| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
   |
Posted - 2010.06.17 17:34:00 -
[31]
Well, low sec in general isn't very blobby. We only put together "blobs" to go visit places where blobs already exist - like Amamake/Auga. But, we've been getting some supercaps dropped on us so I'm wondering if we'll have to actually start blobbing just to defend ourselves from losers with tackle-immune supercarriers. 
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
ChrisIsherwood
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 19:02:00 -
[32]
I know there are technical differences (max fleet size in Apoc vs Dominon), but is it a coincidence that large fleets are more of a problem the release after the largest AOE weapon goes away?
I like the idea of suicide/kamikaze AOE: suiciding a 1B ISK freigter does wide AOE damage. The price tag means its not going to affect small fleets or get spammed. But the larger blob you bring, the more cost effective it is for the enemy to use them.
|
dankness420
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 19:30:00 -
[33]
Buff Smartbombs!!!!
Also give them falloff!! A giant explosion of energy or whatever in space isn't all or nothing!
|
Whattis
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 19:38:00 -
[34]
Nothing short of penalizing larger fleets will stop blobs. Basic human psychology - they want to win more than they want a good fight. So long as they have the resources to do so, they'll blob everything they can.
|
Tika Bloodstar
Gallente
khanid industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 19:57:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Tika Bloodstar on 17/06/2010 19:58:26
Reducing the cost of structures and thus reducing the HP associated with the structure helps. This would allow smaller fleets to come blow up your goods. Repairing blown up goods could also take considerably less time as well. An artificial timer could be thrown into place to allow the defenders time to at least attempt to repair the destroyed structure, after which time whatever that structure was anchored to goes up for grabs.
Another idea tied to the 1st, would be to change the current sov mechanics to require multiple systems in order to gain sov. Example would be in order to capture one system you must 1st hold at least one moon in each system adjacent system.
Again this sort of goes back to the old pos bashing, but with pos's having significantly less HP, the possibility of true guerrilla warfare could come to play.
The time to anchor and un-anchor objects would also be greatly reduced.
Imagine an EVE where true Merc's (ex: a band of 20-25 pilots, with 1-5 capitals in their fleet) can come and render your high-end moon useless for a few hours a week. Now this would only be a nuicence for a major power because the costs of replacing the structures would be greatly reduced, but the point is - more players would be able to affect greater change than they currently can.
I mean consider that fact that IRL a group of trained men can hi-jack a plane and destroy billions in assets. Because this isn't RL, we don't want a small group to remove billions in assets from the game, but what they can do is create an annoyance that must be taken care of one way or the other.
Currently, this isn't really possible with the current nap-train power-blocs.
I hope some of this made sense.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Vauryndar Dalharil
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 19:58:00 -
[36]
 Originally by: ChrisIsherwood
but is it a coincidence that large fleets are more of a problem the release after the largest AOE weapon goes away?
Yes it is.
AOE never did anything to decrease fleet sizes. On the contrary, you always wanted to have a backup fleet in case one of your fleets died to DD.
Supercaps have always encouraged bringing as many people possible since their introduction.
The only way to discourage large Engagements is to make it possible to utilize a fleet around the clock in a meaningful way for system conquest. Without multiple goals per day, fleets assemble according to reinforcement timers known days in advance and thus can grow much larger compared to a scenario with a lot more goals to achieve.
In other words: The current problems are to 100% a problem caused by the people who designed the sov system and capital balance.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:01:00 -
[37]
If you say something about small groups should do this, replace 'small group' with BLOBB and check if the BLOBB can't do the same. Like reduced hitpoints and costs would only mean a BLOBB can sweep through it just much faster than a small group.
Are there actually any alliance FCs around here that can give a clue to this thread?
--------
All I want is a better mankind.
|
Trauli
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:10:00 -
[38]
everytime i see this thread i facepalm irl.
everytime
|
Tika Bloodstar
Gallente
khanid industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:10:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Tika Bloodstar on 17/06/2010 20:13:36
Originally by: Abrazzar
If you say something about small groups should do this, replace 'small group' with BLOBB and check if the BLOBB can't do the same. Like reduced hitpoints and costs would only mean a BLOBB can sweep through it just much faster than a small group.
Are there actually any alliance FCs around here that can give a clue to this thread?
That is a gross over-simplification, before small groups will do anything of note in EVE, they will require the opportunity to do so. What I mentioned grants them the opportunity. BLOB's will always have a role in EVE no question, the point is to try and create an opportunity to go with a smaller fleet. There are many possible benefits in EVE for what I mentioned earlier, just think Time Zones and off-peak hours etc... Rather than waiting until Friday Night at 8:30pm when 300 people are online, you can go knock out a POS at Tuesday Afternoon at 2 pm with a much smaller group.
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:15:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Trauli
everytime i see this thread i facepalm irl.
everytime
is that like a nervous tic or something?
i facepalm everytime i hear about less than a hundred people screeching a system to a standstill because of all this fail code we are playing on.
--
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. |
Trauli
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:17:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
Originally by: Trauli
everytime i see this thread i facepalm irl.
everytime
is that like a nervous tic or something?
i facepalm everytime i hear about less than a hundred people screeching a system to a standstill because of all this fail code we are playing on.
you and me both brutha. game is **** right now for sure
|
Camios
Minmatar
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:17:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Abrazzar
If you say something about small groups should do this, replace 'small group' with BLOBB and check if the BLOBB can't do the same. Like reduced hitpoints and costs would only mean a BLOBB can sweep through it just much faster than a small group.
Reduced hitpoints and costs alone will do nothing for the reasons you said.
But if you increase the number of structures, and you spread them over a number of solarsystems, it can be far more efficient for the blob to split their forces and attack different objective at once.
It depends of course on enemy resistance.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:17:00 -
[43]
I think that ultimately CCP likes large fleet battles.
Regarding Tactics of War:
You can break down a what gives an army a decisive advantage over another into three basic constituents 1.) Overwhelming force 2.) An Overwhelming Technological Advantage (or) 3.) Overwhelming Precision At Long Ranges [AKA killing the other guy from so far away they can't kill you back]
Now which of those 3 elements does the present game play support?
All ships are "balanced" [and thus equal] and all weapons types have comparable ranges. In space there are no places to take cover, dig in, or hide. So ultimately the only factor that can curb the battle in your favor will in fact be overwhelming force and numbers.
Best Idea I've Got:
The only thing that I have ever been able to come up with that might alter blob warfare, might be the ability to "Dig Trenches" in space. The introduction of "shields" in space that a fleet could build on the spot during a battle. This would create an environment where ships in space would not only have to shoot to win, but also shield one another and fortify their lines to win.
If you could get blob warfare to behave more like a game of chess instead of just a turkey shoot at stationary, alphabetized objects -- one where both offensive and defensive tactics equaled victory -- this game would be far more appealing.
End Transmission.
|
Trauli
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:24:00 -
[44]
Ok lets clarify something please...
What is a blob?
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:27:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Trauli
What is a blob?
A BLOB is anything big enough to kill a node. A blob is just somewhat smaller but causes enough lag to slow down light.
--------
All I want is a better mankind.
|
Camios
Minmatar
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:28:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Best Idea I've Got:
The only thing that I have ever been able to come up with that might alter blob warfare, might be the ability to "Dig Trenches" in space. The introduction of "shields" in space that a fleet could build on the spot during a battle. This would create an environment where ships in space would not only have to shoot to win, but also shield one another and fortify their lines to win.
If you could get blob warfare to behave more like a game of chess instead of just a turkey shoot at stationary, alphabetized objects -- one where both offensive and defensive tactics equaled victory -- this game would be far more appealing.
End Transmission.
Erm cool idea but the problem is that the blob are too big, and any idea that comes should aim to reduce the sizes of the blobs, not to increase their size and fun.
|
Trauli
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:29:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Trauli
What is a blob?
A BLOB is anything big enough to kill a node. A blob is just somewhat smaller but causes enough lag to slow down light.
Does anyone know anymore how many people it takes to kill a node or cause lag? I've seen node deaths happen recently in a ~100 man fight.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Vauryndar Dalharil
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 21:02:00 -
[48]
Whoever uses the word "blob" nonironically just shows a really poor understanding of the problem at hand and/or is just extremely butthurt about being outnumbered.
|
Ibn Taymiyyah
Gallente
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels
Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 21:45:00 -
[49]
I'll put in my 2 cents.
Make SOV about skill instead of numbers. I'll try to explain. I've seen some people asking for arenas, to PVP in with no loss, like most MMOs have, bla bla bla, it's not EvE, and that's all very true. Reading this, I actually thought of the alliance tournament where you have all major alliances in battles in a arena style match. Anyway, why not morph both the concepts?
