EVE Search - should there be a counter to blobs? is the end game more ships = win?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

should there be a counter to blobs? is the end game more ships = win?

» 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 - 1 post(s)
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 41	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:17:00 - [1] - Quote this is my idea to counter blobs... MeBiatch wrote: off the top of my head if you want to counter the blob why not make stacking penitlies for attacking and RR? that way its more then just shoot primary and so on its more tacktics to maximise your damage potential... like two armies attack each other you dont have 500 tanks shooting just one tank you end up with a glory field of smaller combat and almost 1v1 on a massive level
Thomas Orca Intaki Armaments Tactical Narcotics Team 6	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:20:00 - [2] - Quote Your idea is terrible, and increases the need for blobbing.
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 41	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:21:00 - [3] - Quote Thomas Orca wrote: Your idea is terrible, and increases the need for blobbing. how so?
Alara IonStorm Caldari State 10	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:24:00 - [4] - Quote My idea is to have a small ast special invisible ship that can fire a massive explosive canister that washes damage over their whole fleet then disappears. To far fetched?
Thomas Orca Intaki Armaments Tactical Narcotics Team 6	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:25:00 - [5] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: Thomas Orca wrote: Your idea is terrible, and increases the need for blobbing. how so? The only mechanics that allow smaller gangs to beat larger ones are calling primaries and remote repping.
Thur Barbek Republic University Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:25:00 - [6] - Quote If you read the thread your quote came from youd see many reasons why not. Heres one: in large battle, FC says, "quick, all frigates attack the titan... we need to increase its tank!" how would you prevent me from firing on my own ships to increase their tank? This encourages more blobs of smaller ships to shoot your bigger ships for more tank.
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 41	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:30:00 - [7] - Quote i did not say how the stacking would work... i dont think it would be wise making it a set number then makes more damage obselete... i am thinking more a sig radius mechanic... so you can still ahve 1000 peeps shooting the titan but it wont make sence to shoot a frig with with more then 1-2 b's... that way its way more open to tacktics then just primary and put a billion reps on that guy...
Alara IonStorm Caldari State 11	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:42:00 - [8] - Quote Thur Barbek wrote: If you read the thread your quote came from youd see many reasons why not. Heres one: in large battle, FC says, "quick, all frigates attack the titan... we need to increase its tank!" how would you prevent me from firing on my own ships to increase their tank? This encourages more blobs of smaller ships to shoot your bigger ships for more tank. That's not how stacking penalties work. X = your team, list in order of who attacked first. Rifter X Rifter X Rifter X Rifter X Rifter X Nighthawk Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Nighthawk Drake List in order of least dmg penalties to most. Nighthawk Nighthawk Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Rifter X Rifter X Rifter X Rifter X Rifter X So you have a bunch of Rifters attacking your ship for no reason. The real problem is Drones and Accuracy. If you do not count them as part of the combined ship DPS then Carriers and Domi's can do a ton of unstacked Dmg. If you do ships like Dreadnoughts that will soon be Droneless will miss Frigates while Warrior II's do from the ship they are attacking will do little Dmg. Does a Ship that looses half it's dmg in accuracy get lower penalties then a Ship that does 75% the Dmg and hits perfectly. Those are the big issues.
T' Elk Clearly Compensating The Dark Triad 10	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:50:00 - [9] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: My idea is to have a small fast special invisible ship that can fire a massive explosive canister that washes damage over their whole fleet then disappears. As a backup lets shove Battleship sized weapons on it. To far fetched? Sounds like a more useful stealth bomber.. :P <3 Zymurgist Thread locked for no content.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 597	Posted - 2011.10.15 19:53:00 - [10] - Quote There are already numerous "counters to blobs"; skills, equipment, fitting, fleet doctrines, teamwork, experience, preperation, spies, intel, scouts. Usually though, when people ask for "counters to blobs" then what they actually mean is "I deserve an overpowered pwnmobile". While I'm generally OK with there being an element of equipment and skill progression, there needs to be a limit to the ability to counter numbers with them. At some point, numbers do deserve to count. You're not entitled to win against numbers past that point just because you're prepared to spend more money. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
the plague Anthraxus Defense Laboratories 18	Posted - 2011.10.15 20:17:00 - [11] - Quote In my opinion you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle because blobs are only a symptom of a much larger problem. Of course it ought to be very, very difficult for a small force to defeat a larger, better equipped force. Common sense dictates that. And aside from some very convoluted work-arounds, there isn't very much the developers can realistically do to alter that equation. The problem isn't so much with the inability of small fleets to defeat larger ones, it's one of there not being relevant tasks suitable for small fleets to accomplish. Which is why I've written numerous times in the past that the current sovereignty system needs to be thrown out in its entirety. In its current form, sovereignty is nothing more than a glorified game of capture the flag with some convoluted timers thrown in just to add to the confusion. Sovereignty needs to be re-designed from the ground up as much more than a "go here and capture/destroy this" system. Taking and holding sovereignty ought to be a multifaceted undertaking that involves small fleets as well as large ones, and it ought to be designed to engage alliance members in interesting and challenging ways. Really, it's terrible game design the way it is now. It's boring, time consuming, and generally an unrewarding experience for the majority of gamers. People only do it as an means to an end, not because it's fun. Without even mentioning all its other flaws, that alone makes the current system a bad one. Small fleet warfare ought not to be something that's artificially engineered, it ought to be something that occurs as a natural byproduct of the basic design of nullsec and the player-run organizations that operate there. CCP needs to have the courage to follow its convictions and return EVE to its roots as an experience driven by player vs. player conflict. To do that, we need to flush the current system down the toilet and replace it with something deep, fun, and richly rewarding over time. A good start would be to take a look at how empires and superpowers exist in the real world and then extrapolate a few key gameplay mechanics. This ought to be a top priority for CCP as a truly excellent sovereignty system would do wonders for EVE as a game and attract players of ALL TYPES to nullsec.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol 58	Posted - 2011.10.15 20:20:00 - [12] - Quote More and more powerful AoE weapons will be a useful weapon against blobs without being unrealistic or overpowered.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 605	Posted - 2011.10.16 07:27:00 - [13] - Quote Jennifer Starling wrote: More and more powerful AoE weapons will be a useful weapon against blobs without being unrealistic or overpowered. Awesome, let's wipe out all ships under a certain size class from the battlefield! Can't bring a double DD-tanked BS? GTFO back to empire, noob! Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Dalloway Jones Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 27	Posted - 2011.10.16 07:30:00 - [14] - Quote I loved the idea someone had a few months ago of ships doing AOE damage when they are destroyed.
Jerick Ludhowe Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous 0	Posted - 2011.10.16 07:33:00 - [15] - Quote Line of Sight is the answer you seak
baltec1 96	Posted - 2011.10.16 07:35:00 - [16] - Quote Dalloway Jones wrote: I loved the idea someone had a few months ago of ships doing AOE damage when they are destroyed. As a blaster pilot I find this idea horrid.
DarkAegix Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 101	Posted - 2011.10.16 07:57:00 - [17] - Quote The real issue with blobs is how hundreds of targets can attack a single one, insta-popping it. If important internet spaceships were real, this would be terribly inefficient. Stacking the damage or limiting the number of ships firing at once is a bit brute-force, and other changes should be made. On land, if 50 musketeers had to inexplicably attack a tank they would surround it rather than grouping together and potentially all dying to a single shot. However, by surrounding it there's no way there can be 50 places of adequate cover where they can be protected by snipers/other tanks/orbital strikes from Russian Moon lasers/etc. Their cover choice is limited by musket range. So, maybe only 25 musketeers could attack the tank efficiently. The rest will need to find another tank, which will be somewhere else on the battlefield. Or, well, they could all attack the tank and suffer greater causalities than necessary. Somehow integrate that stupid analogy into EVE and there'll be improvement.
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2011.10.16 08:16:00 - [18] - Quote what about,, hmm what about .. ship which get destroyed doing some AoE dmg to all ships in certain radius .. You know reactor explosion and such .. Wouldnt stop blobing but will add some needed maneuverability so there is not 5k ships at 10 square meters. Chain reaction at that point would be inevitable .. you shoot 60 ships and rest will just blow up cause of the increase heat in the area
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate 23	Posted - 2011.10.16 08:17:00 - [19] - Quote Need to change the way space works, the need to assault multiple things at once would help too.
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2011.10.16 08:19:00 - [20] - Quote Adunh Slavy wrote: Need to change the way space works, the need to assault multiple things at once would help too. in other words fundamental change for sovereignty mechanics But i know just little about that, so i leave it to those who knows. Probably Goons
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 130	Posted - 2011.10.16 08:27:00 - [21] - Quote Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Tetragammatron Prime Pink Sockers 6	Posted - 2011.10.16 09:48:00 - [22] - Quote bombs need to work in high lag (this is a big one!!) introduce t2 bombs and launchers sniping needs to be viable again perhaps nerf artillery aka the subcap dd I'd rather they added objectives for small fleets like being able to attack moon mining arrays before making changes to the way sov warfare works
Kern Hotha 6	Posted - 2011.10.16 10:24:00 - [23] - Quote 1. Scan resolution penalties as numbers increase, eventually preventing locks or randomly dropping them. 2. Ship collisions. Blobs would kill themselves. 3. Significant AoE damage from destroyed/self-destructed ships.

CCP Spitfire C C P C C P Alliance 233	Posted - 2011.10.16 10:57:00 - [24] - Quote Moved from "EVE General Discussion". CCP Spitfire \| Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire

MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 50	Posted - 2011.10.16 17:17:00 - [25] - Quote spitfire best fire imo :)
Sigras Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N 22	Posted - 2011.10.16 20:13:00 - [26] - Quote Line of sight is the answer but it would make the server die with calculations... And making ships do AOE damage when they below up is a nerf to pods and to blaster ships... You have to think of Eve on a macro scale as an RTS game, and what stops blobs in an RTS? AOE damage that's great against blobs but not good against anything else... My thoughts is a T2 tier 3 battleship. Example bonuses of the amarrian one: 5% bonus to armor resistance and smartbomb CPU usage per Amarr battleship skill level 10% bonus to smartbomb optimal range and cap usage per ship specific skill level Role Bonus: 50% resistance to EM smartbomb damage Thoughts?
Sebastian N Cain Aliastra Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2011.10.17 00:32:00 - [27] - Quote You are all on the wrong track. Just look at the reason why the currently popular tactic of concentrating everything on a single target (be it for attack or support) would be incredibly stupid in RL. If in an encounter of, say, 50 tanks vs 50 tanks one side would concentrate their fire while the other side does not, what would be the result? Now 49 completely fine tanks would face 50 damaged ones. Just in case you don-¦t even know that much: if -in RL- you belong to the latter group this is the moment when you make a "oh shlt"-face. And after very few salvos the damage would be crippling enough to decide the fight, meaning you have still -for example- 45 undamaged tanks left while the opponent that was operating with eve-tactics has lost all 50, 9 to 1 kill-loss ratio what began as an even fight. However, in eve a ship will perform 100% even if its just 1 EHP away from exploding, meaning damaging a ship won-¦t do you any good, only sure kills will give you an advantage in fleet or gang fights, which means concentrating everything on one target is actually the most intelligent option for winning the fights. If you want something more sophisticated tactics, you need damage to affect ships before they are destroyed, so that the side that leaves all the opponents ships unharmed just to kill one single target will put itself at a serious disadvantage. Same with RR, repping only one ship and leaving all the others damaged... not good. There are several ways to make damage affect ships (reducing general stats like speed, agility, sensor strength the more damage comes in, or modules taking damage and getting destroyed, or whatever), which is the most practical would need to be looked into, but without such a feature you will not be able to change the current situation. "You either need less science fiction or more medication." "Or less medication and more ammo!"
Darkdood Estrale Frontiers 4	Posted - 2011.10.17 01:58:00 - [28] - Quote The is just AWESOME. I wrote 2000+ character in reply hit preview and it deleted everything I wrote. Whatever.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 71	Posted - 2011.10.17 05:31:00 - [29] - Quote I want to see more strike force objectives instead of blobs, you know take out the system defense cannon that is going to make the blob have a really bad day.
Feligast GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 215	Posted - 2011.10.17 07:35:00 - [30] - Quote Kern Hotha wrote: 2. Ship collisions. Blobs would kill themselves. 3. Significant AoE damage from destroyed/self-destructed ships. Yes please. I'll never leave the Jita 4-4 undock and make BILLIONS.

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.