| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hereon Herinnger
Gallente
Blue Republic
   |
Posted - 2010.06.18 02:59:00 -
[61]
.02 more iskies (not an FC).
Suppose we start with two opposing forces, one at point A and one at point B, several systems away. Now there are several ways to get from point A to point B, i.e., several different mechanics. First, we can fly directly there. This means there are literally billions of possible routes. Second, we can have a number of choke points, i.e., stargates, where everyone must go through, so that the opposing forces will meet. Third, we can go from point A directly to point B, and meet opposing forces right there.
Real life warfare closely resembles the first mechanic -- You are defending not a point but a line, so if you leave any part open, the attackers come through and pillage the countryside. The problem with doing that in EVE is that space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. So if you try that, you end up with one person to defend billions of grids worth of space. Not gonna work.
Now EVE's current warfare resembles the third mechanic -- points A and B are the various sov claiming structures. The obvious thing would be to add more, then, so that defenders have to spread out. But this doesn't work -- the attackers don't have to spread out. If the defenders can move quickly, then we just get blobbing, and if they can move slowly, they're screwed. So this can't work either.
Then we have to have a small number of ways to get from A to B. Not thousands, but not just one. Since there aren't (and shouldn't be) enough systems in EVE, there's only one way to accomplish this: have multiple stargates between the same systems. I'm not sure exactly the best way to go about this, ideally it should scale with the size of the fleets, a stargate per 100 people per side, say. Maybe have extra stargates but require 100 people to sit there for 15 minutes to "unlock" it, or some such.
The key in real life is that there is no set attacker and defender. If either side leaves a gap, the other side can counterattack. Offense and defense have to be intertwined in a very careful way -- they have to happen at the same place, the only logical one being a stargate, where either side moving through can cause havoc.
But they have to be able to cause havoc. If a big blob gets through, they should be able to destroy at will, not necessarily taking the space but causing heavy economic damage. So make structures easier to pop, but figure out a way to make gates more "sticky" such that combat happens there. Bubbles should help.
This creates another problem -- lag. Even with small fleets, jumping creates lag with grid-loading. But the fleets will be smaller, so hopefully it will be easier to deal with.
Now of course this isn't a finished product, and it will not work instantly. But the idea is to create incentives to be in multiple places if possible, and to spread out. Spreading targeting won't do that, and making people on grid stacknerf is extremely open to exploitation, with multiple fleets/corporations/alliances already being utilized for legitimate reasons. Spreading control units won't do that, because the attacker, at least, still has an advantage if they go one by one instead of spreading out. But combining offense and defense can do that.
I, for one, hope this gets better. EVE is at its best when it is about tactics and complex rock-paper-scissors, not when it's about battleship bashing.
|
Hereon Herinnger
Gallente
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 03:06:00 -
[62]
Some more specific comments:
Making things stacknerf by number of fleetmates/corpmates/alliancemates/blues/whatever on grid: Easily exploitable. What if my alliance agrees that orange really means blue and blue really means red, just to screw with mechanics? What if we split into 100 different alliances, all functioning as one, but without the official structure? This just makes life a pain for everyone without solving anything.
Making things stacknerf by number of aggressors: Maybe. This seems really contrived, though, and it only spreads out fire within a battle, not into several battles. That doesn't solve anything.
Rebalancing ship classes: I support this but I don't think it will solve the problem. It's still more valuable for me to have my 200 frigs, 200 cruisers, and 200 BS in the same place instead of spreading them out. This would make fleet fighting better but not less blobby.
Making EVE bigger: That makes for nothing to fight over. If there isn't anything to fight over, the game will be boring. If anything, make it smaller so people have to worry about more different enemies nearby.
|
Greymoon Avatar
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 03:20:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: Savatar Mei
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.
^This^
...
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 03:58:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Hereon Herinnger
Some more specific comments:
Making things stacknerf by number of fleetmates/corpmates/alliancemates/blues/whatever on grid: Easily exploitable. What if my alliance agrees that orange really means blue and blue really means red, just to screw with mechanics? What if we split into 100 different alliances, all functioning as one, but without the official structure?
I don't think a stacknerf applied to alliances would be so easily exploited. Wouldn't there be all kinds of negative consequences to sov mechanics for doing so? And if not, there certainly could be ones applied to discourage that type of exploitive behavior ...
