EVE Search - Alliance FCs: What would motivate you to break up your BLOB?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Alliance FCs: What would motivate you to break up your BLOB?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Abrazzar	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:31:00 - [1] Considering my lack of experience on 0.0 alliance warfare and the amount of really bad ideas on how to artificially break up the BLOBs, I was wondering what the point of view of the Alliance FCs was on the matter. So I am asking you, what tactical considerations or circumstances would motivate you to break up your BLOB into smaller blobs or even simple fleets? I am thinking about sov game mechanics that could be added to what we have and not artificial combat game design like dps or targeting time stacking. I often hear 'this motivates blobbing' and 'that motivates blobbing' so how would things need to be so that blobbing would be limiting in efficiency on alliance warfare instead of a necessity to even have a chance of coming out somewhere on the top of a conflict? Unless we can magically create infinite server resources, we will be stuck with lag one way or another. Creating game mechanic methods to allow people to avoid lag situations and making it the more reasonable decision instead of drowning nodes with players would be prudent. I make this thread as a collection for ideas and opinions on how this could be achieved as all I have read so far about it is blargh, rabble and whine. Ok, I don't expect much of a difference with this thread, but one can try. -------- All I want is a better mankind.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:33:00 - [2] My corp runs around in solo or small gangs and get a lot more kills than the more clumsy blobs.
Omal Oma Shadowed Command Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:37:00 - [3] Edited by: Omal Oma on 17/06/2010 12:40:40 I was talking this over with a friend.... The conclusion we came up with was... EVE is just too small. There's not enough resources (space) to fight over for the size of the alliances these days. IMO, double the amount of null regions in space and make traveling to regions more difficult by spreading them out. Super 1000+ blobs would thin out. If there was more space to fight over, alliances would thin out. Not necessarily in numbers... but... "CTA: 40 jumps away" just wouldn't happen as often. EDIT: Also, make regions conquerable by coalitions (WTB Treaties). This would spread people across a couple systems and may help with distributing load across a couple nodes. ________________________________________________ <--- My in-game me.
Ocih Amarr The Program Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:41:00 - [4] EvE is too small. The either need to expand or consider consenting instances for big battles. I know its anti EvE to instance but most games do it for a reason.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:48:00 - [5] I'm not an alliance FC at all and would like one to post here. But I can make some mathematical considerations. First: Real life wars happens on a very large frontline instead of a single spot. If we can isolate the element that make real life armies to behave so differently from eve fleets we can implement it into the game and spread fights on many nodes. Through some reasoning I came to this conclusion: Consider the ratio Time to kill an undefended strategical objective (order of magnitude) over Time to move between two strategical objectives (order of magnitude) This ratio is very big (greater than 1) in EVE, you can move your stuff almost instantly between objectives (except sieged capitals), so you can make a single big blob and go around trying to kill the enemy blob before he kills your structures (you have much time). In real life wars, the ratio is very little (way less than 1), and forces must be placed carefully, and every objective must have a defending/attacking force assigned to it.
Musical Fist Gallente The Unknown Bar and Pub	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:50:00 - [6] Sov warfare = blobbing Every other kind of warfare = Takes advantage of blobbing but rarely exercised as everyone wants to be part of some nap train. If you are part of NC / SC you are a joke anyway you can spin **** anyway you want but you are doing the exact same crap the enemy are doing, only difference is one of you guys are south and the other is north (assuming ofc theres only one puppet master on each side) Sov alliances are split into 3 categories The blobbers (NC, IT, Atlas, Solar, Goons Mk III, AAA ROL etc) The pets (Small dots on the sov map usually near a big alliance, these alliance are ONLY there as a meat shield and are really bad PvPers) The rejects (Some space is so bad it is an insult to go for it, take providence / drone regions for example) However saying all this really it isnt hard to get sov if anything the past several years events have proven this, when you have the worst collection of players manage to beat the most skilled collection of players (Goons vs Bob) you kindda think and after a while 0.0 isnt that hard to work with. Management + Economy + Time are all thats needed sadly most alliances almost always fold because of this (demoralising comes under management). I look forward to the day another major alliance crumbles and can only hope it is replaced by smaller alliances. As for empire dwellers you are the biggest joke of this game tldr - 0.0 is easy, blobbers are useless, nc sc both suck, empire makes me facepalm -- Emo TraderJohn's Number 1 Fan!!
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:53:00 - [7] Originally by: baltec1 My corp runs around in solo or small gangs and get a lot more kills than the more clumsy blobs. I hear kill ratio is what matters when invading sov. Killing those careless ratters sure does turn the tide of a war.
Jekyl Eraser	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:54:00 - [8] In real life there is this thing called frontline that you have to hold to not let anyone past and damage your weak spots or hit from behind. In EVE once you're in the system you can warp and move freely and the 'weak' spots aka POSes and SBU:s arent weak atall.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:59:00 - [9] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: baltec1 My corp runs around in solo or small gangs and get a lot more kills than the more clumsy blobs. I hear kill ratio is what matters when invading sov. Killing those careless ratters sure does turn the tide of a war. Ratter, pvp setup, blob whatever, cyno frig, whatever. So long as its fun I'm happy.
HenkieBoy Best Path Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.06.17 12:59:00 - [10] Problem with EVE is you need to bring alot of people to shoot down a high-end moon, take sov or bring down supercapitals/titans. Why? Because the people owning them don't like to loose them... The only way to counter blobs is to remove sov and high value items/places from the game. But then what? Whats left in EVE? What makes EVE different from any other MMO is the risk of loosing stuff.. And with those losses the emotions that result from them.. That makes EVE.. Basicly the blobs are a result what makes EVE EVE and not WoW..
Jenny Cameron Caldari Ordo Eventus	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:04:00 - [11] Originally by: Ocih The either need to expand or consider consenting instances for big battles. I know its anti EvE to instance but most games do it for a reason. How is EVE anti-instance, isn't every system instanced? If not - it has all the signs of it.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:04:00 - [12] Edited by: Camios on 17/06/2010 13:07:58 Originally by: Jekyl Eraser In real life there is this thing called frontline that you have to hold to not let anyone past and damage your weak spots or hit from behind. In EVE once you're in the system you can warp and move freely and the 'weak' spots aka POSes and SBU:s arent weak atall. In real life you have to save your frontline or you die. The trenches and bunkers don't defend themselves and are pretty weak, so you have to be there to defend them. In EVE you have enough time to warp to any of your structures in the battlefield if the enemy is attacking it. So, increase the size of the battlefield and/or reduce the warp velocity and EVE fleets will have to split between different objectives and protect each one of them simultaneously.
iP0D	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:07:00 - [13] Edited by: iP0D on 17/06/2010 13:14:02 EVE has grown smaller, but it isn't too small. The "blob" is a natural result of classic human behaviour (seeking shelter and dominance in numbers alike), EVE itself promoting organisations to build on top of this (prolonging combat, complexity, path of least resistance) and the classic race between the bullet and the armour in terms of players vs technology (an evolution out of sync by default). In EVE, we're more or less hitting the point where the absence of limits or internalised (gamedesign) guidelines provide no buffer with which to counter the beforementioned factors when they go into excess. It's the difference at these current levels between trying to promote something, and actively discouraging something. We're at a point, where decent amounts of both is needed.
Ocih Amarr The Program Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:09:00 - [14] Originally by: Musical Fist Sov warfare = blobbing Every other kind of warfare = Takes advantage of blobbing but rarely exercised as everyone wants to be part of some nap train. If you are part of NC / SC you are a joke anyway you can spin **** anyway you want but you are doing the exact same crap the enemy are doing, only difference is one of you guys are south and the other is north (assuming ofc theres only one puppet master on each side) Sov alliances are split into 3 categories The blobbers (NC, IT, Atlas, Solar, Goons Mk III, AAA ROL etc) The pets (Small dots on the sov map usually near a big alliance, these alliance are ONLY there as a meat shield and are really bad PvPers) The rejects (Some space is so bad it is an insult to go for it, take providence / drone regions for example) However saying all this really it isnt hard to get sov if anything the past several years events have proven this, when you have the worst collection of players manage to beat the most skilled collection of players (Goons vs Bob) you kindda think and after a while 0.0 isnt that hard to work with. Management + Economy + Time are all thats needed sadly most alliances almost always fold because of this (demoralising comes under management). I look forward to the day another major alliance crumbles and can only hope it is replaced by smaller alliances. As for empire dwellers you are the biggest joke of this game tldr - 0.0 is easy, blobbers are useless, nc sc both suck, empire makes me facepalm There is alot of truth to this. It comes down to two aspects. EvE is a PvP game so nobody wants to play politician and its needed for the massive Sov blocks. Its easy to actually claim sov and keep it. The problem is, once you have it there isn't much to do. Go back to doing what you left Hi sec for? Ratting and plexing? - translation - Missions. For most people, you get Sov or get in an alliance that has it. Then you sit in an outpost hoping to god someone comes in so you can 'defend' it. Grinding PvE is what you did for 3 years before you went to 0.0 sec or what you did for the first three years you were in 0.0 sec. You dont need to do it and again, its boring. ISK? Doesnt factor in. Its boring. Alternative? You go to someone elses space and annoy them. Not because you want thier space. You just want the PvP. Its why I think Instances would work fine in EvE. Usually blob battles arent about stealing space. Its about stirring up PvP. I dont think the massive political powers would object to neutral ground battles. We would still get regional skirmish and PvP kills but the massive blobs and 'epic battles' would still be a part of EvE and would be manageable.
Emanuelle Jasmine Caldari	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:21:00 - [15] Originally by: Jenny Cameron Originally by: Ocih The either need to expand or consider consenting instances for big battles. I know its anti EvE to instance but most games do it for a reason. How is EVE anti-instance, isn't every system instanced? If not - it has all the signs of it. instanced in the way he means it is that there is for example 10 jitas and when the first one gets 1000 local you go into the 2nd one. or when you enter a plex you are changed to your own "node" with only the plex npcs and your fleet in it and noone else can interfere. this is the kind of instancing that is baaaaad in other MMOs and doesnt happen in eve.
Jekyl Eraser	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:27:00 - [16] Originally by: Camios In EVE you have enough time to warp to any of your structures in the battlefield if the enemy is attacking it. So, increase the size of the battlefield and/or reduce the warp velocity and EVE fleets will have to split between different objectives and protect each one of them simultaneously. Not sure if the warp speed solves anything unless you slow it to a degree that allows the structure to be destroyed before defender arrives from 3 jumps away(something like 130AU trip). In my opinion sov stuctures just need to die alot faster... say SBU would die in 2minutes with 5 Dreads(30mins with 30 BS) 5 minute invulnerability and then again 2 minute Dread bashing. With more firepower you'd better divide the force to multiple structures (5 dreads kills one in 9mins, 10 dreads in 7mins because of the minor invulnerability). Tthe structures should be more vulnerable to dreads and stronger vs BS and there should be more SBU:s. Ofcourse the shields should be able to be repped back up in those 5mins if defenders arrive.
Spaceman Jack	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:31:00 - [17] Edited by: Spaceman Jack on 17/06/2010 13:35:56 Originally by: Ocih EvE is too small. The either need to expand or consider consenting instances for big battles. I know its anti EvE to instance but most games do it for a reason. Its not too small at all. Ive been roaming around 0.0 region to region just traveling for the past few weeks and I can tell you that I have gone 30+ jumps in Fountain and other major alliance grounds without seeing more than 10 people at a time. And this is when we have a PCU load of 40K+ Blobs are not the result of the eve universe being small. Blobs are the result of HUMAN FC making the CONSCIOUS descision to move out with huge blobs without breaking them up. The server and space/time does not - and should not be making FC descisions like that. FCs should know when a particular group is going to cause potential lage issues and then split the blob in to real and functional (smaller) fleets/wings operating on different grids. The fact is that you dont need a 100 ship gang to do serious damage and get good kills. You can do that with less than 20. Blobls will happen in the natural order of things when trying to defennd a space of a fixed poition - that will alqya happen. But for the most part it CAN be managed by FCs.
Wacktopia Dark Side Of The Womb Focused Intentions	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:35:00 - [18] Edited by: Wacktopia on 17/06/2010 13:36:15 Originally by: Ocih EvE is too small. The either need to expand or consider consenting instances for big battles. I know its anti EvE to instance but most games do it for a reason. Please don't suggest instancing. It is a really lame way to scale an MMO. Eve is already effectively 'instanced' from a hardware point of view - creating different universes/realms/instances from a login perspective is not necessary. More systems? Yeah why not. You see, the 'blob' is not caused at the moment by lack of space. It is caused by "oh look they have 100 pilots therefore we should bring 200 .... oh look they have 200 pilots therefore we should bring 400...."
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:37:00 - [19] Originally by: Jekyl Eraser Originally by: Camios In EVE you have enough time to warp to any of your structures in the battlefield if the enemy is attacking it. So, increase the size of the battlefield and/or reduce the warp velocity and EVE fleets will have to split between different objectives and protect each one of them simultaneously. Not sure if the warp speed solves anything unless you slow it to a degree that allows the structure to be destroyed before defender arrives from 3 jumps away(something like 130AU trip). In my opinion sov stuctures just need to die alot faster... say SBU would die in 2minutes with 5 Dreads(30mins with 30 BS) 5 minute invulnerability and then again 2 minute Dread bashing. With more firepower you'd better divide the force to multiple structures (5 dreads kills one in 9mins, 10 dreads in 7mins because of the minor invulnerability). Tthe structures should be more vulnerable to dreads and stronger vs BS and there should be more SBU:s. Ofcourse the shields should be able to be repped back up in those 5mins if defenders arrive. Yes, I mean, solving a problem tweaking on 2 parameters is easier and can be done better than if you have a single parameter. So, I am for a reduction of structure hps, reduction of warp velocity, and of course a-number-of-solarsystem-wide battlefields.
Ocih Amarr The Program Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:42:00 - [20] Edited by: Ocih on 17/06/2010 13:46:45 Originally by: Emanuelle Jasmine Originally by: Jenny Cameron Originally by: Ocih The either need to expand or consider consenting instances for big battles. I know its anti EvE to instance but most games do it for a reason. How is EVE anti-instance, isn't every system instanced? If not - it has all the signs of it. instanced in the way he means it is that there is for example 10 jitas and when the first one gets 1000 local you go into the 2nd one. or when you enter a plex you are changed to your own "node" with only the plex npcs and your fleet in it and noone else can interfere. this is the kind of instancing that is baaaaad in other MMOs and doesnt happen in eve. These are typical examples but it is very possible to create war zone instances both situational and static. For the blobs it would be situational. NC vs SC have an instanced epic battle as example with some sort of terms of war. It could include anything from deposited assets to Sov loss. All the current mechanics can still be used to work EvE but Instanced cases would have obvious advantages. I'm just looking at it purely from a game perspective. I'm 8 jumps from an epic battle, I'm getting a notice of an instanced one. The end results can be the same. A battle. To me in the game they arent any different. Its even realistic. Canada and the US never saw invasion in WW2. They certainly fought in it though. Ground 0 doesnt need to be your backyard, even if it costs you that back yard. I just think it will fill a requirement in EvE to have these massive battles and not damage the map we know as EvE. Add On: I would also prefer more systems as someone pointed out but more systems will need to be added with the very clear point that they are no different than the ones there now and they would need to be added at some point that didnt require us to shuttle through current Sov or it all falls apart.
Savatar Mei	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:45:00 - [21] Blobs exist cos u cant bring 'too many' ships. change that. e.g. make bombs do moar dmg the moar ships in the detonation area. make friendly fire possible. make line of sight count.
Aerilis Gallente Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Camios Edited by: Camios on 17/06/2010 12:53:46 Edited by: Camios on 17/06/2010 12:48:47 I'm not an alliance FC at all and would like one to post here. But I can make some mathematical considerations. First: Real life wars happens on a very large frontline instead of a single spot. If we can isolate the element that make real life armies to behave so differently from eve fleets we can implement it into the game and spread fights on many nodes. Through some reasoning I came to this conclusion: Consider the ratio Time to kill an undefended strategical objective (order of magnitude) over Time to move between two strategical objectives (order of magnitude) This ratio is very big (greater than 1) in EVE, you can move your stuff almost instantly between objectives (except sieged capitals), so you can make a single big blob and go around trying to kill the enemy blob before he kills your structures (you have much time). In real life wars, the ratio is very little (way less than 1), and forces must be placed carefully, and every objective must have a defending/attacking force assigned to it, because the enemy would do short work of an undefended objective. Since we want capital ships to have a purpose, structures should have a fair amount of hps. So, the only thing we can do in my opinion is to increase the size of the battlefield to many systems and maybe reduce warp speed during fleet fights in contested systems. You might be on to something. What if capital ships took a LONG ASS time to deploy? You would have to spread them out to cover all objectives (offensive and defensive) instead of rolling through them all katamari style.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:49:00 - [23] We have had already many of these topics, let me summarize what is needed:" 1. 10x100 men fleet should be better than 1x1000 men fleet, unlike current situation 1b. For example introduce LOS fire, would most likely kill the server though 2. Eve is WAAAYYYYY too small. Now i dont need to read posts claiming 90% of 0.0 is empty so there is enough space, the first part is true, second part is also true, but that doesnt mean eve isnt too small. The problem isnt amount of systems, but how easy it is to travel. Lets for a second take two completely imaginary groups, one we call IT, the other one we call NC, purely random. Now IT wants to attack the NC, so they form voltron, euh i mean massive blob. NC counters with their massive blob. The problem now is, those massive blobs are formed by combining forces from all over the map. Lets do an RL analogy, since they are always required for internet spaceships. Lets say the USA invades mexico, if that would happen IRL immediatly obviously Canada would 'liberate' northern half of the USA. So back to our internet spaceships, IT is busy fighting at the other side of the map, so this leaves their home regions pretty much defenseless to any attack, right? No not right, because eve is too small. The IT fleet requires: 1 sec to med clone back 1 sec to jump clone back 15-20 minutes or so to jump/bridge back 2-3 hours to move back conventional way. First the clones, maybe make JC timer depend on how far you jumped, so still usable to switch implants and get in a hurry to other space, but when you jump 10 regions you cant use it for a week. Med clone timer could be fixed by players by disabling cloning facilities (most people dont like waking up in bubbled station with 800k SP clone). Jumping and jump bridges is easy to fix, increase distance between constellations, massively increase distance between regions. Just watch out you dont make capital chokepoints, we already got enough chokepoints. Dunno really a way to make conventional way longer, also dunno if it is needed. And god kills a kitten when someone suggest removing WTZ. S
An Anarchyyt Gallente GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.06.17 15:01:00 - [24] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 17/06/2010 15:02:20 Their simply is no reason why you would ever want less people than you could have at any given moment. A lot of the ****ed ideas in this thread are also not going to cause that to suddenly become false. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Abrazzar	Posted - 2010.06.17 15:03:00 - [25] Originally by: An Anarchyyt Their simply is no reason why you would ever want less people than you could have at any given moment. Because the same people are needed at another place at the very same moment so they can't be all at the same place at the same time? I see in this thread a lot of stating the obvious and only few solutions. -------- All I want is a better mankind.
An Anarchyyt Gallente GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.06.17 15:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: An Anarchyyt Their simply is no reason why you would ever want less people than you could have at any given moment. Because the same people are needed at another place at the very same moment so they can't be all at the same place at the same time? I see in this thread a lot of stating the obvious and only few solutions. Because none of those are solutions, they are mostly from people who have little to no idea how 0.0 works, or are using ****ed RL analogies to prove their point (which of course doesn't even make sense as the Soviets seemed to prove that just throwing a billion people at something until they get through works). But in the past and certainly still multiple systems have been hit at once. Now, since there are very few situations where you can take a system immediately, as it should be, why would you want to split your fleet and make each fleet weaker when you can for sure defend one position? This is also implying that all fights are always in the same system with two fleets which is not always the case and often big battles are spread among multiple allied sides in more than one system. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Pr1ncess Alia Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2010.06.17 15:31:00 - [27] Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 17/06/2010 15:36:40 Originally by: An Anarchyyt Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 17/06/2010 15:02:20 Their simply is no reason why you would ever want less people than you could have at any given moment. A lot of the ****ed ideas in this thread are also not going to cause that to suddenly become false. Unless of course the mechanics of the game involved you needing your blob in two places at once to accomplish a goal / defend your stuff I know that's probably breaking the limit of your imagination but there it is. Originally by:** An Anarchyyt This is also implying that all fights are always in the same system with two fleets which is not always the case and often big battles are spread among multiple allied sides in more than one system. yes but usually the more significant and outcome shaping events occur in a multiple day lagfest/stalemate where everyone tries to pile all their crap into one system. if the mechanics of the game changed, the way 0.0 WORKED (that thing we don't understand ) if they had revamped it to a system where splitting your forces and attacking multiple spots simultaneously (that being the key here) instead of focusing on piling everyone you can into a system to attack/defend the same structure over and over and over .... well again, that's probably silly talk and i'm sure the status quo is MUCH better. we all just be best to rest knowing we don't understand the game, super lagfest is what eve will always be and if you don't like it find another game. there is no sense in expecting real solutions. -- 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.
Caldari Citizen20090217	Posted - 2010.06.17 15:32:00 - [28] Caution: badly thought out embryonic ideas and opinion stated as fact incoming. A few ideas: Spread sov out, with larger numbers of weaker HP deployables. Also allow hacking of sov/pos structures. This would not destroy them but would stop their intended purpose until unhacked ie. pos stop/reset moon mining/reactions/manufacturing or sov effects. So that while your blob is off killing a pos your opponents have hacked 15 sov structures, turned off your dyspro moon pos and reset the titan you had building. Nerf travel esp the cyno. As Furb and Camios said, rapid deployment across great distances means there is no reason to split your blob. If an emergency arises, you just cyno back knowing you will get there way before the raiding force has had time to kill the massive hp on the thing they are shooting. Reduce information available. Nerf local (yes I went there), the info given on the map like ships in space, pilots docked, jumps in last hour. Maybe even allow us to anchor deployables that look to the d-scan/probes like extra ships. Lack of info leads to mistakes, strategic errors and allows bluffs/Admiral Ackbar moments etc. Makes good scouts important which is more splitting of the force. Guerilla warfare is not really viable in eve currently. You need a blob to get stuff done due to the massive HP on stuff. This could be countered by allowing hacking (as mentioned earlier), or by a HP reduction along with a focus fire damage nerf on structures. Personally not a fan of the focus nerf so much, but it is relevent to this thread. In short 1 guy in system should be dangerous, or at least a PITA to alliance operations (and no I'm not talking the lameness that is afk cloaking) Moar space: currently all 0.0 space is owned. IMO there should be too much space to control, giving the 5-30man idealistic newbie corp a place to go and plant their caldari medium pos without joining an alliance or being instantly curbstomped by someones dread fleet. Currently this space is only in wormholes, tho I am personally hoping PI will allow CCP to massively expand 0.0 now that there are no ties to empire space.
Donny Maurasi	Posted - 2010.06.17 16:01:00 - [29] In null sec it seems there just aren't large enough front lines as many have said. I'm not sure if I agree with the fact that EVE isn't big enough space wise, because null sec is already very sparsely populated in many places. If you make it bigger, the ratting care bears would love it, but PVPers would get bored real fast. There needs to be a reasonable balance and I think if more space was made, then it would hurt the game on the PVP side. I think first and foremost something needs to be done to limit the nap fests and giant power houses. These nap trains kill the game and discourage any new entries that aren't aligned to one or the other. At the very least the game needs to be changed so that smaller groups can have a affect by harassment instead of everything revolving around going and shooting various objects. The front lines need to be expanded in some manor. Now as much as I hate to say it, I think a very modified FW Plexing system could do wonders for null sec and the way systems are captured. Plexes allow you to control the engagement size and require various different sized ships. This would mean it would be just as important to bring frigs, dessies and cruisers to a siege as it was to bring BS's and capitols. This would also require many smaller skirmishes over a longer period of time. The plexes would need to have no NPC's and gate-less entrances that didn't allow big blobs to camp them out. This would however be more of an Arena like PVP situation that would put focus more on smaller gangs. It would give the ability for small groups to harass larger groups, with out having it revolve around blobbing out the sun with capitols online. Instead of NPC's inside the plexes, they could put territorial claim units that spawned with the plex and had various amounts of hit points depending on the size of the plex. The amount of plexes that needed to be run could be dependent on the level of sov for each system. This would allow large scale attacks across wider areas of space using smaller gangs which slowly built up to a large scale battle when the system become vulnerable. This system is already in FW, but it's pretty much point less and has a lot of exploits. However a reworked system would go a hell of a long way toward thinning out the null sec blobs if it was used there.
Ak'athra J'ador Amarr Inglorious-Basterds	Posted - 2010.06.17 17:01:00 - [30] new sov system. to have sov in a system you need to put sov claimers on all gates leading into this system (so they are on the gates outside of the system). x percent (more or less, depending weather you want it be easier for the attacker or defender) of claimers must be engaged at the same time, or they are invulnerable. enough dps must be applied in order for the claimer to count as engaged (how much dps depends on the sov lvl of the system). if the HP difference between the claimers becomes to great, say 50% of max HP, they all go into reinforced. or if one reaches 25% they all go into reinforced. you come back the next day and finish the job, but the same rules still apply. if y percent of claimers exit engaged state in a short enough amount of time, they become invulnerable for say 24 hours. fleets would not only need to split up, but be able to move between different gates fast (perhaps boosting smaller ships pvp). I know, dumb idea, but I am sure someone could come up with something that would encourage fleets to split up. if a good enough incentive is presented...better then having huge numbers, people will do it

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.