EVE Search - The Ultimate Unexploitable Unassailable Solution to Blobbing

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The Ultimate Unexploitable Unassailable Solution to Blobbing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.24 11:55:00 - [1] Locking time. Modifier: +1 ship per grid = y% locking penalty to every ship. Scenario 1: You have a POS, you have a 250 man fleet at your POS because you have intel a blob is on the way. 2000 people warp to your POS. They try to lock you. But due to the modifier you can warp away or get inside POS. They have RR but due to locking they can't RR anyone. Meanwhile your POS guns are killing their fleet. You are safe cause you didn't blob. Scenario 2: 2 Blobs meet in space. Each is 2000 ships. Each sits there for 20 minutes trying to get a lock. Eventually everyone falls asleep and logs. Scenario 3: You are attacking a POS with your 250 man fleet. You lock it and start shooting stuff. A 1000 man blob assembles and warps to you. They sit there trying to lock you while you kill their POS, loot their ships and wave goodbye. You can't lock them very quickly either but since you already have locks on the stuff you wanna kill you don't care. Scenario 4: You have 250 people in a fleet on grid and your fighting 250 other people on grid. You send out a call for reinforcements. They arrive in a 1000 man blob. The first few that warp in can lock quite well, as each successive ship warps in its ability to lock is reduced until ships warping in are waiting significantly longer to get locks till eventually your blobbing has reduced your locking ability to complete crap. Can't see how it can be exploited. Can't see how it can't be avoided either (don't blob). People could use it to defend a POS, sit 2000 people outside a POS, immune POS (let them sit there and kill something else?)
Gemberslaafje Vivicide	Posted - 2010.11.24 12:28:00 - [2] The last thing we need is sov warfare to become even more boring. --- Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ Also a spy.
Marchocias Snatch Victory	Posted - 2010.11.24 12:29:00 - [3] Edited by: Marchocias on 24/11/2010 12:29:28 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Scenario 2: 2 Blobs meet in space. Each is 2000 ships. Each sits there for 20 minutes trying to get a lock. Eventually everyone falls asleep and logs. Oh yeah, 100 mill to the first person that can show me how this couldn't work or could be exploited. You actually like scenario number 2? 4000 people in 2 fleets, and none of them ever gets to fire a shot? The oddness of that aside, what if one fleet is 1000 ships, and the other fleet is 3000 ships. Fleet #2 blobbed 3 times as hard as fleet #1, yet they ALL get the same penalty. However, since fleet #2 has a 3:1 numbers advantage, it is still in fleet #1s interests to bring more people to the fight. It is also NOT in fleet #2 interests to bring less people, as the only advantage they gain by doing that is ALSO gained by fleet #1. You can exploit it by bringing another 1000 alts to the system, and log them out. If the battle isn't going your way, you log them all in, and use some ECM bursts to drop everyones locks. Then you've got two fleets just looking at each other. 100 mil please! ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
Mr FourEyes	Posted - 2010.11.24 12:31:00 - [4] why not just form multiple fleets with 250 people in them all under one team speak channel people would still call out primays secondarys you just make it more of a pain in the ass, there is nothing wrong with blobs except lag.
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari The Technomages Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.11.24 12:35:00 - [5] -1 -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Reddx Panther	Posted - 2010.11.24 12:59:00 - [6] 1. A blob will get even more invincible/unstoppable, so people will continue to form blobs. I'd have a small vanguard start the business (POS bash etc.) and have the rest warp in to cripple scan res for protection. 2. Instead of long skill training and expensive logistics, have a few hundred trial alts in noobs ships buff your fleet to invicibility. 3. Your modifier would buff stealth bombers for sure - 200 man SB gang warps in, drops bombs, cloaks, takes a leak, repeats. Blob breaks blob, win!. 4. A funny but effective counter to the SB blob could be to position cloakies around your fleet for warp-ins and have a blob of smartbombing nano-BS ready. So I come to the conclusion your modification wouldn't make blobs unviable, in the contrary. Only the tactics would change. Especially that noob ship alts could contribute significantly to blobs through their afk presence on grid seems me likely to be massively exploited.
Reddx Panther	Posted - 2010.11.24 13:16:00 - [7] To elaborate on Marchocias line of thinking and evolving it into a proper exploit: - Chain create (trial) alts with your alliance mates, rally them in a starter system - Have them autopilot to a nullsec destination all at once (with the locking penalty chances are high that good numbers will reach the destination instead of dying like pop corn like they normally would) - Log them out at a possible site of future battle (e.g. pos, sov mod, gate) - Log them in at need to cripple locking times
MadManMaura Amarr Hedion University	Posted - 2010.11.24 14:04:00 - [8] hey start handing out that 100mill
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.24 14:46:00 - [9] Originally by: Marchocias Edited by: Marchocias on 24/11/2010 12:29:28 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Scenario 2: 2 Blobs meet in space. Each is 2000 ships. Each sits there for 20 minutes trying to get a lock. Eventually everyone falls asleep and logs. Oh yeah, 100 mill to the first person that can show me how this couldn't work or could be exploited. You actually like scenario number 2? 4000 people in 2 fleets, and none of them ever gets to fire a shot? The oddness of that aside, what if one fleet is 1000 ships, and the other fleet is 3000 ships. Fleet #2 blobbed 3 times as hard as fleet #1, yet they ALL get the same penalty. However, since fleet #2 has a 3:1 numbers advantage, it is still in fleet #1s interests to bring more people to the fight. It is also NOT in fleet #2 interests to bring less people, as the only advantage they gain by doing that is ALSO gained by fleet #1. You can exploit it by bringing another 1000 alts to the system, and log them out. If the battle isn't going your way, you log them all in, and use some ECM bursts to drop everyones locks. Then you've got two fleets just looking at each other. 100 mil please! Scenario 2 is my favorite and essential to it actually working. The mechanic needs to be non-penalizing (it doesnt' make you blow up) and have an unpleasant effect (to 'encourage' people to change their behaviour). Fleet 1 was about to get pwned in the butt when fleet 1 warped their 3000 ships in. Now fleet 1 can leave, with their ships and pods, and fleet 2 is sitting there unable to do anything, and has accomplished less then if they had brought the appropriate amount of ships to deal with fleet 1. See scenario 2 The Unpleasant effect of blobbing. I disagree with your analysis of fleet 2's need to bring more ships. Fleet 2 bringing more ships would be a waste of time since the 3000 ships they brought made them as a fleet pointless. Your mindset is a symptom of blobbing. The advantage they gain is the ability to engage in combat. You seem to be saying it would be preferable to bring 3000 or more ships to a 1000 ship fight and not be able to engage then to bring 1000 ships to a 1000 ship fight and engage. Even in the very unlikely event that an alliance logged 1000 alts off in the correct place its much more likely that in your scenario the 1000 alts logging on in the middle of a fleet fight would simply lag out and crash the node which you could very well do now anyway with the exact same scenario. Even if they managed to all load without crashing the node and ended up in the grid the only benefit you would have would be escape which is an option available to you anyway if you have time to load 1000 alts into a system. The more likely scenario is by the time you did that, given you are doing it because your about to be owned, you would have already lost or escaped. Originally by: Mr FourEyes why not just form multiple fleets with 250 people in them all under one team speak channel people would still call out primays secondarys you just make it more of a pain in the ass, there is nothing wrong with blobs except lag. Its not based on fleets, its based on ships on grid. Sig --- Quote: Originally by Oveur: High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. ... That's the whole point of high security.
Gemberslaafje Vivicide	Posted - 2010.11.24 14:51:00 - [10] I think you missed their points, infinity. First you lock the POS for repairing or destroying. Will take a bit with 500 man on grid, but it'll be OK. Then, you log in 1000 alts. For the sake of argument, we're gonna say that EVE works perfectly. No lag, no crashes. This is how it's SUPPOSED to be, but not actually is, right now. You start shooting/repping the POS. Then, your hostiles jump in. Another 500 man. With the locking timer now being 4x as much as it was when you locked the POS, the POS will be fully repped or destroyed before the hostile gang is even able to lock you. Then, on cue, you start locking the hostiles, and at the same time you log the 1000 alts out. The hostiles will be bored by the ridiculous lock time and went to make a cup of tea. End result: You win. --- Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ Also a spy.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.24 15:06:00 - [11] Originally by: Reddx Panther 1. A blob will get even more invincible/unstoppable, so people will continue to form blobs. I'd have a small vanguard start the business (POS bash etc.) and have the rest warp in to cripple scan res for protection. 2. Instead of long skill training and expensive logistics, have a few hundred trial alts in noobs ships buff your fleet to invicibility. 3. Your modifier would buff stealth bombers for sure - 200 man SB gang warps in, drops bombs, cloaks, takes a leak, repeats. Blob breaks blob, win!. 4. A funny but effective counter to the SB blob could be to position cloakies around your fleet for warp-ins and have a blob of smartbombing nano-BS ready. So I come to the conclusion your modification wouldn't make blobs unviable, in the contrary. Only the tactics would change. Especially that noob ship alts could contribute significantly to blobs through their afk presence on grid seems me likely to be massively exploited. Your first point is a good one. Its entirely dependent on y though and how big fleets need to be. Second point is pretty unrealistic. Its unlikely that you would be able to load enough alts to have a significant effect into the system at the same time without crashing the node and the only benefit would be so you could sit in space staring at each other. The modifier is more to limit the ever increasing multi thousand pilot blobs rather then functional fleets in the hundreds. The modifier would only buff stealth bombers if you blobbed. If you didn't blob it would have a minimal effect. And again it would depend on the value of y and how many ships before y% became effective. Sig --- Quote: Originally by Oveur: High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. ... That's the whole point of high security.
Marchocias Snatch Victory	Posted - 2010.11.24 15:09:00 - [12] Originally by: Infinity Ziona The advantage they gain is the ability to engage in combat. You seem to be saying it would be preferable to bring 3000 or more ships to a 1000 ship fight and not be able to engage then to bring 1000 ships to a 1000 ship fight and engage. Being able to engage in combat is not an advantage. As soon as one fleet can engage, SO CAN THE OTHER ONE. So it is still preferable to bring one more ship than the other guys, as you ALL get the same delay, but you've got one more ship than them. Numbers are still an advantage, it just means everyone has to sit still being really bored with a game mechanic that stops them doing stuff for no apparent reason. If fleet #1 runs away because fleet #2 is too big, then thats still a win for fleet #2 (they drove their enemy away), its just a really bloody boring one. Also - with regard to logging in 1000 alts - sure you could do that and crash a node at the moment, but let us assume for a moment that lag has been fixed, or at least fixed for this size of fight. This would be a game-mechanic exploit regardless of the lag. Currently, if we had fixed lag, there would be no such exploit. C'mon dude.... hand over that 100 mil! You can't not hand it over just because you didn't think anyone would manage to claim it! ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2010.11.24 17:18:00 - [13] Quite aside from the fact that making large fleet battles unplayable is a terrible idea... Drake Army with FOFs loaded, dictors and hictors for tackle. ZOMG, mechanic entirely circumvented. Signature removed.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.24 22:10:00 - [14] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 24/11/2010 22:16:03 You can't just say "lets assume the server works perfectly and give me my 100 million". Loading enough alts to have a significant effect on locking time is not practical and so can't be used to exploit the mechanic. Drake fleets with FoF and hictor dictors could be a problem but then I can see tactics that would negate their use. The warping an advance force to a pos and then warping a huge force to the pos to screw with locking won't work either. Essentially any huge fleet that warped to the pos would be sitting there unable to RR or be RR'd and the pos gunners would simply be shooting at sitting ducks. Ophelia, its not about making large fleets unplayable. Its about making extreme fleets that lag and crash clients and nodes, unplayable. Sig --- Quote: Originally by Oveur: High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. ... That's the whole point of high security.
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari The Technomages Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.11.24 22:24:00 - [15] Any little system based on the number of people around is inevitably going to lead to tactics based around that number. You might as well be putting a giant bullseye on the amount of people you're trying to make 'a large fleet battle that is discouraged' and double it. Really, I don't have the energy to argue this after someone with similar thoughts of 'ooo ooo I have a magic bandaid that will make everything better!' If you really want to find a mechanic to encourage smaller fleets, it has to _encourage_ smaller fleets, not discourage larger ones. It also has to be a static effect, whereby the effect 'exists' at the same strength no matter the amount of ships, but it would be more easily mitigated by a smaller fleet. Deciding some arbitrary fleet size is 'too big' is silly, and you might as well go do premade AV. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Brandrsun Caldari	Posted - 2010.11.24 23:12:00 - [16] - 105379857387938769863906379 (error) /not supported
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.24 23:34:00 - [17] Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha Any little system based on the number of people around is inevitably going to lead to tactics based around that number. You might as well be putting a giant bullseye on the amount of people you're trying to make 'a large fleet battle that is discouraged' and double it. Really, I don't have the energy to argue this after someone with similar thoughts of 'ooo ooo I have a magic bandaid that will make everything better!' If you really want to find a mechanic to encourage smaller fleets, it has to _encourage_ smaller fleets, not discourage larger ones. It also has to be a static effect, whereby the effect 'exists' at the same strength no matter the amount of ships, but it would be more easily mitigated by a smaller fleet. Deciding some arbitrary fleet size is 'too big' is silly, and you might as well go do premade AV. It does encourage smaller fleets. There already is a giant limiting bullseye on the amount of people you can fit in a system. The limit is when the node dies / you experience extreme lag rather then another mechanic. I think its highly preferable to get to a stage where your unable to lock something in a realistic amount of time rather then the current effect of suddenly disconnecting and eventually being able to relog, and finding yourself in station with a new clone and down a few billion isk. Sig --- Quote: Originally by Oveur: High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. ... That's the whole point of high security.
Flesh Slurper	Posted - 2010.11.24 23:48:00 - [18] This would do nothing, as it would give whoever gets to the system first with enough people an instant "I win" button. If I want to defend, just get my blob in the system first and they cant lock my stuff. Hell the people can even be AFK and it still would help in the defense. AFK Cloaky defense net anyone? If I want to attack, I simply get my force in first, the first people to arrive get the locks and damage the target, the rest of them cause my attackers to be hard to lock.
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari The Technomages Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.11.24 23:49:00 - [19] And the same response every time. You are not encouraging smaller fleets, you are suggesting a hard coded negative aspect to more ships on grid. There is a huge difference in such a seemingly small change. The end argument all these suggestions come to is "Well, it's better than lagging out!", and sure, any idea that even gives the hint of 'hm, it might be advantageous in X situation to bring less people!' seems better than the status quo. That doesn't mean these soft cap limit ideas have any merit, and suggesting it's unable to be exploited is pretty laughable. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Marchocias Snatch Victory	Posted - 2010.11.25 02:51:00 - [20] Where's my money? Is Marchocias gonna have to choke a biatch? ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
William Cooly Sol Enterprises	Posted - 2010.11.25 03:40:00 - [21] I do not know who is dumber, Infinity for attaching such a high reward to such an easy task, or the people believe he's actually going to give them said reward. Also your blob mechanic doesn't even need explaining why it wouldn't work. Nerfing people for being near other people makes less sense than when I tried to fire my guns and the afterburner turned on. - I RETROLL FOR MAXIMUM DAMAGE.
WarlockX Amarr Free Trade Corp	Posted - 2010.11.25 04:44:00 - [22] So anytime i want to defend a station/pos/gate or anything just bring 2000 shuttles? Or how about this, i have my 10 freighters full of stuff and I have 2000 ppl in shuttles come with me to them invincible. ha ha ha ha ha ----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page
Jaari Val'Dara Caldari Atomic Zeppelins BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2010.11.25 07:09:00 - [23] Better option would be to make the locking penalty only for those who are locking a target which is already locked by somebody else. The more peaple are locking/already locked a single target the harder it is to lock that target. That way fleets would have to actually attack different targets, instead of melting one ship at a time.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.11.25 07:49:00 - [24] Originally by: Marchocias Edited by: Marchocias on 24/11/2010 12:29:28 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Scenario 2: 2 Blobs meet in space. Each is 2000 ships. Each sits there for 20 minutes trying to get a lock. Eventually everyone falls asleep and logs. Oh yeah, 100 mill to the first person that can show me how this couldn't work or could be exploited. You actually like scenario number 2? 4000 people in 2 fleets, and none of them ever gets to fire a shot? Beside the drake blob with the F.O.F. missiles that don't require a lock to fire.
KaiserSoze434	Posted - 2010.11.25 07:56:00 - [25] The fact that you think logging in enough alts to totally exploit the system is impractical hints that you maybe need to do a little more playing of EVE and less proposing bad ideas. Almost every serious player, particularly large corp/alliance players (the ones who blob) has an alt account. You think it would be impractical to devote 1 char slot to a character that needs no skills to serve as free ECM? You've got to be kidding me. Not to mention the possibility to pay people a little isk just to keep a untrained alt around to log in when you need them for the free ECM.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.11.25 08:08:00 - [26] Logging in alts will not work. It is impractical. You will simply crash the node if you tried to log in 1000 alts in the middle of a fleet battle. Its hard enough relogging one character after getting kicked out during large battles. Still haven't seen a practical example of how this could be exploited to gain a benefit. Sig --- Quote: Originally by Oveur: High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. ... That's the whole point of high security.
Gemberslaafje Vivicide	Posted - 2010.11.25 08:52:00 - [27] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Logging in alts will not work. It is impractical. You will simply crash the node if you tried to log in 1000 alts in the middle of a fleet battle. Its hard enough relogging one character after getting kicked out during large battles. Still haven't seen a practical example of how this could be exploited to gain a benefit. It's funny how of 20 people, 0 actually agree with you, and you still can't admit it's not as good as you think it is. --- Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ Also a spy.
bartos100	Posted - 2010.11.25 09:35:00 - [28] did nobody think about the disco BS fleet ?????
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari The Technomages Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.11.25 09:52:00 - [29] Originally by: Venkul Mul Beside the drake blob with the F.O.F. missiles that don't require a lock to fire. I think this takes the cake as the easiest exploit, even though several valid offerings have been made. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Gemberslaafje Vivicide	Posted - 2010.11.25 10:14:00 - [30] Originally by: bartos100 did nobody think about the disco BS fleet ????? Good point, anything which doesn't need a lock would be instawin. --- Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ Also a spy.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.