Short of a some form of stacknerf, I don't think you can fix the blob problem. More will always be better. Unless you make it so its not.
|
Anita Too
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 04:01:00 -
[65]
Make crossfire actually kill friendly ships. This will cause overtly large fleets to spread out (as formation increases, range increases etc).
However, this will require more computing and thus might cause lag in itself  |
Zorai Miraden
Gallente
East Khanid Trading
Khanid Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 04:31:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Zorai Miraden on 18/06/2010 04:33:12
Here's a simple idea and one that won't take much reprograming to do.
Every time a ship explodes it'll have an 1 time AOE blast effecting nearby ships. Bigger ships would have a large AOE and greater damage.
If CCP sets the damage amount high enough after a several ships explode in a tight enough group you could end up setting off a lovely chain reaction wiping out most of the blob along with pods, and wrecks.
This could also have other intersting implications in smaller group fights. Pirates might have to be a bit more careful when coming in for a close up gank.
Kamikazi tactics could also become a viable.
Recruitment Thread
EKT Website |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 04:49:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Are there actually any alliance FCs around here that can give a clue to this thread?
Does it actually surprise you that there are none in this thread, and very few of the people in this thread are even in groups who take part in 0.0 warfare?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Panzram
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 04:55:00 -
[68]
the side that packs the most ships into the system earliest wins. once packed in, the intentional creation of lag benefits the dug in side. trying to artificially "break up the blob" will benefit the weaker(smaller) side disproportionately. this issue has been debated for years with no fair solution.
ccp's created a game that the hardware cant support. most of this comes down to very poor code with more bad code thrown on top. they bill eve as a game that can support massive battles. it doesn't do what is says on the tin. there is very little hope.
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 06:23:00 -
[69]
Rambling brain farted solution ...
-Increase grid size by a factor of 20.
-Increase minimum warp distance by a factor of 20.
-Reduce tracking of all guns by 90%
-Increase all ranges by 10 (guns, missiles, drones, etc)
-Reduce all ship acceleration/alignment by 90%. (but keep maintain same speeds)
-Increase max "warp to" range by a factor of 10.
-Increase SolNode granularity to Celestials, create and destroy dynamically. Parent Process can manage System wide events.
-Get rid of warp scrams, bubbles, etc. Won't be needed.
-Remove all Cynos, except bridges.
-Get rid of gates.
-Reduce all warp speeds by a 90% (Session changes in slowed warps)
-Turn scanning into a more submarine warfare like experience. (Force people to find one another/evade/run/chase, not just sit like lazy turds on a log (gate) waiting for flies. It space for god sakes, not fishbowls and hoses.)
All part of something else, guess it is time for another RSI version. :P
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Terrigal
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 06:43:00 -
[70]
Cake
|
Movarer
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 07:41:00 -
[71]
Make sov easier to claim and easier to lose would probably help.
Like, not needing a month and a billion people to do any kind of difference :)
~~ |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 07:50:00 -
[72]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: Abrazzar
Are there actually any alliance FCs around here that can give a clue to this thread?
Does it actually surprise you that there are none in this thread, and very few of the people in this thread are even in groups who take part in 0.0 warfare?
Nah, doesn't surprise me, this is EVE GD after all. Just thought I'd ask, so maybe one comes out and adds some input. After all, they are the ones calling the shots and doing the tactics, if anyone, they should know what needs to exist to motivate themselves to change approach.
--------
All I want is a better mankind.
|
Afrodite Draconis
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 07:59:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Abrazzar
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.
FFS!
This is MMORPG!
If alliance has 5000 members, why it should have fleets of 10 so you and your tiny little friends could have 'fair' fight? Why it should think about you and other smaller entities?
Blob word should be banned from the internet. It's designed for idiots and noobs, and solo players who are socially unable to form friendships and communicate with others.
|
M'ktakh
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 08:09:00 -
[74]
The main problem lies in the fact that damage scales linear with the number of ships in the field. All other concerns (sans SOV mechanics, which i know jack **** about so wont comment) only underline this.
Now, if CCP were to introduce a mechanic of diminishing returns, like they have on almost everything else in the game, we could for example have a default fleet size of lets say 50. Every ship you add above that mark will have reduced DPS and EHP (lolrp: electromagnetic noise from other ships ****s up your onboard systems), to the mark of lets say 100, where added ships are basically dead weight.
Even better, the caps on ship numbers could be semi-dynamic depending on a number of factors, as hard caps will always, always result in people fielding the optimal setups each and every time.
It honestly baffles me how a game that has diminishing returns as its core defining charachteristic can have a a "war by numbers" approach.
|
Telvani
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 09:15:00 -
[75]
I think we need more, weaker structures for capturing sov, even something similar to the FW system might be an improvement.
The reason we don't have front lines in eve is very simple. Bottlenecks and choke points. Travel times are far to fast in 0.0, nerfs to cynos, jump bridges etc.. would improve this. Basically we need slow travel, a lot more links between systems, and lots of weak capture points, possibly on a random system using a variety of ship sizes (similar to FW - although we all know this had its issues) This will mean multiple fronts need protecting, and lots of systems need patrolling, by multiple fleets.
This could also serve as a slight buff to black ops, breaking a small fleet behind this front could help make a much bigger difference than it does today. |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 09:16:00 -
[76]
The only thing I can think of which would cause FCs to reduce fleet sizes would be game mechanics that punish larger fleets.
The usual ideas come to mind - line of sight, friendly fire, diminishing returns for number of ships on grid.
Other ideas that can be abused to create a defensive advantage would include mass-per-hour limits on star gates, requiring jump drives to have longer cycle times during which cyno beacons must be lit, and just plain ol' increasing targeting times as more ships appear on grid.
Ultimately, we blob because the game mechanics demand it. We hot drop capitals because the game mechanics make it easy and rewarding to do so.
To have "awesome" fleet battles, there needs to be more involved in a fleet fight than squeezing as many big guns onto one grid as you possibly can.
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Zero Space
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 09:47:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Zero Space on 18/06/2010 09:53:29
.02 more iskies.
- Remove Titan Bridging (Jump Portals)
- Remove Jump Drive from Carriers and Dreadnoughts (But leave on Titan)
- Allow Carriers and Dreadnoughts to move through Gates
- Allow POS' in a system to be captureable through the destruction of existing sov units and replacing of capturing units (thereby countering the "massive" bash POS lameness and shifting the focus of warfare)
Job Done. One other thing that could be done is to put a cap on the amount of people simultaneously in one system, although I'm not terribly in favour of that. Now watch as the noobs bash the above argument because it would ruin this skill and that skill they have trained for.
|
Flashh Gorden
COLD-Wing
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:03:00 -
[78]
The first thing that needs to be done is remove cynos or only allow one ship per cyno generated to jump.
Its far too easy too move large numbers of ships around making it possible to all end up in the same system at the same time for these huge laggy battles.
Remove jump bridges also.
Cap fleets traveling by gates will take along time to reach anywhere and the defender will have to place several cap fleets in various locations rather than concentrate all in one spot.
Attacker can bubble gates in nearby systems which would have to be taken down by the defender before its fleet could move on.
Defender could also stop attcking reinforcements arriving by gate bubbles.
All the current problems arrise from the ability to cyno in huge reinforcements with one side hot dropping the other who then call somone else untill every man and dog is in system looking for some cap kills.
|
Khorvek
Amarr
Triple Threat Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:48:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Zorai Miraden
Edited by: Zorai Miraden on 18/06/2010 04:33:12
Here's a simple idea and one that won't take much reprograming to do.
Every time a ship explodes it'll have an 1 time AOE blast effecting nearby ships. Bigger ships would have a large AOE and greater damage.
If CCP sets the damage amount high enough after a several ships explode in a tight enough group you could end up setting off a lovely chain reaction wiping out most of the blob along with pods, and wrecks.
This could also have other intersting implications in smaller group fights. Pirates might have to be a bit more careful when coming in for a close up gank.
Kamikazi tactics could also become a viable.
this
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Domini Umbrus
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:58:00 -
[80]
I see that there are many people suggesting AOE weapons and stuff. The only thing this will do is to increase the lag.
As the OP asks: When will FCs decide to split their blob in smaller groups to attack different systems.
