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
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 canÆt 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 wonÆt 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 fck 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 crp 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 (dgdbRaTr)/(EcRf)=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)/(54.88) = 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.
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]

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.