EVE Search - At long last, Bloggers #20-something, Tuxford on Blobbing

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

At long last, Bloggers #20-something, Tuxford on Blobbing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] [12]:: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
GC13 Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2006.09.13 02:45:00 - [331] I would like to file a motion to have Noriah's ideas more fully-explored in a committee. I think there's some excellent potential there. --- New to Eve? Interested in manufacturing stuff, or doing research on blueprints? Check out my fully-updated Science and Industry guide.
Miss Overlord Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2006.09.13 11:20:00 - [332] Originally by: Noriath They can't do that, since they made missiles into the Caldari gun and every damn noob in this game will cry if missiles aren't the ultimate noob-weapon anymore. Missiles were cooler when they were slow, expensive, and did splash damage. Then they were missiles, now they are just th product of tons and tons of whining and devs giving in to it. they are balanced now what we need next are suicide drones that act like missiles - perhaps with a denoator (could substitue for mines) and have their own launcher - could splash damage the launcher if the target is to close
Shidhe Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim	Posted - 2006.09.13 16:09:00 - [333] Edited by: Shidhe on 13/09/2006 16:15:49 Originally by: Noriath ... Immagine all ships in Eve would go 10 times as fast as they do right now, but all warp increments where also multiplied, so you warp in at 150km mininum, and 1000 max. All the sudden a 200km range doesn't cover every single warp-in spot around a gate anymore, and in order to cover all of space around it you'd acctually need fast ships. At the same time warping itself has to be changed. It should take a lot longer to go into warp, cost a lot more cap on top of that, when coming out of warp you should not be able to fight immediatly, so that it's acctually undesirable to warp into a fight, but rather to warp near a fight and manuver into it. Warping away from a fight while being too close to an enemy should allow them to warp right after you, so that it becomes desirable to outrun them before you warp, and not just hit warp and be gone... ... This definitely deserves some discussion. Sounds good so far. Edit: Close range setups would need some attention - it would be more easy to get out of range of such a setup than at present.
Noriath	Posted - 2006.09.13 16:54:00 - [334] It would be a lot easier to outrun short range ships, but it would also be a lot easier for short rangers to get close to a long range ship that can't outrun them. The relative range of webbers and scramblers would have to be looked at when everything goes faster and the battlefield is much larger on principle.
Red Bishop Legio Immortalis	Posted - 2006.09.13 17:16:00 - [335] Edited by: Red Bishop on 13/09/2006 17:18:48 May have been said already but 12 pages... May also prove too heavy a solution but here's a thought: how about friendly fire and line of sight. Not sure but wouldnt a blob lose some of its deadliness if its members couldnt shoot through their own friends? Granted it raises some pretty scary issues in regard to adding processing power needed to calculate wether or not your LoS is clear but i think it could help spreading the blobs ap[art a little or at least prevent the whole blob from firing 100% of the time. And besides how funny would it be to see those tempest rip through the ships next to them in an attempt to snipe the damn intruder over there...
Minnow maught Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.09.13 17:35:00 - [336] There really is only 2 things to think about here .... 1) Breaking up the blob is intended to add a new dynamic to gang / fleet warefare? ( I presume that was the intention) 2) There is too much lag to even contemplate large gang / fleet warefare with added dynamics. (adding more server load) In reverse order: Lag: CCP probably knows where the lag lies and from some posts it appears to be with the server hardware not being able to cope with current features when heavily loaded ... hence the Bookmark nerf and the hint at reducing fleet size (to reduce this load?). I must say I am surprised that bandwidth does not pose a problem as well .... I mean 30,000 users using lets say 20k bandwidth is a gargantuan amount not just from the persepctive of their internet connection but also for the switching / routing hardware to handle. I also think that 20k may be on the conservative side for the data that needs to be sent to users sometimes. By my estimates you need at least 600mbit connection for this. Two options as I see it .... either a major investment in further hardware by CCP or face the reality that some features may need to be simplified / removed. For Eve to continue, it needs to be profitable for those maintaining it so perhaps furhter hardware is not an option? I doubt that their code is particulalrly in efficient ... look what they have achieved so far!! Theres kind of a lack of forsight issue looming in the background also ... When ccp allowed BM's (for example), they probably did not see the issues it would eventually lead to. However now if they decide to re-write / remove them then they will upset there custoemrs a lot ... sort of a catch 22 ... this isn't limited to bookmarks of course there are lots of other areas like this. Perhaps dynamic load balancing is a possibility? At the moment load balancing is done during downtime iirc ... if this could be done in real time then that could help tremendously ... e.g. when a node hits 90%, it steals time from other nodes that are only loaded lets say at 50% or less but only takes it up to a max of 75% ?? OK i'm talking from my rear as I haven't really got a clue how this works but it sounds good to me. GANG WAREFARE: There are so many realism features that could be added it is untrue, however my personal view is that no matter how much I would love to see them added, lag has to be the first priority ... add too many features and the game will be totally un playable. Features I can think of: Split gangs/fleets: in reality 1 person can not be expected to communicate to an infinite number of subordinates so this needs to be split and skill based in someway. I mean a colonel does not macro-manage every single soldier does he and neither does he have the capaciy to do so. Flanking: if you shoot a ship from the side, you are presented with a bigger target to hit than you have from the front or rear (very basic real life combat tactic). I'd love to see this introduced so that battlefield position is important. Command structure destruction: Take out the gang leaders and there needs to be an adverse effect. At present, the pilot in his pod is still giving gang members gang bonuses and still able to run a gang. Focused fire: This IMO is realistic more guns = more damage. To change this would be unrealistic. Gang Logistics: This needs a boost tbh whether at the capital ship level or the logistic cruiser level or perhaps a new level? Logistic BS?. It needs to be VERY much more benficial to bring them into action IMO. At the moment the only use i can see for logisitc cruisers is as a heavy tackler or POS shield repair. Anyway thats my 50c, let the flames and disagreements commence :)
Noriath	Posted - 2006.09.13 17:36:00 - [337] Line of sight and thereby friendly fire won't work, the game just isn't built that way. You have to remember that the combat system of Eve runs entirely independently from what you see on the screen more or less. The graphical representation of ships and weapons is only what your client makes of much simpler combat info. In order to make Eve combat better warping has to be changed so doing it in and out of combat is not the end all be all of strategic movement, but extremly risky, hard to pull off, and never smarter then trying to acctually outrun your atacker. And then you have to balance the amount of movement on the battlefield with the amount of range. Immagine it like a RTS game. In order for it to have any element of strategy the map has to be bigger then how far your units can shoot, otherwise thhere would be no reason to ever move them, so therefore no advantage to speed. So in order to put strategy and movement into Eve the size of the battlefield has to be larger then the range of the units. The feasible battlefields in Eve are a 100km radius sphere, the range of units exceeds 200km easily. A battlefield in Eve should be 1000km radius, and ships should be able to move fast enough to traverse it at a reasonable rate.
Marano Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.13 19:05:00 - [338] Wow this is a long thread! I havn't had the chance to read every single page through but here is my two cents and if someone has mentioned this already sry I missed it. To reduce blobbing my suggestion is to introduce a AOE torpedo or gun that is specifically anti BS and limit it to specific launcher/turrents and specific ships. Although I think that a Torpedo is the better weapon to do the job than a turrent simply because it allows a fleet to react better to the threat when they see a AOE torp coming their way. Either introduce a new ship or change up the current Stealth bomber for this job. Let's pretend we will change up the current stealth bomber. The bomber would be able to shoot these new weapons with high dmg and a slow firing rate and the Torpedo would travel slow allowing a fleet to disengage if the bomber is shooting from a long enough distance. The bomber could be cloaked then uncloak and fire and should be allowed to recloak and the AOE torps still hit their intended target without penalty for recloaking. If a bomber would have to wait for the torps to hit their intended target before recloaking the fleet would simply primary them and they would die a horrible death Making a change like this could at the very least give a lvl of unpredicability in a fleet battle and up the strategy involved. As far as lag goes....well we all know it makes fleet engagements on a large size frustrating so this is why I love smaller engagements. As I said my two cents folks
Magunus The Forsakened Few The ARR0W Project	Posted - 2006.09.13 19:47:00 - [339] Originally by: Marano Wow this is a long thread! I havn't had the chance to read every single page through but here is my two cents and if someone has mentioned this already sry I missed it. To reduce blobbing my suggestion is to introduce a AOE torpedo or gun that is specifically anti BS and limit it to specific launcher/turrents and specific ships. Although I think that a Torpedo is the better weapon to do the job than a turrent simply because it allows a fleet to react better to the threat when they see a AOE torp coming their way. Either introduce a new ship or change up the current Stealth bomber for this job. Let's pretend we will change up the current stealth bomber. The bomber would be able to shoot these new weapons with high dmg and a slow firing rate and the Torpedo would travel slow allowing a fleet to disengage if the bomber is shooting from a long enough distance. The bomber could be cloaked then uncloak and fire and should be allowed to recloak and the AOE torps still hit their intended target without penalty for recloaking. If a bomber would have to wait for the torps to hit their intended target before recloaking the fleet would simply primary them and they would die a horrible death Making a change like this could at the very least give a lvl of unpredicability in a fleet battle and up the strategy involved. As far as lag goes....well we all know it makes fleet engagements on a large size frustrating so this is why I love smaller engagements. As I said my two cents folks Great minds --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
m0jo Brutor tribe	Posted - 2006.09.25 11:23:00 - [340] Your missing the point here. The issue is lag plain and simple. The reason large fleets fight at long distances is because fleets die way too quick when warping in close range DUE TO LAG. You want to put in AOE weapons? Ok dont you think each side is gonna have an abundance of these? That wont fix the problem just make it worse. Wanna nerf focused firing huh? That wont work with huge fleets and still it wont fix the problem. Fix the lag and you have fixed the problem plain and simple.

Drusan	Posted - 2006.09.25 16:50:00 - [341] Some impressive ideas here and the points about lag have merit as well. As I see it you end up with a few mechanical options to try to alleviate the issues of focus firing. Please note that ultimately we have to remember that these solutions should apply across the board, and by that I mean, if we are fighting NPC blobs of ships, the rules we are considering inputing should help/hinger them just as much as players. Lord knows NPC's focus fire to a fault (they never retask). However, the issues are: 1. No penalty for being in super tight proximity to friendly targets, in fact, highly advantageous in terms of offensive options. 2. Massive ranges allow for pinpoint focus firing from tight formations OR well organized multiple ships. 3. Ships resiliency when faced with focused fire is woefully insufficient, causing destruction before pilots have reasonable opportunity to compensate and respond (lag + TTK arithmetic) To contend with item 1, the options are straightforward. Splash damage from various sources OR start penalizing the accurracy/sensors/locks of ships in close proximity. Hell, if you are cloaked ships within 2k of each other even if friendly, do you disrupt each others cloaks? The range of interference should be directly associated to Signature radius. Smaller ships can stay close to larger ships as their sensors are operating on a difference scale, but put a pair of carriers side by side at 2km and they have issues. You can also go the splash damage route for both offensive systems AND exploding craft (bigger ships = bigger explosions, naturally). And that too should affect friend and foe alike. Maybe those hot shot assault ships should have to think about when to peel off a large battleship so they don't get hammered with debris,firing on the way out of the explosion. This also affects tactical terrain in missions, such as structures. Maybe it's worth blowing up some structures to damage other structures in a mission or the ships orbiting near it (but that is a digression). On item 2, all you are really tackling is the ease of focusing fire. Making it harder doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just changes the rules of engagement such that they work to achieve the same result another way at a different range. Range is not the real issue, all being able to range the same target without risk comparitive to reward is. A wing of assault ships focuses fire for the same reason a blob formation does, and we WANT fighters operating in blob wings as they have risk associated with doing so, operating at short orbit ranges where drones and smartbombs are a threat. The issue they have is being able to GET to their operational distance facing the same focused incoming fire (at least as i understand the problem, I can stand to be corrected). Which leaves Item 3, which is a fundamental flaw of an arithmetic hitpoint system. More simultaneous damage = faster death. There is no 'cap out' point where the overkill factor is simply wasted. You could use a ships signature not only as a limiter of the damage from any given attack, but quite literally a hard cap on the amount of damage that ship can take in any given period of time. Can a ship with 1000 sp/ap/hps take 1200 in a single shot? sure. Is there a point where being pecked to death in the same instant is not as viable as a portion of shield or armor that was already sucking up a hit is sucking up the same hits at the same time? This is a hard concept to illustrate, but if you were to think of Reactive Armor in the current day, where a plate of armor is literally thrown in the path of incoming damage, that interception diffuses 10 lasers or rockets comparitively to 1 or 2, making the resulting damage to the main ship decidedly less than the simple addition of the ten attacks destructive potential. (Please forgive the kludged description, writing in some haste on my lunch time.) Some form of 'thresholding' may extend the TTK and limit appropriately.
Sir Bart	Posted - 2006.09.26 22:38:00 - [342] Regaurding Tux's comment that concentrated fire is very effective and frusterating for the dead guy.... tough beans, that's they way it should be. Concentrated fire is a valid tactic in the real world, if we could fly spaceships, we'd have computers optimizing our concentration of fire...
Tyranical Teabagger	Posted - 2006.09.27 02:38:00 - [343] why not a module or something that is used with a logistics cruiser or some such that allows them to warp their gang within 15 km of the enemy fleet if it's over 150km away? this crazy t2 ammo only blob sniping stuff would dissapear really quick.
Android Mindslave Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2006.09.27 03:29:00 - [344] Originally by: Sir Bart Regaurding Tux's comment that concentrated fire is very effective and frusterating for the dead guy.... tough beans, that's they way it should be. Concentrated fire is a valid tactic in the real world, if we could fly spaceships, we'd have computers optimizing our concentration of fire... He didn't say focus fire was the problem. He said the problem was the game mechanics that made focus fire into a monstrosity.
Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.09.27 03:51:00 - [345] i agree with what was said about mobility in battlefield warp provide so much mobility that is no more usefull to maneuver in combat. i think that such mobility should be granted/stopped with new modules or ships. another thing i think is lacking is an inbattle objective. atm you just fire to destroy the opponent and in the end there is not a huge benefit in destroying a target or another. (i'm not speaking of pos/dread battles of course) implementing new modules or ship that grant to their fleet some big benefits and can be an objective for the enemy ship. here some idea. an interdictor ship (star wars style), a big ship that extend an antiwarp bubble over the battlefield. (or disable enemy warp capability) this way will not be possible for normal ship to use warp to flee or maneuver. a (capital) ship able to move allied forces even in presence of an interdictor (SW). this ship will act as a sort of "anchor" and will be able to assign different sector of space around it, to various gang or "squad" members. also a fleet warping with this ship should be able to warp in formation and various ships should vame out of warp in their supposed sector. the sector disposition can be something like this x = anchor ship 123 4X5 678 what will be the benefit of such deployment? as said warp can be impossible with an interdictor so an anchor ship can be deployed just outside the enemy range and move the troop from the front line (in gun range) to back lines (where maybe support ships can heal damage ships or other important ships, as interdictors and carriers can stay out of enemy range): maybe the anchor ship (eventually with its fleet or a part of it) shoul also be able to escape from an interdictor, but the time needed to warp should be quite long, like 10 or 20min and should be visible on the battlefield. (this should make this ship usable in battle) a "painter ship" able to create a nav point inside (or nearer) the enemy lines... this ship will create a nav point (actually a new sector) for the anchor ship using a friendly or enemy ship and painting it. as long as the painter ship will be intact and its target will be in range this ship will provide to the anchor ship a new sector that it can assign as a normal sector. the time needed to "paint" a ship should be different, quite fast for a friendly ship (this way ceptors or spec ops can try to reach the enemy lines for a fast charge) or quite long in case of an anemy ship. this way it will be possible to do some "assaults" using both a mix of close and long range ship. the close range ship can stay in a sector (safe) behind the anchor ship, when the new nav point (sector) is created they are able to rush in front of the enemy. a situation can be something like this there are 2 fleets with 2 anchors X and Y 678 4X5 123 123 4Y5 678 battle is being fought at range in sector 123 of respective fleets, fleet Y happen to create a nav point (sector 9) on a ship in the sector 2 of enemy fleet, the situation will be like this. 678 4X5 123 9 123 4Y5 678 here that now all the close range ships in sector 6 can be assigned to warp to sector 9 actually ending inside of enemy lines. on counter anchor X can maybe chose to move its close range ships from its sector 7 to its sector 2 (reinforcing that sector) or maybe to retreat ships in sector 2 in sector 6 and try to face the close range ships by itself and its support. it could seem a bit complex but the idea is to have a more chess like scenario where ships can be moved to attac and react to enemy moves/attemps
Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.09.27 04:04:00 - [346] this will also make necessary to create different groups inside a fleet and should be needed to have a gerarchical structure. this way an anchor will not be forced to assign a sector ship by ship, but just to a ship group. will also make command ships a bit more needed for their gang bonuses as only the ships inside their group should benefit from it. as said these are just some ideas, and lag for sure can be an issue in this scenario, but i think that something along these lines (to grant remove mobility using ships/modules) can be of great benefit in a fleet bs fleet scenario and will make battles lee chaotic, more varied and exciting as both fleets will be forced to try moves and counters to gain the battlefield superiority. also something like that should be able to make both close and long range ships usefull in a given battle and hopefully the best fleets will have a mix of them. even the strategical disposition of different fleets can be important, maybe i could make the opponent prepare its force for a battle and there that a new anchor with a new fleet warp in (at max interdictor range) in the back of my enemy trying to target all their ships in sectors behind the anchor... as said just some ideas and possible scenarios. another thing that will benefit a lot fleet battles imo is line of sight, it was alredy discussed and i'm all for it... my only fear is that it will not be possible to implement it for the huge resources it will need :(


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] [12]:: 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.