost now 5 billion to have 300 in system. Can CCP make this happen? I have no idea how much more lag this would introduce as the game engine calculates the total number of alliance members. Are there ways players could circumvent the system? Sure. But would something like this rough idea work? Possibly. I believe that is what Sisi is for: test, test, test.
Psychotic Maniac Caldari Head Shrinkers	Posted - 2010.04.12 02:38:00 - [19] First, I WIN. Damn, others beat me to it. Oh well. Back to the forums and make another post regarding the lag. Everyone knows this tactic including the devs. FAIL DOMINION IS FAIL!
Jotobar	Posted - 2010.04.12 10:30:00 - [20] As long as it's better to have one big blob of 500ppl instead of five seperate blobs of 100ppl this happens naturaly even in the cases where it isn't meant as an strategy.

nether void Caldari Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.04.12 18:33:00 - [21] Actually I think splitting up your objectives could be a good way to go about battling this blob thing. Split your fleet to three objectives. Hit them all at the same time. Then if the enemy blob up and choose one, move that fleet off the objective until the blob moves. During this time the other 2 fleets will be pounding objectives. When the blob moves to fleet 2 or 3, move fleet 1 back onto the objective. The only way to counter that would be for the enemy to decided to split into three fleets or just two fleets, guaranteeing the defense of 2 of the objectives, but losing the third. I think the only problem with this would be having three targets. It seems in the current system it's probably not that easy to get three accessable targets on 1 alliance? Or if you can, then not sure why the strategists don't already do this. One limiting factor could be the amount of FCs in any given alliance. Usually there are just a handful. And those are split over different time zones. In order for the split tactic to work really well you would probably need quite a few more good FCs than you have now?
Smokin' Dragon Holy Grail Construction	Posted - 2010.04.13 07:14:00 - [22] as someone who was fighting in provi when AAA invaded, the lag actually has put me off 0.0 warfare for good. D-G was the nuts... titan bridge into system... waiting.... waiting... 20 mins... waiting... go for ciggy... waiting... 1 hour..... give up, log off... try to log back in.... waiting... waiting... waiting... 2 hours... log in in pod...wtf?
Beltantis Torrence Groovy Guns	Posted - 2010.04.13 16:01:00 - [23] Originally by: Vaal Erit Blobbing to break the server has been used for years and years. Unless CCP invents some quantum computer server or limits the amount of people in a given system we will always have such problems. Would have been great if they made the Sov system require things to happen in multiple places at the same time to force people to split their fleets.
King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.04.14 04:58:00 - [24] The lack of instancing in this game is what makes it so great and yet makes crap like this possible. There is a solution as mentioned above by requiring players to take multiple locations at the same time. One way is to give system sov a capture the flag style of play. There are 5 flags which award points constantly. After 23 hours the team with the most points wins the system. The system could be scaled up easily, could even have the number of flags dynamic with the number of players so that there would be 1 flag for every 10 players regardless of how many are in system. That too could be cheated though by having fleets constantly jump in and out of system. So there would need to be a delay or averaging mechanism that would only update every 15 minutes at most. It does not solve the 1000 man gate camp, removing stargates and giving all ships short range jump drives requiring no cyno's would. But I seem to be alone in liking that idea. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
Ospie Core Impulse	Posted - 2010.04.14 11:16:00 - [25] Originally by: Spurty The original doomsday grid wide weapon was CCPs first attempt, then came bombers So far, nothing real appears to have been done to curb 1000+ blues issue. The overview is where CCP needs to focus. This is how people pick targets. Standings allow you to remove them. Standings cost nothing. Therefore there is effectively zero inhibition to create swaths of blues. No incentives to drop blue standings. Temporary use if huge numbers should always be possible, buy at a ludicrous cost financially. Politics are too cheap in the sand box This is the same conclusion I reached when I gave it some thought. Till setting an alliance blue / red etc costs an alliance/corp isk this tactic will forever be the defining tactic in sov warfare, making a bit of a farce of the whole thing imo.
Ospie Core Impulse	Posted - 2010.04.14 11:23:00 - [26] Originally by: Dasola well if you know that enemy has heavily camped certain spot in space, dont go there. Strike them where theyre not. Dont be so simple tactis on head on towards enemy. Theres more then one way to fight a war. As someone allready mentioned: the art of war, good to read. and if your doing fc right, you know wheres enemy is camping. you have spy's and scouts to keep you informed. The issue is more in the attackers favour than the defenders, the recent changes have only enhanced that since they don't even need to sit on the gates to be there first, they just sit on the territorial modules. Get a few coming out at same time and then the attack can move a blob to one of several different systems whilst the defender just has to try and get to whichever it looks like the attackers are heading to first, which is unlikely, therefore the ball will always be in the attackers court unless they fail / there is a single system that needs to be passed to reach all targets (allowing defender to sit on a gate with full fleet).
Millie Clode Amarr Standards and Practices	Posted - 2010.04.14 11:26:00 - [27] Originally by: King Rothgar It does not solve the 1000 man gate camp, removing stargates and giving all ships short range jump drives requiring no cyno's would. But I seem to be alone in liking that idea. Elite is so 1984. That idea wouldn't work. With a stargate jump you move from one grid to another specific grid in the next system. If you take out stargates and institute "jump drives without cynos" you will have no way to specify which grid in the system you land in. Unless of course you create a bunch of designated landing zones, in which case these will be camped instead of the gates and you are back to square 1. You can't just have people jumping to random points in a system, the whole thing would be unworkable ---------- Sig Page 1 Snipah YOU CANT MINE SO YOU KILL
Archestratidas	Posted - 2010.04.15 21:20:00 - [28] god i love lowsec
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.04.15 21:38:00 - [29] Originally by: Millie Clode That idea wouldn't work. With a stargate jump you move from one grid to another specific grid in the next system. If you take out stargates and institute "jump drives without cynos" you will have no way to specify which grid in the system you land in. Unless of course you create a bunch of designated landing zones, in which case these will be camped instead of the gates and you are back to square 1. You can't just have people jumping to random points in a system, the whole thing would be unworkable No reason it has to be random, you can have a few different landing zones, or even use celestials (planets) as landing zones. Having more spread in the spawn points (like +-100km, with an option to "fleet jump") would pretty much eliminate camping, unless you want to completely cover a 500km grid with tacklers. Having said that, the only real problem why it wouldnt work out is there is simply nothing to do in Eve that would lead to encounters. Looking at FW plexes, it seems that it is a pretty difficult task to change this paradigm, so gates serve an important purpose as meeting points to actually have a pvp area.
Dr BattleSmith PAX Interstellar Services	Posted - 2010.04.16 00:05:00 - [30] Originally by: Archestratidas god i love lowsec this.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.