I wrote up a suggestion where infrastructure upgrades are made of many small structures, which are easily destroyable. Maybe this could make FCs think about a non-blob approach.
--
Destroyable Infrastructure |
Elzon1
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 11:00:00 -
[81]
Idea... why don't we let things like webifiers and ecm have a sort of splash effect. This would cause any ships adjacent to the target ship fall under the effects of the module in question. That or introduce new modules that due precisely that.
By the way this sort of thing already exists in eve lore considering empress Jamyl Sarum's uber anti-blob weapon near the end of the "Empyrean Age" trailer.
Awesome weapon by the way. Wish some capsuleer inventor would make one for me to play with 
|
Kaw Almarenta
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 11:07:00 -
[82]
Originally by: M'ktakh
The main problem lies in the fact that damage scales linear with the number of ships in the field. All other concerns (sans SOV mechanics, which i know jack **** about so wont comment) only underline this.
Now, if CCP were to introduce a mechanic of diminishing returns, like they have on almost everything else in the game, we could for example have a default fleet size of lets say 50. Every ship you add above that mark will have reduced DPS and EHP (lolrp: electromagnetic noise from other ships ****s up your onboard systems), to the mark of lets say 100, where added ships are basically dead weight.
Even better, the caps on ship numbers could be semi-dynamic depending on a number of factors, as hard caps will always, always result in people fielding the optimal setups each and every time.
It honestly baffles me how a game that has diminishing returns as its core defining charachteristic can have a a "war by numbers" approach.
So instead of a large fleet with 200 pilots in it piling into a system, we'll see alliances pile in four fleets with 50 pilots in each into a system.
Change we can believe in, no doubt.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 11:08:00 -
[83]
Most of the problems are becuase you can cross enitire galaxy with entire fleet in no time and no cost , and you wonder why the bigger blob wins and NAPTRAINS are so common.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 11:23:00 -
[84]
nano de-nerf
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
Opertone
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 12:01:00 -
[85]
If ships were unable to warp off once combat started it would motivate people to actually take fights.
Now the warp engine kills all 15km + combat and makes blobs necessary to insta kill enemies.
Engaging weapon systems in PvP should shut off warp engine for 60 seconds, then this game will become a space fighting game not a station cramping game, gate hugging and blobs would go away naturally and instead become fleet fights of mixed ships, variable ranges and versatile guns.
Check out wing commander or x-tension - there is no f..ing warp off button, but there are ways to shorten space travel and cross the long distances.
|
Opertone
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 12:12:00 -
[86]
In strategy games, making a huge Blob in one place, opens vital parts in other places. If you move your army towards enemy base, your rear and side entrances remain open for attack.
In eve however, there is nothing to defend - quick rushes don't do any good, it doesn't destroy stations, doesn't hurt the economy or POSes. Flanking attacks are useless, because eve has linear playground.
To make it more balanced, BS blobs should warp even slower, slower than it is now 10 times. So it would actually take time to move around massive armies and take them home. Eve features bottle necks, and it is way to simple to camp in there, which make game boring for both attackers and defenders.
Fast warping and warping off, takes out gameplay aspects from EvE.
|
Opertone
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 12:22:00 -
[87]
Perhaps warp drive recalibration should be required after engaging in combat, where warp core stabs can cut that time by 25%.
It would actually make people stay in place and fight, whether they decide to snipe, rush or tank the damage and attack from medium ranges.
Right now, if target is >> 15 km away, it says good-bye and vanishes. You need to camp for that target in 15 km range and catch it like a battle frog vs a fly. Boring, swamp slow PvP.
Once you've taken up a fight, you can not easily quit it. You have to stay and fight or foresee the consequences and plan the combat before you engage.
|
M'ktakh
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 14:33:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Kaw Almarenta
So instead of a large fleet with 200 pilots in it piling into a system, we'll see alliances pile in four fleets with 50 pilots in each into a system.
Change we can believe in, no doubt.
Well, if you substitute "system" with "grid", then this would mean that while you still have 200+200 people waging war in said system, you have four relatively localised smaller engagements, each part of one big battle. Sort of how different flanks/brigades engaged the enemy in pre-WWI fights.
I personally think that this would be an improvement.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |