| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
   |
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:20:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 11/04/2010 15:22:40
Been hearing some interesting things regarding recent events and it's given me some flashbacks to fights from days of yore (lol i love that word)
It seems the lag issues that the north are experiencing are probably here to stay for the time being. We've been here before....
We all know that no matter how solid the servers are (let's say they can handle 1000 ppl) that factions will simply bring more (1001+). The only way to win the fight against the game breaking itself is to deter the formation of such large groups in one location to begin with. That logic is sound.
The fact that the game seems to be repeating history would seem to indicate ccp didn't learn a valuable lesson and now are doomed to repeat that lesson. The very reasons we brought the DD into the game has returned, where blob tactics aren't simply a matter of whoever has the most wins the fight, but that bringing enough makes a fight impossible?
Blob tactics have always been blob tactics. Before we had more of a deterrent. After we have more of a blob.
In fact, is could be said that since ccp announced the removal of the dd, some(one?) group(s) exercised some forethought and decided to make blobbing their one and only strategy (not naming any names  you know who you are). "Load up the wagons, no more dd's!! We are a go for overwhelming w/ pointless numbers!" This group gained their initial successes through 'fighting' by breaking the game and now are hampered by that very same tactic
SO... looking back are we glad it's gone?
Did it's removal make 0.0 combat worse off or better?
Was it simply a stupid weapon / overpowered and the solution to blob deterrence must reside elsewhere in the Eve game mechanics?
ON THE LAST POINT, IF YOU HOLD THAT TO BE TRUE AND (ASSUMING THERE IS NO MAGIC SERVER SOLUTION TO ALLOW 2bagillion MAN FIGHTS), WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT TO BREAK UP THE BLOB
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
Poses
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:31:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Poses on 11/04/2010 15:31:42
there is no blob fix, there were epic ****ing blobs pre-DD nerf too (49-u anyone?)
people will always strive to bring the most numbers they can in the biggest ships they can, since assuming all else is equal that will determine who wins. (there are exceptions but those exceptions never won a pos war).
the issue people are having right now is that somehow the lag has gotten worse.
reports come in of 200 man fleets jumping into a reinforced node and crashing it. And while large, 200 people is hardly even in the realm of large 'blob' fights.
tl:dr its not gonna happen, there is no fix DDs weren't a fix they were just annoying.
|
Alt Tabbed
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:46:00 -
[3]
Economically Blobs make more sense than small gangs.
Until they incentivise small fights(no I'm not talking about hand outs), Blobs will remain.
And those "rock surgeons" out there....no I'm not using the word "economically" to imply any relation to isk/hr.
|
Stuart Price
Caldari
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:49:00 -
[4]
There is a blob fix - more gates; particularly more 0.0 entry points.
The more routes through a region there are, the more points need defending.
This means that opposing forces can no longer just build humongous deathblobs either side of one gate because at any time, one side can send forces through another direction to either set up flanking attacks or attack other systems.
It also benefits raiders and piratey types who will have greater mobility in nullsec. Defending forces would be forced to defend multiple routes and move in smaller groups instead of merely bubbling one or two entry systems and sticking monster fleets on them.
Gosh, it might actually bring some tactical and strategic thinking into higher level decisions and emphasize a bit more pilot (and particularly FC and scouting) skill on the field (both things I know most nullsec dwellers will disapprove of greatly).
Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
Hung Wang
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:04:00 -
[5]
Force nullsec nodes to shut down when more than 100 pilots enter the same system. Instant blob fix; all the blobbers quit. |
Poses
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:59:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Stuart Price
stuffs
i like it... theoretically, but wouldn't this cripple a small alliance trying to defend against a larger?
|
TheBlindBandit
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 17:08:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Poses
Originally by: Stuart Price
stuffs
i like it... theoretically, but wouldn't this cripple a small alliance trying to defend against a larger?
No, because a small alliance shouldn't (logically) be expected to hold the same amount of space as a large alliance.
That being said, various other in-game factors prevent such a simple fix from having a noticeable effect on blobbing (cyno fields, reinforced mode, local channel, etc).
|
HoboHunter1001
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 17:11:00 -
[8]
Give bonuses to smaller fighting forces or penalties to larger ones. That's the only way I can think of.
|
Poses
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 17:21:00 -
[9]
Originally by: HoboHunter1001
Give bonuses to smaller fighting forces or penalties to larger ones. That's the only way I can think of.
that's too meta for ccp to go for it i think.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 18:16:00 -
[10]
Remove sov direct ties with structures.
|
|
|
Mike712
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 19:00:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Mike712 on 11/04/2010 19:01:11
Brining back a DD is a horrible idea.
The DD wasn't only used against blobs but small hac gangs too, the AoE DD made 0.0 PvP turgid and stale, things have got better since it's been gone.
If people want to blob they should be able to and the servers should be able to handle it, this is supposed to be a sandbox afterall, everything should be possible.
|
Amy Crest
Kermit Space Industies
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 19:26:00 -
[12]
Doomsdays never even slowed down blobbing. All it did with make BS tank more, and increase the ratio of heavy units vs light units.
The only single way to effectively break blobbing would be to harshly limit alliances sizes, remove standings, and make it impossible for one player to know the name and alliance of that hostile ship on his overview. But I don't see CCP ever doing that much changes to social interactions.
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 21:03:00 -
[13]
I believe the following factors contribute to blobbing:
1) lack of terrain - 100% line of sight from any point to any point
2) long range weapons - making formations and positioning less important
3) increasing defensive vs offensive capabilities. As defense/offense ratio grows, blobbing becomes more important to successfully dispatch the target
4) instantaneous weapon hits - this goes hand in hand with long range weapons. If weapons, such as missiles, required considerable amount of time to hit target over long distance, blobbing would be much less effective
I'm willing to bet all this can be proven mathematically, with complex statistical formulas. Unfortunately statistical math was never my strong side, and it would take weeks to work it all out. Computer simulations with adjustable parameters for the 4 factors described could also be used to find most successful behaviors of large vs small. Again it would take weeks to write
If we look at EVE history, we will see that CCP have modified game factors #2 and #3 in favor of blobbing tactics, while other factors remain uncharged but with initial condition favorable to blob creation.
|
Koshs SC
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 21:21:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Stuart Price
There is a blob fix - more gates; particularly more 0.0 entry points.
The more routes through a region there are, the more points need defending.
This means that opposing forces can no longer just build humongous deathblobs either side of one gate because at any time, one side can send forces through another direction to either set up flanking attacks or attack other systems.
you have no idea how 0.0 warfare works do you?
that wouldn't change a thing
you still have to attack fixed structures once you get to that system you want. and that structure have a timer, and whoever you're attacking will be waiting for you when the timer hits 0. they dont need to camp gates
nobody uses gates these days anyway.
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 21:33:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Zarnak Wulf on 11/04/2010 21:33:46
There was something mentioned last year at fanfest that did hold promise:
Formations.
Noone knows how it could work but it should offer interesting possibilities.
|
Zhilan Sun
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 21:53:00 -
[16]
If you want to split up the blob you have to make tangible reasons for it. why would smaller gangs be more effective than a massive fleet that no one could possibly defend against?
It could be done with limitations, for example you could put SOV units in dead space that only X amount of ships can get to. Another idea is to make penalties to the size of the fleet, the more friendly ships are in the area the greater your guns Sig radius becomes, the more shots being fired drastically complicates ballistic control.
and you don't even have to put a limitation on weapons or the actual size of the fleet, you could increase time it takes for a larger fleet to jump into warp and slow there warp speed down, giving more time for people to react.
only if you give a real and absolute reason for people to use smaller gangs then nothing will change.
|
Poses
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 22:03:00 -
[17]
i think the main problem with this thread, is that CCP has a fleet fight fetish
its apparent if you look at both their patches and the promotional media they release.
its never 'small and elite' its 'bigger then yourself'
as well they have stated that they don't like meta solutions to pvp. The exception to this is of course FW, but they said they aren't going to implement mechanics in 0.0 that force combat to unfold in a certain way. This is both interesting and terrible, since it allows for more creativity in strategy, but it does but a certain emphasis on numbers.
As such you can stop suggesting using dead space zones and organized battles as fixes for this. What you can do is suggest logical upgrades to current combat mechanics that would reduce the effectiveness of large numbers. But even that isn't enough since adding extraneous collision detections or AOE weapons adds to the already substantial server lag.
And while you could argue that increasing lag would reduce members in fleets, the FCs in eve have been more then willing in past to use lag as a weapon. Deliberately crashing nodes and putting enough people on a gate that the opponant cannot jump through.
|
Zhilan Sun
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 22:11:00 -
[18]
you do have a vary good point.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar
Punic Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 23:03:00 -
[19]
The old fleet-killing DD is not an incentive to bringing smaller fleets. It never was, and it never will be.
A smaller fleet would get wiped out just as easily as a large one, if not more so. The only thing it can deter people from is from fighting at all.
-----
'In Eve, as in real life, if you are bored it's your own fault.' |
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 23:29:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 11/04/2010 23:31:34
i hope i didn't come off too much as "bring back dd's" because as they were they were stupid (in all renditions) but i think the current one shot o' doom is kinda silly and uninspired.
i won't lie, i'd like to see an AoE DD that perhaps doesn't clear an entire grid?? i'd also like to see (and hear, thus the thread) other ideas.
as it's apparent ccp hasn't done jack all to address this issue and it really limits this otherwise limitless game it's up to us to put the bug in their ear and show them how many other possibilities there are out there than 'open a fleet fight notification' or whatever logs don't show nothing b.s. they pass off as 'working on it'
Originally by: Poses
Edited by: Poses on 11/04/2010 15:31:42
there is no blob fix, there were epic ****ing blobs pre-DD nerf too (49-u anyone?)
i think we can do better than that
Originally by: TheBlindBandit
Originally by: Poses
...wouldn't this cripple a small alliance trying to defend against a larger?
No, because a small alliance shouldn't (logically) be expected to hold the same amount of space as a large alliance.
That being said, various other in-game factors prevent such a simple fix from having a noticeable effect on blobbing (cyno fields, reinforced mode, local channel, etc).
i was thinking of a system where to siege someones space you would have to attack 2/3, 3/5 whatever elements simultaneously in different systems (and vice versa, to install and reap rewards of structures you've established, they must network with X other ones in other solar systems)
opening up more routes might not be a bad idea, however i can think of some situations where it would make for less confrontational travel though routes (and less confrontation is ALWAYS bad  )
Originally by: Amy Crest
The only single way to effectively break blobbing would be to harshly limit alliances sizes, remove standings, and make it impossible for one player to know the name and alliance of that hostile ship on his overview. But I don't see CCP ever doing that much changes to social interactions.
Originally by: Poses
Originally by: HoboHunter1001
Give bonuses to smaller fighting forces or penalties to larger ones.
that's too meta for ccp to go for it i think.
-there should be some penalty for having an epic blue wave all under one umbrella. i think we should be able to separate social interaction from working fleet mechanics, but i be damned if i know how
-yes and yes. the idea is a good one and ccp is probably too afraid of something like that (plus we would find an easy way to exploit it)
Originally by: Furb Killer
Remove sov direct ties with structures.
hmmm. so what would dictate our sov?
Originally by: Ephemeron
stuff
all of this is completely naii on the head and the crux of the problem
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
There was something mentioned last year at fanfest that did hold promise:
Formations.
Noone knows how it could work but it should offer interesting possibilities.
it seems such a far cry from how we currently fly... i'm not holding my breath. it sounds like it would be such a fundamental shift from established piloting to be a different game. akin to going from doubleclickspace/rightclick/menu piloting to using a joystick
if they did it though... cool. anything really.
good stuff guys. what do you think of my idea? simultaneous points across multiple systems?
isn't there a place anymore for the DD? as it was yes, very ghey. AoE is a powerful tool (see bombs used properly). it doesn't break up the blob for system as a whole, but bomb a gate camp and they WILL spread out, still a good tool.
i think DD was a great idea, just implemented terribly and given further black eyes by not being nerfed properly when that was realized. if a titan offered say a 50km safe pos-like shield for its fleet OR able to sacrifice it's shield and fire a 75km DD... this would make for MUCH more interesting strategy
but again, plenty of other ways to skin a cat
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
|
|
Jotobar
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 00:08:00 -
[21]
Well the counter weapon of chooice up in the north from both sides are bomber fleets which honestly is more fun and agile for both sides than dd ever was. 30 bombers can do some serious damage when done right.
|
mingmin
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 03:57:00 -
[22]
Its pretty simple.
New fleet organiser is terrible, when im in a 250 man fleet, nothing loads theres to much info for server to handle, when i drop fleet on same grid my game becomes 'playable'. Something about, fleet finder/fleets is causing issues.
CCP need to fix that from the dominion patch.
Also capitals cause massive lag problems, espically ones with corp hanger arrays.
CCP need to fix moons/pos's as you cant take ships back out the game.
They want more accounts/players, like the op said problem will just get worse.
CCP need to invest more time and attention, into these new jita nodes for whole server and good link ups, but this wont happen as new content, means new shiney EVE advert to drool over.
|
Headerman
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 04:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Amy Crest
The only single way to effectively break blobbing would be to harshly limit alliances sizes, remove standings, and make it impossible for one player to know the name and alliance of that hostile ship on his overview. But I don't see CCP ever doing that much changes to social interactions.
Why not limit the number of alliance ships outside of Sov systems?
|
Amy Crest
Kermit Space Industies
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 06:24:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Headerman
Originally by: Amy Crest
The only single way to effectively break blobbing would be to harshly limit alliances sizes, remove standings, and make it impossible for one player to know the name and alliance of that hostile ship on his overview. But I don't see CCP ever doing that much changes to social interactions.
Why not limit the number of alliance ships outside of Sov systems?
IF you limit the attacker size without putting one to the defensor, wouldn't the defensor then be able to get a crushing numerical superiority? And even with limits on both sizes, each blob would just be divised in two: one part doing the fight, the other waiting in line in a nearby system to replace loses.
No, the thing that need to be cut down isn't the physical number of ships possible in a single system, way too easily exploitable, it's the size of the mega-alliances, and that mean breaking up the possibility for alliances to make buddies.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 06:58:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 12/04/2010 07:02:05
Create a system where a blob is not the only way to get things done.
How it might be done:
- Move spawn points after a gate jump to grids around a sun to kill off the gate camp blob. Maybe in jammed systems only to increase the hair-loss of those responsible for strategy/tactics.
- Create independent sections/modules on the iHubs (think station services) so that a smaller fleet can forcefully affect system indices temporarily . Will be reinstated upon rebuilding so no time loss from index loss as "normal".
- Limit capitals ability to affect sub-capitals even further to hamstring the ever increasing cap-blobs.
- Delay local.
Will have the added bonus of the obese alliances needing to contract or devote all their forces to defensive operations 23/7. ISK cost for sovereignty failed hard in that regard, might as well do it the hard way - want space, better be able to protect it (not merely hold it).
Only by changing the way wars are fought and the cost of failing to adapt can one hope to defeat human nature.
|
Saietor Blackgreen
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 07:03:00 -
[26]
Yet no sniping setups given, because they, apparently, suck.
---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 09:26:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 11/04/2010 23:11:13
Been hearing some interesting things regarding recent events and it's given me some flashbacks to fights from days of yore (lol i love that word)
It seems the lag issues that the north are experiencing are probably here to stay for the time being. We've been here before....
We all know that no matter how solid the servers are (let's say they can handle 1000 ppl) that factions will simply bring more (1001+). The only way to win the fight against the game breaking itself is to deter the formation of such large groups in one location to begin with. That logic is sound.
The fact that the game seems to be repeating history would seem to indicate ccp didn't learn a valuable lesson and now are doomed to repeat that lesson. The very reasons we brought the DD into the game has returned, where blob tactics aren't simply a matter of whoever has the most wins the fight, but that bringing enough makes a fight impossible?
Blob tactics have always been blob tactics. Before we had more of a deterrent. After we have more of a blob.
SO... looking back are we glad it's gone?
Did it's removal make 0.0 combat worse off or better?
Was it simply a stupid weapon / overpowered and the solution to blob deterrence must reside elsewhere in the Eve game mechanics?
ON THE LAST POINT, IF YOU HOLD THAT TO BE TRUE AND (ASSUMING THERE IS NO MAGIC SERVER SOLUTION TO ALLOW 2bagillion MAN FIGHTS), WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT TO BREAK UP THE BLOB?
AoE Titans did nothing to "break up blobs". In fact they caused blobs. What AoE Titans did do was make it impossible to run roaming gangs through the space of large alliances.
The only way to prevent blobbing is to depopulate 0.0
As long as there is an advantage - however small - to adding another ship to the feel, there will be "blobs". All other things being equal, more ships will beat less ships, so people will bring what they can. Deal with it.
|
Ap0ll0n
Gallente
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 09:28:00 -
[28]
How about they (CCP) focused on fixing their game, instead of implementing new, useless planet mining?
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 09:51:00 -
[29]
Nerf power blocks.
|
Qorthas
Caldari
Eternal Profiteers
SRS.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 10:24:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Qorthas on 12/04/2010 10:26:33
Originally by: Malcanis
stuff Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
AoE Titans did nothing to "break up blobs". In fact they caused blobs. What AoE Titans did do was make it impossible to run roaming gangs through the space of large alliances.
The only way to prevent blobbing is to depopulate 0.0
As long as there is an advantage - however small - to adding another ship to the feel, there will be "blobs". All other things being equal, more ships will beat less ships, so people will bring what they can. Deal with it.
how the hell does AoE titans cause more blobbing?? it doesnt.
further more, did you even bother to read through the thread? because there are several things that, if done right, could be good for the game, and decrease the incentive for blobbing.
you just seem to not care about the game, and like blobbing as it is.
oh and how would you just "depopulate" 0.0????
|
|
|
Rivur'Tam
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 10:48:00 -
[31]
REMOVE TITANS FROM THE GAME THEY ARE USELESS ****E
the first version of titan n dd were awesome but now the dd is useless it has less dps than a civy gatling gun and the finally nail in teh coffin was the removal of lowsec dd you ******s and your whinein runined another awesome ship
but rivur u hate 0.0 and blob tastic ***gotness why do u care at all (i hear u say)
because now my erebus is useless waste of isk on it its fit and the char that logs off it and not to mention the 6 months of training wasted.
wtf can i do with it now shoot a pos nope my moros dose it better , well u can keep stuff init nope my nyx does that just fine which btw thanks ccp for taking away the clone option on ms no reason for that. but wait i can use my erebus for taht sweet 70 bil isk jump clone ship thx ccp
no wondder i'm in high sec doing lv5 missions
...
my vid watch now
|
Qorthas
Caldari
Eternal Profiteers
SRS.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 11:18:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Qorthas on 12/04/2010 11:19:46
Originally by: Rivur'Tam
blah blah blah, ****ed up grammer, ****ty spelling, blah blah.......
you cant seriously mean that you, with the way you write, is a titan pilot..... 
|
AnKahn
Caldari
Unknown-Entity
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 16:49:00 -
[33]
Breaking up large 200 man gangs into actual squads or actually smaller "bite sized" gangs would be great. Having an Command FC that is perhaps piggy backed "docked in" an actual command ship calling out commands to multiple gang FCs who move thier gangs around seperately would be awesome in terms of tactics and frankly make large battles more interesting as they would be more cellular and have more depth (i.e. be less all or nothing, have more mini-battles) and also be more realistic.
To do this you would indeed need the concept of formations. But how to you encourage this? I really think that you have to introduce a new class of ship that can project AOE defensive and offensive effects, forcing ships to fly in formation. This new class of ship could not fly too close to each other and could only give boni to ships in its squad.
This class of character/ship was/is in the game CoH. Defenders I think they are called. I always thought EvE could use something like this that unlike Command Ships require proximity to work (not just being parked in a POS or safespot which is lame and extreemly boring I would think).
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:16:00 -
[34]
The only way I can think of to cut the blob out of gameplay is impossible to impliment. :(
My idea is to require LOS on the target to fire on it, ideally, the attack would just hit anyone in front of the guns when they went off (more people = more friendly fire incidents), but just requiring line of sight would reduce the effectivness of blobs significantly
This change would do three good things:
1. Nerf unorganized blobbing
2. Buff missiles and drones (they wouldn't require LOS)
3. Make positioning important in a fleet
It would also do three bad things:
1. Crash nodes with massive amounts of calculations
2. Make frigates OP as they could evade attacks.
3. Cause a fair amount of Meta gaming
What do you think? Maybe they could impliment this, it'd be a Max of 8 calculations per ship per volley. . .
|
Ethain
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:39:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Sigras
What do you think? Maybe they could impliment this, it'd be a Max of 8 calculations per ship per volley. . .
Nice ideas, but this part is a tiny bit more complex than you suggest. The game doesn't "just know" that you're in the way (or not). Collision detection is one of the main limiting factors to player sizes in FPS games.
As all the ships may move, the server would have to do those calculations for every ship and object on the grid, per volley. Assuming the space a ship takes up can be represented by a cube, you need 8 calculations to see if the shot passes through that area of space. 8 guns x 8 corners x 100 possible target ships on grid is 6400 calculations. Assuming they are all firing you're suddenly looking at 6400 per ship * 100 firing, at 640,000 calculations, per volley. There are clever ways to reduce that (pre-calculate which ships are in range on a slower cycle, treat grouped guns as single entities), but I bet people wouldn't be happy if the hit box for their ship was a simple cube.
|
Syn Callibri
Minmatar
Swag Co.
Sandbox Bullies
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:41:00 -
[36]
A thought...perhaps CCP can install a rule that the local "gravametric integroty" or "Spacial Temporal Appature" or whatever you want to call it can only support fleets that have a "warpcore-mass" of X, since ships already are subject to mass vs. maximum velocity rules it might not be too hard to use that data point to limit the number of ships that can be in a fleet battle...just a thought.
"I have just as much authority as the empress, just not as many people that believe it." |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:42:00 -
[37]
They should make stargates and jump portals that attempt to send a pilot to SYSTEM A destabilize if there are GREATER THAN X people in local already above a certain MASS in the same way wormholes currently work, only it would be randomized. Maybe you'll end up in adjacent systems, maybe you'll end up in SYSTEM A, but one thing need be certain, the math would lend itself to maintaining an average amount of players in local that even a reinforced node would be able to sustain. In addition to that, there should be induced gravity wells when enough MASS in ships are on the same grid such that warping away from the grid requires an exponential amount of capacitor and warping to the grid may land you +50-100km off your intended exit point due to gravitational sheering.
i.e. if a system is flooded with pilots or sufficient MASS in ships, a good portion of them will get randomly spewed into adjacent systems, and the more MASS you have on a single grid, the weirder the warp to/from gets, insofar as if you are in a capital and in a grid with sufficient MASS, you will not simply be able to warp away at any point, you are now committed to the fight as the gravity well inhibits your warp drive.
I am not certain these ideas will be received well, and in some sense, I really do not care, but it would at least follow some of the RP as it is my understanding, and it is all fairly plausible since we already have some mechanics like this introduced into wormholes already.
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Corp Holder33
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:53:00 -
[38]
i have a decent idea to reduce blobbing......
Inside of fleets there are different wings etc etc inside one.
They could do something like where a destroyer squad can only attack destroyers and frigates of the enemy and vice versa...
Something like that... just an idea
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:15:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ethain
Nice ideas, but this part is a tiny bit more complex than you suggest. The game doesn't "just know" that you're in the way (or not). Collision detection is one of the main limiting factors to player sizes in FPS games.
As all the ships may move, the server would have to do those calculations for every ship and object on the grid, per volley. Assuming the space a ship takes up can be represented by a cube, you need 8 calculations to see if the shot passes through that area of space. 8 guns x 8 corners x 100 possible target ships on grid is 6400 calculations. Assuming they are all firing you're suddenly looking at 6400 per ship * 100 firing, at 640,000 calculations, per volley. There are clever ways to reduce that (pre-calculate which ships are in range on a slower cycle, treat grouped guns as single entities), but I bet people wouldn't be happy if the hit box for their ship was a simple cube.
Tbh, I think it can be simplified a bit more than you suggest; the server knows where each entity is on the grid if only as a point in space. . . I would use signature radius to 1 simplify and 2 add a new dimention to the game. . . The server would simply draw a cone between each ship and the ship(s) its guns are aimed at; it would have with a base radius of the targeted ship's signature radius.
It would then be a simple matter to determine if any points lie within that cone. . . It would also not be too difficult to see if the obstructing object completely eclipses the object.
The only thing that would be difficult to calculate would be if two or more ships were occluding one ship but none of them were completely eclipsing it.
This would drastically change the way fleet fights are conducted as the primary target could hide behind other ships. . . It would also make cap fights more dynamic as positioning would now make a huge difference as to effectiveness. . . . I bet in large fleets it would even reduce lag a bit because of the fewer shots being fired. . .
Ideas? Comments?
|
Mattk50
Executive Intervention
Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:03:00 -
[40]
the sov structures HP needs to be made smaller so its possible for a small gang to take them out. this way gangs will be taking sov accross multiple systems at once, if FCs are smart. blitzkreig ftw.
|
|
|
Napro
Caldari
Buccaneers of New Eden
death from above..
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:21:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Edited by: Zarnak Wulf on 11/04/2010 21:33:46
There was something mentioned last year at fanfest that did hold promise:
Formations.
Noone knows how it could work but it should offer interesting possibilities.
Uh, how?
How could this possibly work? What if half your fleet gets lagged out on grid load.. your formation crumbles?
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:02:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Mattk50
the sov structures HP needs to be made smaller so its possible for a small gang to take them out. this way gangs will be taking sov accross multiple systems at once, if FCs are smart. blitzkreig ftw.
This would not fix blobs, all that would happen is the blob-fest would be to save the mods. People would blob to save the mods and others would blob to destroy them
Blitzkreig ftl
|
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:00:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Sigras
My idea is to require LOS on the target to fire on it, ideally, the attack would just hit anyone in front of the guns when they went off (more people = more friendly fire incidents), but just requiring line of sight would reduce the effectivness of blobs significantly
This + Terrain + Serious consequences from collisions would make EvE combat much better. The UI would have to be improved and the learning curve would be even more horrifying but I think it would be worth it. To bad its
Quote:
impossible to impliment. :(
|
Lothix
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:10:00 -
[44]
Impose a mass limit on system (or a grid).
- For controlled systems reserve half of the total mass for defenders.
- For NPC/contested systems continuously split up remaining mass over alliances/corps currently in system.
EVE already has massive artificial limitations that make no physical sense, why stop now? |
Sonreir
Gallente
Band of Builders Inc.
Enforcers of Serenity
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:12:00 -
[45]
There needs to be some game mechanic that forces and attacker to attack multiple systems at once to achieve their goal.
Something like having to kill all the TCUs in a constellation within a 30 minute timer period or something like that.
I know my example would heavily favor the defenders, but I'm only using this to illustrate the underlying idea.
|
Moonmonkey
Amarr
Orange Clover
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:11:00 -
[46]
Eve travel mechanics is as much a part of the problem as anything else, you don't travel between systems. You instantly switch systems, if ships could fly between system as well as using gates. A blob fleet could load up a grid with a flight time of 10 minutes rather that the instant gate jump. Let all ships fly from star to star, let it take 10 minutes of travel with a 10 minute cooldown. Let there be a fixed grid for all gates and stars which is loaded in the travel time.
|
Mobius Fierce
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:47:00 -
[47]
Eve was never designed to have even fights. I have seen smaller fleets beat bigger ones, but generally speaking you want to have more numbers than the other guys.
They could change pvp from free form to some kind of magical anime like system where a fixed number of participants (perhaps 1 fleet vs 1 fleet) are "transported" to an arena to duke it out. But even this has problems (other than no one would want this system to begin with). The most harmful of which is with fixed fleet sizes newbies are marginalized. Right now, every ship counts and that's a good thing.
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:01:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Mobius Fierce
Eve was never designed to have even fights. I have seen smaller fleets beat bigger ones, but generally speaking you want to have more numbers than the other guys.
agreed
Originally by: Mobius Fierce
They could change pvp from free form to some kind of magical anime like system where a fixed number of participants (perhaps 1 fleet vs 1 fleet) are "transported" to an arena to duke it out. But even this has problems (other than no one would want this system to begin with). The most harmful of which is with fixed fleet sizes newbies are marginalized. Right now, every ship counts and that's a good thing.
actually, area type engagements would be kinda cool in empire for ppl to 1v1 or whatever. it's been suggested and i believe even gone through a healthy portion of the development stage by ccp but i'm not sure if anything ever has/will come of it
we all know numbers count. anything that would skew this fundamental would be very radical, non-eve-ish and definitely not adopted by ccp.
however, there are/were deterrents to placing all your eggs in the same basket and/or mechanics that could be adjusted to either require you (or just make good tactical sense) to place you troops in a number of different locations at the same time, working towards the same concerted goal while performing their own individual functions.
but yeah, magical anime or whatever you said
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
icecooljon
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 00:18:00 -
[49]
I've been reading through the thread so far and there are some interesting ideas (and some idea's which confuse me and I couldn't see them working). I would just like to mention that any changes made on fleet structures effects everyone for example; miners, missioners, high sec PVP, and of course 0.0/low sec massive gang PVP.
When discussing possible ways to combat lag people have to also think of the knock on effect which would maybe fix 0.0 lagfests but potentially ruin small gang high sec PVP. And yes, this is a valid part of the game, whether you 0.0 allaince battle guys want to admit it or not.
The idea suggested where, for example a squad of frigs can only attack other frigs would be ok I suppose in larger fights and would make alliances use ships of all classes, but would ruin small gang PVP since how is a small gang meant to accommodate for all encounters? Also for large fleet battles it would have to be split into capital/non-capital since if there was only one titan left remaining on the field, this particular method would allow them to float, totally secure around the wrecks of their dead teammates.
Anyway keep us the suggestions, if some of these suggestions were to be refined you guys could actually come up with some damn fine idea's!
|
Flitterby
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 13:57:00 -
[50]
Apologies in advance for wall of text. Sigh.
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
- Create independent sections/modules on the iHubs (think station services) so that a smaller fleet can forcefully affect system indices temporarily . Will be reinstated upon rebuilding so no time loss from index loss as "normal".
This would be great! An earlier poster said that defending these modules would simply lead to more blobbing, but no, the key here is that the effects of attacking these modules is TEMPORARY. For example, imagine that a 10-man HAC gang could "disable" a mining upgrade module in as little as 5-10 minutes. The system temporarily has its industrial index reduced by 1, and the HAC gang flies off. 24-48 hours later the module re-enables itself for free and everything returns to normal.
These subordinate modules could be indestructible while the iHub survives, and attacking them can only "disable" them, not destroy them. Modules would be randomly placed in the system when indexes are upgraded... either around celestials or maybe they'd have to be probed out.
---
Such a mechanic would give small gangs of attackers something to do, but what about small gangs of defenders? As it is now, defenders don't have anything to do except form blobs, because attackers normally stage out of low-sec, high-sec, or NPC 0.0.
1. Create a way for a small gang of defenders to hinder the attackers' operations in low-sec/high-sec/NPC 0.0. Perhaps some sort of espionage activity that results in temporary criminals flags for the targets with the appropriate NPC faction. There have got to be more possibilities as well.
2. Create a way for a small gang of defenders to temporarily defend a system against large numbers of attackers. Example: a deployable module with very few hitpoints that significantly boosts the damage and resists of every friendly ship in the system, with the boost dropping as the number of friendly ships increases. So, for example, if there is one friendly ship in the system it might get +500% damage and +95% resists. If there are 10 friendly ships in-system they might get +200% damage, +50% resists. If there are 20 friendlies, +50% damage, +10% resists. Etc. This module could be probed out by a covops and might have as few as 10k hitpoints.
---
The main reason that there are huge blobs is because there are very few things to DO in a war, and they all require blobs. POS/hub/station attacking/defending all require blobs!
CCP: please give us tasks to do that can have a significant effect on our opponents and that do not require blobs! I do agree that permanent changes (POS/hub/station destruction) make sense to be blobby, but temporary status changes should be able to be performed by small gangs.
People want to have options! But right now there is little for a small gang to DO.
|
|
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:06:00 -
[51]
Blobs are fine, there's nothing wrong with having strength in numbers. However, the lag that follows is not okay.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:31:00 -
[52]
Ok . . .
1.) CCP likes blobs, they have said so. Thus, no issue there because the gods of EVE like titans duking it out. End of discussion there.
2.) Additionally, lag was fine before the stupid freaking fleetfinder. Everyone knows that is the problem, prior to it, lag was at an all time low. Leave it to CCP to **** it up right after they finally fixed the lag issue. The fact that CCP has not rolled it back, or provided some kind of alternate fleet finder setting for blobs by now, borderlines on irresponsibility on their part. It is a simple fix that they have elected not to implement.
Nuff said. 
|
EhonVonnre
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:48:00 -
[53]
What about enforcing a queue/delay to travel through gates? I'm not saying make it especially long (a few seconds between each ship).
This would severely increase travel time for a large roaming blob, but shouldn't cause too much problem with a smaller gang. This could discourage them a little bit.
|
D'aluu
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 22:58:00 -
[54]
I kind of like the white noise idea over at Massively. Its two years old but looks sound.
http://www.massively.com/2008/05/26/eve-evolved-to-blob-or-not-to-blob/
|
Lupe Fiasco
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 16:30:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Qorthas
Edited by: Qorthas on 12/04/2010 11:19:46
Originally by: Rivur'Tam
blah blah blah, ****ed up grammer, ****ty spelling, blah blah.......
you cant seriously mean that you, with the way you write, is a titan pilot.....
Quoting for great glory.
____________
Kick, Push |
Oneiros IV
Stella Polaris.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:01:00 -
[56]
I always assumed EVE is more a warfare sim than knight's tournament in space. Can't remember any country bringing numbers in hope for equal chance to win.
(probably there was, but they didn't write history for sure)
But I do think that EVE combat should be made more sophisitcated, that won't sort blob issue but will make participating more demanding. Currently it's complexity in a BS fleet is on par with Hearts/Minesweeper. (so is eve PvE but that's another story)
I'd like to see it taking some mouseskills if that's an apropriate word.
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:11:00 -
[57]
Have LOS, friendly fire and real transversal calculation, and no lag and you would completely change EVE combat at all scales. With current lag levels adding first 3 things would be pointless as you couldn't control them. Further, first three would actually greatly increase lag if added.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:20:00 -
[58]
1. Remove sov ties from structures (yeah i know i said that earleir in this topic, 2 months ago or so). Not a clue how to do it, but the idea would be that you have sov if you actually use a system instead of when you anchor a module (you can do a combination of the two)
2. LOS as explained before
3. Make eve way, way larger. And then i am not really talking about systems, but more about travel time it takes. It should just be a really bad idea for an alliance to go fight more than one region away, since it leaves your own space defenseless. However right now you are back in 1 second (jump clone), 1 second (medical clone), 15 minutes (jbs, titan bridges, jump drives), 2 hour (normal gate travel) from the other side of the map.
|
Skh'th'ss
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 03:28:00 -
[59]
A simple alternative to sov being tied to structures could just be simple population counters.
If a corp/alliance has the most people in a system throughout some set period of time they gain sov, or strengthen their claim. If for some time period they do not their claim grows weaker.
|
The'Best Hellfury
Incura
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 06:53:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Hung Wang
Force nullsec nodes to shut down when more than 100 pilots enter the same system.
And then what happens when 1 side jumps 99 pilots into the system and starts attacking sov structures?
|
|
|
Derek Shmawesome
We Know Derek
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 07:27:00 -
[61]
"The blob" has always been an excuse. Nothing more. You don't need even numbers to have a good fight or a fair chance to "win". Being smart and using the proper tactic is more important.
Having an AoE DD is no solution to "blobbing". The reason is very simple. It's not the titan facing the blob. It's 2 blobs, both with titans, facing each others.
You can't make the DD so that it destroys everything. It has to have a limit. And if it does the opposing force will simply bring ships, that can take it. Titans with AoE DD didn't end the blob. They just enforced specific fits.
Not having AoE DDs is much better. Now HACs and battlecruisers are viable in fleet battles. There are a couple of entities using them. It's working pretty smooth. Fighting bigger numbers in it is very much fun and highly effective. Maybe try it instead of whining about blobs on a forum.
|
Raukho
Evoke.
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 07:37:00 -
[62]
Removing DD definatly was good thing for 0.0 combat. The blob is in the mindset of the players. If both blobs are the same size there can even be epic battles. The real problem is not the blob but the lag.
|
ghosttr
Amarr
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 09:44:00 -
[63]
I don't think blobbing is the real issue (ok well server lag sucks, but thats a different topic).
I think 0.0 fleet combat is just stale. Its all simple tank & spank. With both tank and spank primarily coming from numbers.
Tactics and fittings can have some effect, like with bombers. But at the end of the day it comes down to a tank, spank, and the numbers of players to provide each.
I dont think 'blobbing' necessarily needs to be curbed. But I think large-scale pvp should have a bit more to it.
Take ewar for example, ewar support can mean life or death in smaller situations. But it doesnt scale up well, making ewar (and not just caldari ewar ) effective at long range would help to change things up abit.
Or maybe bringing back aoe damage for missiles , caldari wouldnt be such **** at fleet combat even with the delayed damage.
If not any of that then something to change up fleet combat to something other than just tank & spank
Prospecting! |
Conmen
Shut Up And Play
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 17:30:00 -
[64]
I say blob it up and stop whining you dont want to deal with blob warfare don't and stop the whining so said to see all this crying pvp carebears of doom. That is Eve get over it is lag and blobs it takes two to tango so if you don't want to fight then don't go back to empire, low sec pvp but, stop whining about 0.0 until they magically fix the servers deal with it or go play star trek online this is so pathetic... worst thread of 2010, In 2003 we would have killed for the server to be as stable as it is right now so stop whining and people saying WHYZ THEY DOING PLANETS STUFFZ I WANT MORE LAZERZOR carebears make sure this game keeps going and anything that brings in more bears I am all for it.
Conzilla out
|
Yazzinra
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 17:53:00 -
[65]
not sure how well it would work, but makes weapons fire have a path to a target and hitting anything in that path might work. we can't fly thru eachother, but we can shoot thru eachother? seems odd to me.
side benefit, would lead to real tactical combat. flanking with fast units, sheltering carriers/logistics behind battleships/dreadnaughts so the enemy has to fight his way thru the heavies to get to the weaker units.
downside? i fly interceptors. i could see myself getting hit by friendly fire alot, at least till i learned to tackle and maintain range opposite where most of the friendly fire i s coming from.
a blob would probably kill more of its own units then it managed to shoot.
|
jullll
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 18:24:00 -
[66]
How to break the blobs? make a progressive payement to set blue standings. More blue you have, expensive it is.
No blobs anymore, more local fights, best for everyone \o/
|
Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 18:39:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Psiri
Blobs are fine, there's nothing wrong with having strength in numbers. However, the lag that follows is not okay.
Yes. Just fix lag. I like having the option of a lolUberGang vs. lolUberGang fight, and a small gang or even 1v1 in low-sec.
If some mechanic is implemented to "nerf the blob"...you nerf options. That's bad.
|
General Trajan
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 18:53:00 -
[68]
not sure how this idea would be recieved, but oh well! i haz lots of beer
what my idea is to simply confuse,disrupt and limit the use of powerblocks in general as i believe is a major factor in blob warfare. and to do this i would tie it into standings. yes this is something that's small and piecemeal but it would beget some confusion.
like this and stating with alliances:
1-to form an alliance there can only be a limited number of corps. all other corps and alliances outside of this can only be at default neutral color (no blue at all) can be red though 
2-only a certain number of alliances must form a powerbloc. all other corps, alliances and powerblocs outside of this can be set to nuetral only(no blue at all) can be red though
don't think it can work in of itself, but a part of a bigger picture to try and mitigate blobs. this could breed confusion and shrink those fleets with only blues as it would make it easier not to shoot each other.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Up2-NoGood
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 19:13:00 -
[69]
Well the killer lag has to be the focus for the Eve developers. Jumping into a laggy system and getting your ship insurance email an hour before the grid even loads is unacceptable.
Once lag is fixed, another idea would be to have every ship after x number of ships that jump to a gate start in the next system closer and closer to the gate, instead of what, 12km off? And they should have a much larger session timer too, to prevent them from jumping back right away. Bombs anyone?
|
Sol Lethe
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 19:25:00 -
[70]
The whole idea of an anti-blob weapon that only a blob can afford was flawed from the beginning. Stealth bomber is the perfect anti-blob weapon - cheap, paper thin, and carries big bombs.
|
|
|
SFX Bladerunner
Minmatar
Bite me inc.
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 09:52:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Stuart Price
There is a blob fix - more gates; particularly more 0.0 entry points.
The more routes through a region there are, the more points need defending.
Objection!
Your arguement works the exact opposite way:
people will still form one massive deathblob, sit it in one system and have scouts in entry systems.
As soon as the hostile blob has been located blob1 will ALL jump towards blob2, thusly jumping more nodes than before (when there were fewer entry points) and thus actually making MORE lag.
__________________________________________________
History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.. |
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 11:19:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Stuart Price
There is a blob fix - more gates; particularly more 0.0 entry points.
The more routes through a region there are, the more points need defending.
This means that opposing forces can no longer just build humongous deathblobs either side of one gate because at any time, one side can send forces through another direction to either set up flanking attacks or attack other systems.
It also benefits raiders and piratey types who will have greater mobility in nullsec. Defending forces would be forced to defend multiple routes and move in smaller groups instead of merely bubbling one or two entry systems and sticking monster fleets on them.
Gosh, it might actually bring some tactical and strategic thinking into higher level decisions and emphasize a bit more pilot (and particularly FC and scouting) skill on the field (both things I know most nullsec dwellers will disapprove of greatly).
/supported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Konno Yoshiho
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 07:40:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Konno Yoshiho on 10/06/2010 07:43:40
You people are a bunch of blithering idiots. "Blobs" are fleets. Large alliances have large fleets. Stop whining about the size of the "blob" that is owning you and GTFO of 0.0 if you don't like it. Null sec isn't for everybody.
The large fleet fight isn't going away ever. They're only going to get bigger and bigger and CCP just needs to suck it up and boost their capabilities.
As for the rest of you? Fixing the lag isn't going to make you any more friends. It isn't going to make you play any better, or fit your ships in a less ******ed manner, and you're still going to get bent over on the regular regardless.
On the subject of the old Doomsdays: They were a crutch for the talentless, and the unimaginative and they need to stay gone. If you want to decrease lag then start making SuperCaps more Vunerable. The most broken mechanic in this game is the ability to leave a fight simply by waiting long enough to log off without aggression. This is simple bull**** and needs to be rethought.
Why the hell am I posting on Eve-O? You are all addled scum.
|
Dirlewanger
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:17:00 -
[74]
To discuss blobs, you must understand the following:
1 - why blobs appear
2 - are they bad?
3 - how to change them?
Blobs appear because they are the most efficient fighting method available. This is a result of a series of game mechanics and players min-maxing and optimizing. Players will always min-max. Player behaviour is simply their interpretation of how best to achieve their goal with current mechanics.
Mechanics that help the blob:
- Basic mathematics that say that N x 1 repeated is much more efficient than N x N.
N can be everybody within range due to points a, b and c.
- Ability to use effectively even those with worse twitch reflexes and less experience. They just need a properly fit ship and the ability to target and fire (not linear)
- No line of sight and no terrain. This is truly it. Each person shoots with full efficiency at his target.
- Instant-damage weapons
- There is no waste of excessive firepower on a target until it pops.
- Screwy game mechanics that make you more certain to hit as range increases up to your optimal.
- Orbiting an immobile target lowers your own ability to hit (geometrical mistake here)
- Only factors affecting weapon effect are resists.
- Ships are either performing at 100% (not counting cap) or wrecks.
there is no partial victory. Almost knocking a player out has no meaning. No pop = no effect.
- Binary effect neuts, nosferatus, warp and web disruptors, bombs.
- No interference when firing through other players that happen to be in way. You fire at someone, not at an area where you expect someone to be.
- No area effect weapons (except bomb)
- No flank or back penalties or vulnerabilities.
- Easy to warp in or out and objects in way do NOT matter.
- Short warp distance in grid û 150k is enough
- Ability to see EVERYTHING uncloaked within grid
- Ability to know exact position of everything uncloaked without grid (no error)
- Sensor lock time not dependent on distance, just changes with target size.
- Sensor range is binary and independent on target size. I can target a frig or a titan at 49k and can target neither at 49.001k.
- Same size is used to calculate sensor locking and weapon effect, which is not a good thing.
choke points where battle occurs:
- gates
- objects of interest
- moon and planetary warpins (as fleets hop around trying to shoot each other)
Mechanics that hinder the blob:
a - bloody lag
b - lag and targetting bugs that make true concentration and volley firing harder as numbers increase
c - excessive concentration can reach a point where a lot of the damage is wasted because of delays in targetting and shifting target
d - lag. lag. lag.
In fact, the only limiting factors have to do with interface and lag and how players deal with it (cursing because it just won't lock, or is trying to lock someone who blew up 2 minutes ago). Otherwise fleet combat would be mathematical.
|
Dirlewanger
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:28:00 -
[75]
Are blobs bad?
I believe they are because of the following factors:
1 û they decrease options and variability.
2 û there is no issue of fleet maneuvering in an area, changing positions for advantage.
3 û battle becomes lottery û not being primaried.
4 û the importance and effects of small groups diminish.
5 û smaller ships become less important, as fast lock time x alpha x range = win.
So their negative effects come from basically lowering the game experience.
CCP seems to agree. The DD was the usual ham-fisted approach.
ôBlob is bad. Need big ship to blow it up.ö
Finally; how to diminish the blob?
Since the change to any game mechanic will make players adapt tactics, then the right set of mechanics must be changed.
Examples of mechanics that would change some of the balance:
Target acquisition and speed is dependent on target speed*distance ^2/ target size
(It staggers fire. Those farther away fire after those closer up.
Rewards being close and nasty.
Allows fleets to maneuver in front of one another and puts a premium on movement.)
Lowered precision of weapons with distance
Create losses of firepower as more is brought to bear on a target. Consider that the target is being bounced, spoiling the firing solution; or the debris creates targeting flaws or whatever. Each new ship adding fire to a target adds less to the group. The greater the target size the more can be brought against it, though.
This changes the basic Nx1 to Nxn û several subgroups firing to maximize total fleet dps. You still concentrate fire and a lot of it, just not ALL on ONE.
Others, more incendiary proposals:
Surprise shots from the ôbackö (opposite to your current target or whatever) hurt more or hit more or whatever. Makes maneuvering important, not just target switching.
Ship accumulation increases minimum warp range. You can still **** off, but canÆt warp to objects closer than 200 or 250 or 300k.
Ship accumulation on grid (say over 100, thatÆs a goodly fleet) increases warp time for everybody.
Whatever changes end up being made (allow me to doubt: most of the game mechanics that I indicate above have been around since I started playing), they should be made with care and in a way that they stack together.
Instead of forbidding blobs, make them be less rewarding in relative terms and make other options viable.
|
Kendon Riddick
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:33:00 -
[76]
when two large fleets want to fight 500 man a side, everyone the lag will be horrendous reinforced or not the node is, so why not just 'pause' the system and invite the FCs to a good old fashioned game of battle ships, each ship/size reflecting a ratio of their real fleet.
yeah thats what we want.
|
Djerin
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 15:58:00 -
[77]
It's not the "blob" that is bad. It's the players who can't deal with it. Of course it's annoying to fight under lag. But if you can't eat it stay away from massive fights.
I don't know what you whiny girls expect. There is stuff in Eve that is worth to fight for for big alliances/groups. That is part of the uniqueness of Eve, that you can have those battles. Obviously there are enough people to engage in massive fleet battles despite knowing there can be lag and utter disaster ( :ccp: ) so why remove that feature? Because of the people who don't want to do it? What kind of a lame reason is that? By that measure the Empire-carebears would have long removed nullsec.
Yeah I know, when we bring our supposed "40'000 pilot blob" or whatever (  ) you can't compete. Well, live is not fair. If you want to take our stuff you gotta live with it. And if you don't want our stuff, then just do something else. You gotta make your mind up.
PS: And when I say 'we' and 'our' I mean any serious space-claiming entity. Because there is no serious space-claiming entity amongst 'you'.
----
Sarmaul's crosstrainorgtfo |
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:17:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Konno Yoshiho
You people are a bunch of blithering idiots. "Blobs" are fleets. Large alliances have large fleets. Stop whining about the size of the "blob" that is owning you and GTFO of 0.0 if you don't like it.
look at this internet tough guy.
"blithering idiots" says the goon that can't think past the status quo
Originally by: Conmen
I say blob it up and stop whining you dont want to deal with blob warfare don't and stop the whining so said to see all this...
"blah blah blah troll troll troll i don't have an enter key"
Originally by: Derek Shmawesome
"The blob" has always been an excuse. Nothing more. Maybe try it instead of whining about blobs on a forum.
yes, we certainly couldn't be on the forums discussing anything intelligent. this is obviously nothing more than people making excuses and whining
gee, ur smart
wow, someone necro'd my old thread!
well. looks like some of you commenting most recently have a rather simplistic position.
but that's ok, it's not your fault. most people are rather simplistic when you drill down to it.
if you bothered to read the OP we acknowledge that blobing is natural and part of the game.
the question of dd removal is a cursory one and the purpose of the thread isn't so much "should they bring it back?" (as we know and can see most would say no) but more:
if the answer is NO, what more could we do to make large regional combat more interesting than cramming all your people into one system.
no one is suggesting large scale fights shouldn't exist but CCP has demonstrated with their last overhaul to 0.0 logistics that they are unable to think outside of their own box (to use a cliche)
tell me, what is the point of having huge regional fights where X alliances coordinate to bear down on an enemy if you end up having huge 'cram everyone into the system' unbearable orgies that end up deciding the battle.
can't we find a more interesting and tactical way to tip the scales?
what if to attack particular defensive structures you had to attack multiple ones across a region at the same time?
example: alliance A puts up 4 SCU's across Wicked Creek and they pay a huge cost to network these SCU's together. (networking 2 together should bear some type of cost, 3 even more, 4 significantly, 5 astronomically more than 4 etc etc etc)
now alliance B comes to kick their heads in. (YAY!) they hop into a system while the cat is away but find the structure to be invulnerable because it is networked? (wah?)
they instead have to attack (and bring down) 3/4 networked SCUs nearly simultaneously or they remain/revert to invulnerable. (or half the SCUs, or whatever %age is decided needs to be attacked)
interesting no?
Just an idea, other people seem to have their own.
The DD was a simpltons solution to a real problem.
It was somewhat effective.
It was also stupid and ruining good pvp
ve is such a dynamic and complicated game yet the epic fights we want for regional combat are nothing more than large scale gate fights.
WE CAN DO BETTER,
that isn't a whine or an excuse, it's a fact.
Expect more out of CCP,
don't cry because people want change.
Originally by: ghosttr
I think 0.0 fleet combat is just stale. Its all simple tank & spank. With both tank and spank primarily coming from numbers.
Tactics and fittings can have some effect, like with bombers. But at the end of the day it comes down to a tank, spank, and the numbers of players to provide each.
bingo.
see, this is how you use your brain
Originally by: Indeterminacy
Yes. Just fix lag. I like having the option of a lolUberGang vs. lolUberGang fight, and a small gang or even 1v1 in low-sec.
If some mechanic is implemented to "nerf the blob"...you nerf options. That's bad.
The option to have a large fight is already given and will remain.
We want more options not less, like you. The status quo is nerfing options by it's nature.
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:29:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 10/06/2010 17:33:10
Originally by: Djerin
It's not the "blob" that is bad. It's the players who can't deal with it. Of course it's annoying to fight under lag. But if you can't eat it stay away from massive fights.
I don't know what you whiny girls expect. There is stuff in Eve that is worth to fight for for big alliances/groups. That is part of the uniqueness of Eve, that you can have those battles. Obviously there are enough people to engage in massive fleet battles despite knowing there can be lag and utter disaster ( :ccp: ) so why remove that feature? Because of the people who don't want to do it? What kind of a lame reason is that? By that measure the Empire-carebears would have long removed nullsec.
Yeah I know, when we bring our supposed "40'000 pilot blob" or whatever ( ) you can't compete. Well, live is not fair. If you want to take our stuff you gotta live with it. And if you don't want our stuff, then just do something else. You gotta make your mind up.
PS: And when I say 'we' and 'our' I mean any serious space-claiming entity. Because there is no serious space-claiming entity amongst 'you'.
you could also say
It's not suggesting change that is bad. It's the players who can't deal with it. Of course thinking and adapting to change is hard. But if you can't use your brain stay away from Eve.
I don't know what you whiny girls expect. There are aspects to eve that are worth exploring past superficial cramming a system full of pilots. That is part of the uniqueness of Eve. You can still have those huge battles. Obviously there are enough people to egage in massive fleet battles AND have to attack regions tactically. There will still be opportunity for lag and utter disaster, so why limit yourself? Because you can't handle change? Or thinking? What kind of lame reason is that? By that measure we would still be playing 0.0 2004.
Yeah I know, when you have a 40,000 pilot blob you have trouble using it with any measure of intelligence. Well, 0.0 should be hard, you should be superior both numerically and tactically. LIFE is not fair. If you want to take someones stuff you gotta work for it. If you don't then do something else. Make up your mind.
PS: I when I say 'trouble using your brain' and Eve isn't for stupid people I mean you. I held space in eve alongside the founders of your alliance probably before you even started the game.
MM is a good alliance, how did a scrub like you get in their ranks? Look at how proud you are of your numbers. Good for you, you joined a big team. You and most everyone else in the NC and SC. Is that an accomplishment in your brain?
And are you suggesting YOU are a serious space-claiming entity? I know your alliance is, but don't try to apply the successes of your team to you individually.
You obviously aren't very smart and to try and accept that stigma as your own is an insult to your teammates.
PPS: if you think I had any stake in the most recent northern war, i'm insinuating anything about the NC or SC or that it has ANY bearing on the discussion besides serving as example j, one more in a long line, you really are dumber than you sound.
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
Cosmic Rainbow
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:41:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Cosmic Rainbow on 10/06/2010 17:44:54
Edited by: Cosmic Rainbow on 10/06/2010 17:42:58
Originally by: Dirlewanger
Are blobs bad?
I believe they are because of the following factors:
1 û they decrease options and variability.
2 û there is no issue of fleet maneuvering in an area, changing positions for advantage.
3 û battle becomes lottery û not being primaried.
4 û the importance and effects of small groups diminish.
5 û smaller ships become less important, as fast lock time x alpha x range = win.
So their negative effects come from basically lowering the game experience.
CCP seems to agree. The DD was the usual ham-fisted approach.
ôBlob is bad. Need big ship to blow it up.ö
Finally; how to diminish the blob?
Since the change to any game mechanic will make players adapt tactics, then the right set of mechanics must be changed.
Examples of mechanics that would change some of the balance:
Target acquisition and speed is dependent on target speed*distance ^2/ target size
(It staggers fire. Those farther away fire after those closer up.
Rewards being close and nasty.
Allows fleets to maneuver in front of one another and puts a premium on movement.)
Lowered precision of weapons with distance
Create losses of firepower as more is brought to bear on a target. Consider that the target is being bounced, spoiling the firing solution; or the debris creates targeting flaws or whatever. Each new ship adding fire to a target adds less to the group. The greater the target size the more can be brought against it, though.
This changes the basic Nx1 to Nxn û several subgroups firing to maximize total fleet dps. You still concentrate fire and a lot of it, just not ALL on ONE.
Others, more incendiary proposals:
Surprise shots from the ôbackö (opposite to your current target or whatever) hurt more or hit more or whatever. Makes maneuvering important, not just target switching.
Ship accumulation increases minimum warp range. You can still **** off, but canÆt warp to objects closer than 200 or 250 or 300k.
Ship accumulation on grid (say over 100, thatÆs a goodly fleet) increases warp time for everybody.
Whatever changes end up being made (allow me to doubt: most of the game mechanics that I indicate above have been around since I started playing), they should be made with care and in a way that they stack together.
Instead of forbidding blobs, make them be less rewarding in relative terms and make other options viable.
Nice posts. Analysis + constructive suggestions (for you cynical folks - no sarcasm is intended here - just props)
My only concern is whether CCP has the server horsepower to do additional calculations for large fleet fights.
For example - the suggestion was made to introduce some elements regarding direct line of fire - in other words at the moment when a ship fires it always hits its target regardless of anything that may be in the way. Introducing the concept of the server needing to calculate the trajectory of the weapon and then determining the relative position of ships on the grid, comparing the two, rendering a verdict, and applying damage to the correct target. This would take some significant extra calculations potentially adding to the lag problems?
Some of this could be on the client side, but due to de-synch issues and/or lag problems with individual clients, it might result in a cluster f*ck if done solely on the client side. Would probably need to be a combination of both, and hence that brings me to the question of - can the servers handle more calculations?
But I agree, something needs to be done, and the suggestions you've made Dirlewanger are good.
Edits: for spelling and clarifications
|
|
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:59:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Nice posts.
My only concern is whether CCP has the server horsepower to do additional calculations for large fleet fights.
yes, i too liked that post and they are some interesting ideas, however the calculations required in making that a reality in game are not realistic server side.
as for the lowering warp speed for big groups.
fleet mechanics limiting/rewarding based off of fleet composition/position similar to how gang bonuses work... this is not the first time something like this has been suggested.
I think the only limiting factor there is implementing it in a way that it would be very difficult to abuse (usually this would be more concern for past ideas giving bonuses to smaller groups than Dirlewanger's idea of warp speed penalties for larger) so, definitely doable, a good idea and one you could implement for all sorts of pros/cons
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
SirRalph
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 18:13:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
whine whine whine
COULD YOU CRYBABY GET MORE GUYS IN YOUR FLEET?
|
Djerin
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 18:14:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
you could also say
It's not suggesting change that is bad. It's the players who can't deal with it. Of course thinking and adapting to change is hard. But if you can't use your brain stay away from Eve.
Yes I could say this. Would apply to you equally well.
I don't know how stupid you must be to suggest the reintroduction of an area of effect DD. And then you try to somehow craft your argument into saying it was us who couldn't adapt? We fought these battles before there were doomsdays. We fought while there were doomsdays and we are still fighting them. And we are successful, because we adapted our playstyle.
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
I held space in eve alongside the founders of your alliance probably before you even started the game.
Now who is claiming his team's success as his own? Nice irony, kiddo.
By the way, either you are unable to read or you're talking about some alt char of yours, which is another brilliant irony. :facepalm:
----
Sarmaul's crosstrainorgtfo |
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 18:28:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Djerin
Yes I could say this. Would apply to you equally well.
I don't know how stupid you must be to suggest the reintroduction of an area of effect DD. And then you try to somehow craft your argument into saying it was us who couldn't adapt? We fought these battles before there were doomsdays. We fought while there were doomsdays and we are still fighting them. And we are successful, because we adapted our playstyle.
Now who is claiming his team's success as his own? Nice irony, kiddo.
By the way, either you are unable to read or you're talking about some alt char of yours, which is another brilliant irony. :facepalm:
-how exactly would that apply to me?
-show me where i suggest bringing DD back (seriously did you read anything in this thread before you /TROLL ON!
-Your argument was clearly one of 'we have numbers you cant beat' (whoever 'you' is supposed to be...) and you clearly state this in a manner that supports the status quo over any possible future changes to mechanics.
-where did I mention MM couldn't adapt?
-where did I try to take credit for ANYones successes? Just giving you an idea how long i've been at this
-holy cow... PEOPLE USE ALTS ON THE FORUMS EVERYBODY! /PANIC.
god your terrible at this
"A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox, and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game." |
Dirlewanger
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 12:21:00 -
[85]
Too much to hope these posts don't turn into flamefests.
"Get a bigger fleet" - that is ALWAYS the solution. God favors the side with the most batallions. This is not wrong, this is just the way this is meant to be! I am certainly not complaining about that.
What we are discussing is a battle mechanic, actually, and nothing more. 700 against 400 battles are good, and the 400 should still get it in the neck. IÆd love to see even bigger ones with the servers NOT going berserk.
I also enjoy very much the awesome bombardment of a pos. When the order comes and the lights start flashing, it is beautiful.
What I do not like is point fighting, and that is what the blob is.
Jump to 1 point
Target primary, secondary, shoot shoot
Repeat
Jump to planet x
Jump to moon x
Target primaryà
Etc.
The list of issues which IÆve mentioned that are factors in the ôblob needö. Not all of them can be addressed.
Line of sight is a problem, certainly.
But I consider the fact that sensors target at same speed regardless of distance (this is ALSO a geometrical error) an even bigger obstacle. It is also bad that they also have the same range regardless of the size of the target.
(note: this would permit the creation of quasi-stealth modules, where the player is not invisible but very hard to lock. As he gets closer, his protection diminishes)
The fact that a gun hits best at extreme range up to optimal is also a bad thing.
If these factors were changed, fire concentration would still happen as more ships fired, but different ship positioning, different gun range and different sensor locking times would stagger the fire. Bigger fleets would still have more firepower, of course. But ranged fights would be different, and there would be space for maneuvering.
But of course, maybe the biggest issues are:
- point movement
- zero battle prepping.
- no approximation
- no crescendo, just decreasing intensity as people snuff out.
This makes battles repetitive and less enjoyable.
In short, people jump to points and back out. They arrive within range so its just lock and shoot. Movement in fleet is basically that needed to remain aligned, and often inconvenient.
The image is not that of ships in the sea, but anti-tank guns in a plain all pointing at the same spot.
To better explain, consider:
Deadspace area 350k-500k in RADIUS. No warp-in, just warp-out. MWD works, though. No extra server load, the mechanism already exists for missions.
1 û attack and defense.
Defender is inside, waiting. Lets say its the sov anchorable, or a hauler filled with really good beer. Whatever.
This is not an easy situation for either side. Once committed, reinforcements can NOT warp in instantly. The attacker must actually move physically towards target. The wounded or almost-dead can flee, but canÆt get back in the fight fast. At extreme range, remote repping will be able to keep people on the fight, but the control of the fleet movement becomes important.
In this situation, one can picture a fleet of fast hacs appearing in the rear, charging after the attacking fleet and their rearmost logistics. Or a bunch of hard, tanked close range brawlers charging in ahead. Or a cloud of interceptors actually intercepting ships, dogfighting and not just tackling.
And surely fleet commanders will think of entirely new things.
As a result, the battle becomes more interesting. There is maneuvering, there is a start and a crescendo in firepower as the opposing fleets jockey for position. Possibly secondary battles to intercept reinforcements.
Is this the solution? One of them, maybe. A possibility. But this is not my ôproposal to save eveö. It is a thought-experiment to illustrate a situation.
|
Teya Ihara
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 21:38:00 -
[86]
This is a complex topic, I've seen and been a part of giant fleets, not nearly as many as you vets, but a few. They exist because it is currently whats needed to attack, and subsequently defend Sov space. In the end, most of the fights boil down to simple numbers. One side has enough to attack, or to defend, or to successfully discourage an engagement (due to lag or overwhelming force, whichever). This is the way alliances operate, and is how the game mechanics reward large fleet behavior.
None of this is necessarily bad, IMO. I like the idea of very large scale engagements. My main issue, is large fleet combat is relatively boring at least to me. The fleets form, the targets are generally known, the numbers per side are able to be guessed at. The sub-caps engage at the target system(maybe KO-ing a cyno jammer), one commander makes the call to bring in caps, numbers and strategy win out eventually, experienced pilots help of course.
I simply wish there were more objectives that were less... boring to attack. Multiple objectives to encourage the fleets to form smaller strike forces and attack multiple targets. Make sov battles a little more fluid. I've not had a more boring time in eve than systematically knocking down towers in the same system in a sov battle.
I just think with a little creativity, they could come up with something where numbers still matter, but large engagements are spread between multiple systems in the region. Something resembling a very refined FW type system, with other aspects added in maybe? What if off-lining jammers required a simultaneous combination of attack, and control bunker type control over a section of the region? Im sure there's something better, but its a start anyway. Honestly though, Im not headed back to 0.0 anytime in the real near future, so it's not going to affect me a ton no matter what happens. I just hope when I do head back, it will be a little more exciting.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |