Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Clavian Voi
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 21:42:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Clavian Voi on 05/03/2011 21:44:54 With all the recent threads about ways to encourage more PvP and make fleet combat in EVE somewhat less oriented toward blobbing, here are some ideas.
Whenever a really large fleet is formed and begins to roam, let's say there is a chance the activity draws the attention of the Sleepers. There are a number of ways this could be implemented, and here's one. When a fleet reaches 200 pilots there is a base 10% chance of a Sleeper fleet being awakened to exterminate the offenders. The larger the fleet gets and the more time that goes by, the greater the risk of a Sleeper attack.
The goal here is not to kill off large fleet combat as that is entirely necessary for sov mechanics and null-sec warfare. But it would mean that alliances would have to think twice before putting too many pilots into a given system. It would also discourage people from attempting to use the node crash as a defensive tactic. Since a Sleeper attack would be chance-based, it would still be very possible to have fights of, say, 300 vs. 300 with a minimum level of risk. But when fleet fights escalate into total blob warfare involving massive numbers of pilots, the risk quickly escalates to a point where it creates an environment ripe for a Sleeper "feeding frenzy" scenario.
It should be noted that the numbers I used are just numbers I picked for the sake of example and a lot of refinements would be necessary to actually make this system workable. But it is a mechanic in keeping with EVE's backstory that might help address the game's long-term lag and blob issues. One obvious point is that this would need to be coded so that the Sleepers attack only the most "juicy" target (meaning the large fleet that triggered the Sleepers) and not everyone in the system. Otherwise, defenders would use meat shields of expendable alts to intentionally awaken the Sleepers as a sort of scorched earth tactic.
Before you troll this idea into oblivion -- and it is an idea that needs further refinement -- stop to think about it first. Honestly, at some point CCP is going to have to do something as there is only so much that can be done with database tweaks and code optimizations. If EVE continues to grow as it has, the game will become unplayable when there are 100,000 people online. And what about when there are 200,000? EVE is a sandbox and care must be taken not to ruin that. But at the same time lag and uncontrolled blob warfare are just as much a threat to the sandbox as anything else.
|
Shintai
Gallente Arx Io Orbital Factories Arx Io
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 21:54:00 -
[2]
Why stop with blobs? Why not when its 2 vs 1 and so on?
I dont get all this "antiblob" campaign besides to limit the sandbox gameplay. --------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Slapsy
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 21:58:00 -
[3]
What's actually required is an incentive to fly your fleet in a gigantic intersteller c*ck-and-balls formation. That would be much better than a simple blob.
|
Max Troxler
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:00:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Shintai Why stop with blobs? Why not when its 2 vs 1 and so on?
I dont get all this "antiblob" campaign besides to limit the sandbox gameplay.
From reading the post I don't think the OP is really antiblob, just trying to find a way to impose some risk on megablob tactics. I was set to flame the OP, but the more I think about this the more potential I can see here. It could actually work if CCP did it right. And fixed the broken sov system.
|
Alotta Baggage
Amarr Imperial Manufactorum Armada Assail
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:04:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Slapsy What's actually required is an incentive to fly your fleet in a gigantic intersteller c*ck-and-balls formation. That would be much better than a simple blob.
Python Cartel is working on this as we speak
Originally by: Magnus Andronicus ur character looks like a f***ing clown dude.
|
Shintai
Gallente Arx Io Orbital Factories Arx Io
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Max Troxler
Originally by: Shintai Why stop with blobs? Why not when its 2 vs 1 and so on?
I dont get all this "antiblob" campaign besides to limit the sandbox gameplay.
From reading the post I don't think the OP is really antiblob, just trying to find a way to impose some risk on megablob tactics. I was set to flame the OP, but the more I think about this the more potential I can see here. It could actually work if CCP did it right. And fixed the broken sov system.
Problem is it will never stop. Your corp wardecs mine. Your corp got 50 members, mine got 10. Now your corp should have <insert hard penalty>.
The argue abotu blobs etc is just a frontline border start. Then 2 people fights 1 person. So the 2 people should now have a 33% penalty to everything etc.
You see? It never stops. --------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Feligast
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:09:00 -
[7]
Let me see.. your answer to having too many ships in a system, causing lag, is... to potentially ADD hundreds of NPC ships to the mix, all firing weapons? Seems more than counterproductive, this borders on simply ******ed.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:10:00 -
[8]
Idea rendered moot by the fact that the blobby fleet can simply split up into two or more smaller fleets to avoid that penalty. Or alternatively, it could be used to farm Sleepers in normalspace. Or any other number of unexpected and unpleasant consequences the OP hasn't even considered, that will almost surely happen.
TL;DR - No. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Clavian Voi
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 22:37:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Clavian Voi on 05/03/2011 22:46:16 And those are very valid points.
Since the idea here is not to further lag the system all to hell by introducing a large NPC force -- which could also be farmed, possibly leading to alliances doing it on purpose -- these would have to be rather deadly NPCs in order for this to work. Not like the regular Sleepers at all but more like Concord in that once a Sleeper attack is triggered there is no fighting back, thus no farming. And little additional lag because once the Sleepers awaken they do their business and then disappear.
I admit, it's an imperfect solution to a difficult problem. And I am the last person to want to mess with EVE's sandbox or limit it in any way! But the fact of the matter is that the sandbox is limited right now. It's being limited by lag, which is an artificial and outside influence. If the sandbox has to have limits, and it does have limits now whether we want to admit it or not, then I would rather see those limits be part of a well thought out game mechanic and not due to easily exportable technical limitations.
Originally by: Akita T What CCP needs to do is offer incentives to fly in SMALLER fleets, not penalties for larger fleets.
As a general rule I agree. I would rather see incentives to fly in small fleets than penalties for larger fleets. And this is where CCP absolutely dropped the ball with the soc revamp. It's just incredible how bad the new system is and how many missed opportunities where there to make EVE a more fun and dynamic place. Instead, we got a glorified system of capture the flag with a whole bunch of convoluted timers thrown in just to ensure it's totally ****ed.
|
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 08:47:00 -
[10]
Moved from 'EVE General Discussion'.
Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online |
|
|
Jaigar
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 11:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 05/03/2011 22:17:29
Idea rendered moot by the fact that the blobby fleet can simply split up into two or more smaller fleets to avoid that penalty. Or alternatively, it could be used to farm Sleepers in normalspace. Or any other number of unexpected and unpleasant consequences the OP hasn't even considered, that will almost surely happen.
TL;DR - No.
What CCP needs to do is offer incentives to fly in SMALLER fleets, not penalties for larger fleets. Right now, OTHER THAN INCURSION FLEETS, larger fleets offer both lower risks (higher chance of survival) and and better rewards (higher chance of participating in a kill) compared to smaller fleets of similar composition, and there are absolutely no tasks smaller fleets are better suited for as opposed to a larger fleet handling it just as well (if not better). You need some goals or a completely separate game mechanic that makes it DESIRABLE to split up your fleet not just organizatorically (from a leadership structure standpoint) but also in different (virtual) physical locations. Currently so such goals nor mechanics exist outside of the Incursion sites - and even there the splitting is not quite so obvious (you may split up in different grids, but you still might remain in the same system, so you're not helping much lag-wise).
Larger fleets can work against you in certain situations. Dealing with straglers, people jumping the gun on gates, etc can cause headache and cause you to lose potental kills. Large Fleets also draw more attention. If you like small fleet stuff, or sneaky warfare, go into WH space, especially C6s. You'll run into mostly 10-20 man fleets out there.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 11:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Akita T *snip* What CCP needs to do is offer incentives to fly in SMALLER fleets, not penalties for larger fleets. Right now, OTHER THAN INCURSION FLEETS, larger fleets offer both lower risks (higher chance of survival) and and better rewards (higher chance of participating in a kill) compared to smaller fleets of similar composition, and there are absolutely no tasks smaller fleets are better suited for as opposed to a larger fleet handling it just as well (if not better). You need some goals or a completely separate game mechanic that makes it DESIRABLE to split up your fleet not just organizatorically (from a leadership structure standpoint) but also in different (virtual) physical locations. Currently so such goals nor mechanics exist outside of the Incursion sites - and even there the splitting is not quite so obvious (you may split up in different grids, but you still might remain in the same system, so you're not helping much lag-wise).
Yes, patrol your space with small fleets to counter small attack-forces.
Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |