EVE Search - Fixing Super Capitals is nice, but what about the real problem?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Fixing Super Capitals is nice, but what about the real problem?

» 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)
Mixne More Money More Problems 8	Posted - 2011.10.15 00:40:00 - [31] - Quote The trick to "fixing" this would be to provide worthwhile objectives or targets that can ONLY be completed by smaller fleets or gangs. Give people a rewarding reason to field a smaller fleet of a skilled gang and they WILL do it. My experience in MMOs has taught me that people tend to do things that require the least effort and provide the greatest reward, while spending the least amount of time possible gaining that reward. Take this concept and apply it to the way the devs "want" people to play the game and people will play the game that way.
Dr EviI Ship Trading Company United Pod Service 0	Posted - 2011.10.15 09:28:00 - [32] - Quote Skippermonkey wrote: blobbing is not a game mechanic, its common sense twenty drakes will beat ten drakes That makes sense to you maybe, but only because you havent used your brain before posting. Re-read the thread and maybe you will notice the sense of it. I quote for you: Quote: When will you change the gameplay in a way that blobbing is not the way fights will be won but tactic on the battlefield? In history nearly ALL big battles were NOT won because of bigger numbers but better tactics. Hannibal beated several huge romanian armies with little numbers. The germans killed several more russions in stalingrad than they had soldiers on their side. There are a lot more examples. Eves game mechanic problem is that you dont have a lot of influence in a battle. Your FC tells you what to shoot and you shoot. You just need to klick on target, fire weapon and reload maybe, thats it. There is no clever movement, no aiming, no hiding and so on. Thats because bigger number is always better. In real life it wouldnt. Placing 1000 soldiers in a small area is NOT the best tactic. Friendly fire and area of effect weapons are just some points why not. But these aspects are not in Eve so there is no sense in thinking about placement of ships, hiding or ambushing. Even friendly fire does not exist. Also there are no area of effect weapons (smartbombs and bombs from covert ops are too weak/too small).
DarkAegix Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 101	Posted - 2011.10.15 09:47:00 - [33] - Quote EVE space needs "terrain". In terms of land combat: Things to hide in (bushes), things which slow you (rivers), things which stop you (boulders), things which give you bonus range (hills). I believe space "terrain" is on CCP's future-vision list. This is years and years and years away, however.
March rabbit Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx 10	Posted - 2011.10.15 09:52:00 - [34] - Quote Capacity gear wrote: Dorian Wylde wrote: Skippermonkey wrote: blobbing is not a game mechanic, its common sense twenty drakes will beat ten drakes It's nice to see that I'm not the only one in the game who understands fundamental military strategy. ''fundamental military strategy'' hmmmm debatable,. more is just more,. more players on a team in a sport gives better chance of win,. as do more lottery tickets give a better chance of winning, calling it a ''fundamental military strategy'' makes you sound like an ass. problem is: he's right. Show 1 real war conflict won fast by weaker opponent? You only have chance to get your enemy bored and stoped.
March rabbit Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx 10	Posted - 2011.10.15 10:12:00 - [35] - Quote Dr EviI wrote: In history nearly ALL big battles were NOT won because of bigger numbers but better tactics. Hannibal beated several huge romanian armies with little numbers. The germans killed several more russions in stalingrad than they had soldiers on their side. There are a lot more examples. Can't speak about Hannibal... But You are not right about WW2 and Stalingrad. Take a look to history to understand what happened there and why russians were needed to drop people to germans. The same is about near all WW2 pre-1943 battles. Dr EviI wrote: Eves game mechanic problem is that you dont have a lot of influence in a battle. Your FC tells you what to shoot and you shoot. You just need to klick on target, fire weapon and reload maybe, thats it. There is no clever movement, no aiming, no hiding and so on. Thats because bigger number is always better. In real life it wouldnt. Placing 1000 soldiers in a small area is NOT the best tactic. Friendly fire and area of effect weapons are just some points why not. But these aspects are not in Eve so there is no sense in thinking about placement of ships, hiding or ambushing. Even friendly fire does not exist. Also there are no area of effect weapons (smartbombs and bombs from covert ops are too weak/too small). Why do You speak about 200-years ago war style? Do you know anything about wars of last years? Would you say USA droped weaker army to Iraq? And won because of genius strategy? Or maybe Libya has comparable forces to NATO for defend itself? There is no friendly-fire when you use last-step airforce to break whole enemy defence BEFORE landing. There is almost no friendly fire when you shoot missiles on each enemy soldier or just suspicious person 100km away from you as it happened often in Iraq and Afganistan some time ago. I agree there was some battles or wars won by weaker opponent. But i can't call this "nearly ALL". I would call it "exception".
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 0	Posted - 2011.10.15 10:21:00 - [36] - Quote David and Goliath makes a good story because 99 times out of 100, Goliath beats Davids face in. We remember Stalingrad and the American Revolution, and the Afghanistan War(the soviet one) because they're uncommon. We don't remember the wars where the big guy stomps the everloving crap out of the small guy because that's business as usual and not that interesting. As for making small gangs a viable way to perform objectives in PvP; can't be done. The metagame is too strong in eve. Limit to 20man fleets? I'll bring 5 fleets run by the same fc. Limit to 2 fleets, I'll bring two fleets and now the opponent can't get in. Limit to 1 fleet per alliance, my Alliance is already split into 5 in game alliances for admin purposes, not to mention my blues list. And it goes on. FW and RvB have each kept small gangs viable in a different way. In FW, there's no real resource you're denying your opponent(which is unfortunate), it's mostly fighting for its own sake (and for RP value). In RvB, its by mutual agreement. Lowsec's small gangs exist because nobody really lives there (no offense intended, it's just not densely populated). Think back to the last roam where your FC turned someone away because you had too many people on the roam already. Has it ever happened?
Rico Minali Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension 75	Posted - 2011.10.15 10:39:00 - [37] - Quote Game mechanics can not and should not dictate how people play Eve. Some people like ot fight in small gangs, they shoul dgo and do so. Some people like ot fight in massive superfleets, they should go and do so. That is what makes Eve great, you play the way you want to. Dont complain because you flew a 10 man gang into a large alliances space and got hit with a 90 strong fleet with ecm, logistics and capitals. This is how one defends ones territory, with superior force. Dont complain because you took your 90 man fleet with ecm and logistics plust capital support into a small corps space and they hid and would not fight. This is how you avoid being slaughtered. Basically what I am saying, is play the game your way, get into teh corp or alliance who plays your way and who like to fight people who also play your way. Very tired of people complaining because the rest of Eve doesnt play how you want them to.
Captain Futur3 unLimited eve 1	Posted - 2011.10.15 10:58:00 - [38] - Quote Rico Minali wrote: Game mechanics can not and should not dictate how people play Eve. Some people like ot fight in small gangs, they shoul dgo and do so. Some people like ot fight in massive superfleets, they should go and do so. That is what makes Eve great, you play the way you want to. Dont complain because you flew a 10 man gang into a large alliances space and got hit with a 90 strong fleet with ecm, logistics and capitals. This is how one defends ones territory, with superior force. Eve is already dictating how we play and fight. You can only do what the game mechanic allows/forces you to. When in counter strike people are able to shoot through (edit: i mean all) walls right from the beginning of the game and then i come and say "hey, thats not a good game mechanic and walls should block projectiles" do you come and say "hey thats not a good idea, people shouldnt forced to play different just because you want to". The same is with friendly fire and no clipping for objects in game. Just because its not possible right now does not mean that eve doesnt forces you to play the way you do. Right now you are forced to NOT use objects as cover. This is just one example of bad game mechanic. Also where did i said that i flew with a 10 man gang into a bigger one?
TheBadMan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.15 11:29:00 - [39] - Quote Eve online is a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game featuring a single shard allowing for MASSIVE fleet battles. Its kind of the idea of the game. Some like to fly solo, some like to fly in small gangs, others like to fly in huge fark-off fleets and have battles consisting of literally a thousand people. 10 people should not really be able to prevail over 100. Tactics and numbers count. Accessibility counts. Every noob should be able to join in the fray. With supercap online it left the little guys with no way to play. Its much cheaper to replace subcaps giving more chances to counter attack and get more fights. Look at evoke/friends defending NOL recently, they kept reshipping as they lost ships and held the field/won the day. If it were supercaps online it would be all over after the first fight, if there even was a fight instead of a mexican standoff. TLDR: eve is a MMO that has massive fights because thats the idea. Supercaps online begone, bring back the biff.
L Salander All Web Investigations 3	Posted - 2011.10.15 12:04:00 - [40] - Quote More numbers = more better. Not just in eve online but in other games and even real conflicts, shockingly enough
Large Collidable Object morons. 361	Posted - 2011.10.15 12:31:00 - [41] - Quote Rico Minali wrote: Game mechanics can not and should not dictate how people play Eve. Some people like ot fight in small gangs, they shoul dgo and do so. Some people like ot fight in massive superfleets, they should go and do so. That is what makes Eve great, you play the way you want to. Dont complain because you flew a 10 man gang into a large alliances space and got hit with a 90 strong fleet with ecm, logistics and capitals. This is how one defends ones territory, with superior force. That's the problem - game mechanics already dictate how the game is played - any profitable/meaningful action in 0.0 involves structure grind, which calls for blobs as well as timers, allowing massive blobs to form up. I don't complain being blobbed to hell when I enter a huge alliances space with a ten man gang, I complain because there is no single sane reason to do so from an ingame perspective. What am I supposed to do there? Watch moongoo poses do their thing? Have a bot warp to pos shields for the time my gang passes the system? Find and gank the single human ratter that is logged in to eve? There should be something like hackable moonmining arrays - claim huge swaths ofs space with your superblob and let them become unpopulated botting and moonmining wastelands like it is now and you'll get robbed as if there's no tomorrow. Build densely populated space with good infrastructure and have these people defend their space. Right now there's no reason for an alliance to even defend their space against roaming gangs, because they can't do anything anyway. Likewise, there's no reason to go to null in a roaming gang except for some epeen stuff - there's no profit to be made and no strategic impact to be had. morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding!
Dorian Wylde Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 37	Posted - 2011.10.15 13:41:00 - [42] - Quote Slade Trillgon wrote: Dorian Wylde wrote: Skippermonkey wrote: blobbing is not a game mechanic, its common sense twenty drakes will beat ten drakes It's nice to see that I'm not the only one in the game who understands fundamental military strategy. Fabian strategists would disagree. Sun Tzu would also disagree in certain situations. Smaller better trained forces have over taken larger less prepaired enemies many times in history. Slade And every single one of those smaller forces would have taken more if you offered it to them. Game balance does not exist in the real world either, germany didn't hand out modern weapons to belgium before the blitzkreig. And calling it military strategy doesn't mean it won't work in other areas. I said military because it applies to combat. This is the same principle people use to crash markets in the game too.
Jaari Val'Dara Deep Space Nomads Corp 53	Posted - 2011.10.15 15:16:00 - [43] - Quote Blobs should win in a fair fight. But there should be a possibility for a smaller force to use guerrilla tactics, to inflict pain to the large entities. Change sov warfare so that small gangs can disturb industry (moon goo, plexes, whatever). If suddenly large alliances need to actually defend their land from a small and mobile fleets, we would have a lot more entities in null.
Carceret Rinah Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2011.10.15 16:12:00 - [44] - Quote I think the logic of bringing numbers to a fight is pretty obvious. Blobs are just smart, and if you penalize them it just means blobs will need to be even BIGGER to be effective. I can think of two ways to improve the utility of small gangs though: - Viral weapons. These would cause damage and disrupt electronic systems with a strength that scales with the number of infected ships on the grid (each infected ship is attacking its allies through the com-links). Small gangs would be less effected, huge blobs would be devastated. The effects would be temporary, as each ships' computer fights off the virus (helped by fitting antivirus modules) or could be mitigated by breaking up the blob (warp in all different directions for a time). This should give small gangs just enough time to make an escape or deal some targeted damage (enemy logi ships, for example). - Placement of limiter gates. Allow sov-holders to deploy acceleration gates/deadspace areas around certain sovereignty-affecting assets. The gates would lock out all but a certain mass of ships, allowing only a limited defense; attackers could hack the gate to allow an equal mass of THEIR ships into the deadspace. If they manage to penetrate the defenses and destroy some object, the gate would be unlocked and allow thier whole fleet in to siege the sov asset inside; but that depends on the success of their smaller elite force in a mass-equal matchup.
Reilly Duvolle Hydra Squadron 56	Posted - 2011.10.15 18:11:00 - [45] - Quote TD:LR. The blob is a result a very unrealistic relationship between damage output and ship resilience in the EVE combat simulation. Fix that, and you will fix the blob. Long version: In game - as in real life - there is safety in numbers, and the organization is very human phenomenom. But unlike real life however, there are few drawbacks to organizational size in EVE. In real life the need for specialization in most modern militaries (compare pure infantry-cavalry armies of old with todays multitude of combat and combat support arms for example) and subsequent need for more information at greater speeds in order to make the whole complex organization function under fire puts severe limits to organizational size. In EVE, on a fleet level, large fleets are incredibly homogenous, and in terms of complexity can better be compared to a roman legion than a 21st century military organization. Therefore, in EVE, a fleet commander can make all the calls necessary to make the fleet function. In real life, a company commander with 5 platoons of 5 squads each of ten members would find it impossible to do the same. In EVE the fleet serves only to disseminate bonuses and to automate certain information functions in the form of broadcasts. There is no real need for either platoon commanders (wing) or squad leaders to perform as leaders, because the command requirements are really very very low compared to real life modern military. An this is because the EVE combat simulation portrays a very unrealitsic relationship between damage output and ship resilience. In the entire history of warfare, raw damage output has always overpowered the defences of mobile units - if they could hit them. The low range and accuracy on avialable weaponry however, meant that concentration of force was absolutely neccesary to accomplish anything. A musketball would inflict absolutely horryfying damage IF it hit you, but the musket cound not reliably hit a barn at 100 yards. Therefore, you needed 3 rows of massed Napoleonic musketeers to guarantee that you hit anything at all. With the advent of rifled guns howver, a single gun could hit and kill anything at vastly extended ranges, as became painfully clear during the American civil war. Even today, a single anti-ship missile will incapacitate all but the largest warships. Not so in EVE. In EVE, weapons usually hit, but they do uncharacteristically not kill their target. And because they dont, it necessitates in essence napoleonic tactics on the battlefield - that is, concentration of overwhelming force on the decisive point of battle. So, the necessity to concentrate force drives the need for simplified command and thus low organizational complexity. So - if you want to get rid of the blob (and lets be honest - who wouldnt), the game design needs to shake up the damage-ship resilience relationship, which would then necessitate ships and tactics to avoid taking damage alltogheter (much more reliance on different forms of electronic warfare for example). This would neccessitate increased organizational complexity and increase the command requirements dramatically, necessitating a true chain of command, and force fleets to disperse rather than concentrate (a concentrated fleet would only be a juicy target). In summary, more sneaking, more avoidance, less direct fighting. The question then is - do we as players really want that? Or are we happy with the current "bar fight" combat simulation? THAT is the real question.
Renan Ruivo Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance 157	Posted - 2011.10.15 21:21:00 - [46] - Quote White Tree wrote: You literally cannot stop people coming together in large numbers to defend themselves of their space. The blobbing argument has been going on for basically years and what you want is for people in large fleets to be penalized entirely arbitrarily because they are not playing the game the way you want them too. Because their space is a really bad guy that comes home drunk every night and beats them to a pulp, right? xD Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand.
Renan Ruivo Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance 157	Posted - 2011.10.15 21:23:00 - [47] - Quote Slade Trillgon wrote: Dorian Wylde wrote: Skippermonkey wrote: blobbing is not a game mechanic, its common sense twenty drakes will beat ten drakes It's nice to see that I'm not the only one in the game who understands fundamental military strategy. Fabian strategists would disagree. Sun Tzu would also disagree in certain situations. Smaller better trained forces have over taken larger less prepaired enemies many times in history. Slade With the right tactics, one guy to a fez handfull can stop a horde. Its all about choking points. I should know.. i beat Orcs Must Die! in less than 2 hours. Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand.
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Universal Consortium 20	Posted - 2011.10.16 05:50:00 - [48] - Quote March rabbit wrote: problem is: he's right. Show 1 real war conflict won fast by weaker opponent? You only have chance to get your enemy bored and stoped. Israel: Every major war it's fought since 1948, sometimes spectacularly so (1967 war). Afghanistan, the 1978-89 (iirc?) repulsion of the Soviet Union. Vietnam, not just the 1964-75 war against Uncle Scam, but throwing the French out in the early 1950s. It can be done. I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count?

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.