Attacker aproaches SOV marker (sorry, I don't live in 0.0 so I don't know the correct terms for sov stuff) and challenges it. You get X points to attack it, each ship costs Y points, depending on class, just like the tournament but with maybe different scaling. Defenders get Z time to defend said SOV marker and present a small fleet to defend it. Make it a best of 5 in 24h to win SOV. The defending alliance will get a chance to try to block gates before attackers get to the markers. You'd require 6 to 10 ships per marker, so you could effectively spread your 400 strong fleet to make MASSIVE attacks on ALOT of ground and would promote skill and better fits instead of raw player numbers.
This would require some kind of "shield" after attackers got there, making them invulnerable except to the defending inbound fleet, that would be limited to points too!
Maybe higher level markers could make more points, so the ship scales would go up, making caps useful... with skillful pilots!
TL;DR - Attackers arrive at SOV marker, get shielded by it while they contest it, defenders have X time to go there and defend it. Both sides have to respect ship points rules similar to the alliance tournament.
Thx for reading
|
Gilbarun
Avatar Dynasty
THE-FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 21:58:00 -
[50]
if a fleet of 20 smaller ships would be able to seriously damage a pos/ihub/whatever we would see more fleets of that size
damage it doenst mean its destroyed, but maybe offline for 10 hours or something with serious damage taken when these attacks happen 3 times in a row or something
sure there would still be 500+ fleets but they would be seen not that often, concentrating your firepower on one defence point would result in loosing like 200 hours of income from upgraded systems or moonmining
we also need less bottleneck systems or more ways to travel in smaller fleets between longer distances
|
Orb Lati
Minmatar
ANZAC ALLIANCE
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 22:37:00 -
[51]
I initially was going to mention the most obvious issues underlining the issue of the BLOB, being Sov and no real attrition to military capability, but thats kind of missing the single major problem with eve warfare.
That being Empire and NPC space.
The simple fact is that half the space in eve is "safe" you can dock at any station, we have common market systems all sides use and a ready supply of resources being provided by players completely isolated from any 0.0 conflicts.
THE DREAM
What if all you had was 0.0 space, player stations and possibly more versatile POS structures (bases?).
If each alliance had to setup their own market hubs, source their own resources, trade with neighbors?
Conduct warfare deployment from SC, Carriers, Titans and POS with ship stockpiles and cloning banks.
You now suddenly introduce a logistics/industrial backbone to holding space.
The need to police your space, to make player enforced safe areas for new players/miners/bears.
The desirability of not having a NBSI policy to your space.
The now target rich environment for aggressors :)
You might need to have a NPC cores still, but much much smaller with standing based restrictions. ie if your not in a player Alliance/Corp your in a Faction Warfare Corp.
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 22:47:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 17/06/2010 13:48:31
You guys 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.
I had an idea in 'features and ideas' thread about slowing down capital ship deployment and it was immediately flamed and derailed because people like the idea of the biggest ships in the game to be the fastest moving across the galaxy.
|
Glengrant
TOHA Heavy Industries
TOHA Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 23:26:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Glengrant on 17/06/2010 23:31:36
What makes you think there is *anything* that would make FCs go away from blobbing?
Blobbing is the most natural effect from a very basic cause - more ships on your side is better.
If opponent brings 10 ships - you try to bring 15. They bring 15 - you try to bring 20. They assemble 100 - you try to bring 150 if possible.
It's only the most logical thing to do.
Even with the area effect of the Titan - the most effective counter-blob measure of all time - people reacted by super-hardening their BS (and avoiding ships that couldn't survive a DDD) so they could still bring the blob.
And no - more territory wouldn't solve the problem either - because fleets fight over valuable systems and strategic chokepoints - not the many empty backwater systems.
The End
p.s. Get over it. Gravity makes thing move toward the center - risk makes people want to minimize it. Facts of live.
---
Save the forum: Think before you post.
ISK BUYER = LOSER
EVE TV- Bring it back!
Laptop, NVidia7900GS, Ubuntu 8.04, WINE |
Issaries Valran
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 23:40:00 -
[54]
Here are some ideas that might help decrees blobbing.
One, introduce, stacked-diminishing returns on DPS coming from multiple damage sources. If you have a hundred people all shooting the same target this would make that they would do less DPS than if they spread out there DPS more.
Two, introduce line of site issues. Normally the bigger a group the more line of site issues you would have except in EVE there is no line of site issues because you can just shoot though everybody friend and foe alike to hit your target. If there was line of site issues then everyone being in the exact same spot would be a much bigger problem. When it comes to dishing out DPS. This would make FC's want to spread out their fleet more.
Three, introduce ship explosions that actually do damage to the ships next to them. Instead of just being purrty lights. The amount of damage and the size of the explosion can be determined by ship size and hull type. The bigger the ship the bigger the explosion and more damage it does. This would also encourage FC's to spread out their fleets more, no one is going to want their fleet blown up when a few capital ships exploded.
Of course there would be in game issues with introducing mechanics like this. But I actually thing the benefits would out way the problems and there can be ways to combat the issues.
|
Lady Killjoy
Gallente
Jugis Modo Utopia
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 00:06:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Orb Lati
THE DREAM
What if all you had was 0.0 space, player stations and possibly more versatile POS structures (bases?).
If each alliance had to setup their own market hubs, source their own resources, trade with neighbors?
Conduct warfare deployment from SC, Carriers, Titans and POS with ship stockpiles and cloning banks.
You now suddenly introduce a logistics/industrial backbone to holding space.
The need to police your space, to make player enforced safe areas for new players/miners/bears.
The desirability of not having a NBSI policy to your space.
The now target rich environment for aggressors :)
You might need to have a NPC cores still, but much much smaller with standing based restrictions. ie if your not in a player Alliance/Corp your in a Faction Warfare Corp.
Best so far, imo.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 00:31:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 18/06/2010 00:35:24
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 18/06/2010 00:34:49
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 18/06/2010 00:32:16
The solution is not difficult.
Simply apply "tactical" bonuses to Tank (Shield and/or Armor) and DPS based on # of alliance ships in system.
The smaller the # of alliance ships in a particular system, the larger the bonus.
Set the curve of the bonus so that having more than X # of ships (whatever is deemed "max" based on lag concerns) is actually less effective than a smaller number of same ships.
It would have to be an inherent "bonus" regardless of modules, etc. so that it always held true that having 101 ships was less effective than 100 (assuming your theoretical "max" of X was 100).
Getting the curve right would be tricky, but theoretically is possible.
Edit 1: Clarity
Edit 2: "Bonus" applied per alliance.
|
Tickle Master
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 00:39:00 -
[57]
Rollback the horrible sov system introduced. Make it impossible to have 60k blues that function as a super alliance alliance? Limit number of people in corp and alliance? Stop station spam.
|
randomname4me
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 00:47:00 -
[58]
Blobs exist because people don't like to lose and ships and weapons in this game are so "balanced" the only easily effective way to win is to bring your friends.
In sov warfare a strategic decision like what system to invade and what station to reinforce first matters greatly but as it stands now theirs very little in the way of tactics in this game. In 1v1 and small gang pvp tactical decisions like individual ship fits and pilot maneuvering can mean the difference between a resounding defeated or a stunning victory but once you get into large fleet fights tactics in eve boil down to the FC ordering the fleet to warp in at there average optimal range and everyone shoot the same guy until he is dead.
The problem in my opinion is that there is too much balance. We need ships to have more specific roles, abilities AND INABILITYS.
Small fast ships should only truly be vulnerable to other small fast ships yet they should excel at killing lightly armed cruisers. Frigate weapons should not be able to damage battleships and capitals but should be easily able to track and kill other frigs and fighters. Likewise battleships and other large ships should not be able to hit small fast ships at all but should do full damage to larger slow ships. Cruisers/battle-cruisers should be vulnerable to small ships but murder to battleships. Capitals should be relatively impervious to anything other then fixed defenses other capitals and battleships. T2 ships should be even more specialized to fill the gaps. Heavy assault ships and stealth bombers should be good verses larger ships like capitals so to prevent marauding blobs of capitals.
In other words make fleet composition and tactics matter more and you make numbers matter less. Make it so my enemy canĘt just send in 400 battleships and win by default due to my inability to bring in 401 battleships. Make it so that a battle between two equally sized and setup fleets is decided not by who gets in system first or who gets the first shot off but by who has the better individual pilots and FC who understand tactics and know how to use them. That way a small alliance with good organized pilots wonĘt get bumrushed by the bigger less skilled alliance just because they can.
Petition|Successful|Reimbursement|Lag
Pick 3 |
Hecatonis
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 01:49:00 -
[59]
hey if you want you brake up a blob, give us a f*ck you weapon to do it.
a frig/dissy only based weapon like a smart bomb but with a much grater range, and a long charge/cool down time. yes i said charge time and i am talking like a min or something. the damage is scaled with signature, and i am not talking about a liner scale, i am talking about a cubic scale. and make it so everyone and their goat knows it coming. the ship charges up and you have to get rid of it or die.
make the charge time long enough that other frigs or destroyers could take them out in that time, if they where close by. but not too long that a bigger ship couldn't lock on to the smaller one.
lower the HP of struc. but give them a reinforcement timer, let say an hour or two, and enough HP that a number of dreads, lets say 10, could take one out in short order, 20 min or so, or a group of battle ships could as well.
then they can field their big guns running the risk of loosing them to a fleet of frigs. or bring smaller ships that could still get the job done but could loose out of the some bigger ship classes.
or even better a mixed fleet engagement, there might have to be thought put into battle not lets get as many people as we can and then a then b then c name call ships to death. it can be a, a then b then oh cr*p take out those frigs before we loose half our caps fight.
but i foresee this getting flamed with great one liners like "you dont understand how 0.0 works" or "then everyone will do _____"
you do know why forces dont just bring in a ton of tanks right? because a bunch of people with RPGs will just ruin your day. RPGs are cheep, tank are not.
|
Markus Reese
Caldari
Estrale Frontiers
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 02:49:00 -
[60]
I had (what I thought) was an excellent, and low system resource usage way to not break up the blob, but make blobbing more of a tactical choice. Copied and pasted from my post in this old thread:
Quote:
Well, the other part of damage reduction it I don't feel it would cause more lag, it would be as though part of each gun was a simple EWAR. Ie as the gun cycles, it supplies the penalty... I had an equasion written for the old discussion that I never posted. Mind you, I am not familiar with the coding or programming of eve weaponry, so bear with me... Though I think it is a nice simple start for being whipped up in an hour of thought.
Alright, some variables...
Dg = base damage modifier gun
Db = base damage sum ammunition
Ra = Range modifier to damage result
Tr = Tracking modifier to damage result
Si = signature of target
Ad = final damage modifier.
Os = obsurement
Ot = total of all obscurements
Mm = Minimum modifier constant
Ec = Effect Constant
Rf = Base rate of fire
(dg*db*Ra*Tr)/(Ec*Rf)=Os
If the overall Ot is less than sig, then the Ad = 1
Ad = Mm+(1-Mm)*Si/Ot
Alright so example would be lets say is a pvp fight between two thorax, one shooting at another (not counting drones) Guns, lets go with the base 200mm. Thorium ammo
Dg = 2x
Db = 43.1
Ra = 1.0 (meaning at optimal)
Tr = 1.0 (can track fine)
Si = 140
Ec = 5
Mm = 0.5
Rf = 4.88
(2 x 43.1 x 1 x 1)/(5*4.88) =
Therefore the obscurement per gun is 3.53 , x 5 guns is 17.65
As such, the 140 signature is greater than the 17.25 so guns do full damage. If there were say 10 thoraxes though shooting the one, then damage would start to fall off. The sum of obscurement would be 176.5 Lets say ccp decided the minimum modifier constant is 50% damage.
0.5+(1-0.5)*140/176=0.898
So 10 ships would be doing 89.8% of their max damage should they all hit right. This modifier is then added to the damage you normally would calculate.
Missiles are easier and harder. They cannot go by cycle as why would they disrupt the to hit if they are not going to be there for 20 seconds? and such would be easier if upon impact, they would supply the penalty. Each missile would last a certain duration penalty.
Now, there are most probably many holes, etc, but I feel it is a good base. Why? because it is a tunable equasion. See, the Effect constant would tune how many ships would be engaged approx before the penalty starts to take effect. By adding a minimum modifier, it would set how low it could truely go. Also means that no matter how many ships you add, the damage added to the blob is more than any change to the penalty. This could be well tested on Sisi by experienced fleet players to see how the dynamic feels to them.
Concerns, first, why the ammo and gun modifier? Well starters, it can add tactics to how a fleet operates, large damage, you need less ships on a target, can split up. Also by using the base numbers, it means that skills do not affect the penalty. If you use the long range ammo, you can have more guns firing at it since the smaller guns/lighter ammo has less energy and thereby would create less distruption for fleet purposes. Also the equasions are quite basic, and probably can be worked into the current ones to cause very little lag, if any.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |