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

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)
ParMizaN Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:01:00 - [91] Mothership anti-blob weapons :D sig edited for lack of pink really PINK -eris Pink is overrated, yellow is the new pink - Xorus
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:06:00 - [92] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 02/09/2006 12:14:01 Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub [...]then Tux goes on about the ways to split the blob. I think this is just a partial solution. What's needed is to bring the diversity of small group combat to fleet fights, not just splitting the blob. Blob fight is a blob fight, whether there's one or 5 of them. And the directions he mentions are not promising. [...] I like this post. Blobs are blobs because they have got a very high effectiveness for a very low coordination cost: the marginal gang member brings only a small marginal coordination cost, for an always higher return. This is partly what rewards focused fire so much, so much more than it should be (to limit the numbers involved in focused fire, you need to have decreasing returns past a thresold defined by "the circumstances", which are brought by coordination costs increasing with the number of people involved). In such a way, there's an optimal size for gangs in a defined circumstance. You can still add people, and still get a benefit from doing so, but given your other constraints such use of a resource can come sooner at an opportunity cost... Hence, the real question is - as a few posters above pointed out - how to increase coordination costs in a way that rewards planning, specialisation, intelligence and adaptation, decentralisation and organisation of the fleet in appropriate groups... Not because it's the only thing you can do, but because it's the best thing to do. That's why artificial targetting limitations/damage penalties will never feel right (though it could very well solve the most visible problems, it is not going to make the game more tactical). So, the problem of blobbing is more related to the problem of mixed fleets/lack of counter to some tactics (see t2 sniper ammo) than the to problem of focused fire. Focused fire is pretty much a given, there's little you can do against it that will ever feel natural. On the other hand, to have mixed fleets you need to reward with performance the extra coordination cost over "non mixed fleets", characterized by their low coordination costs. How to create/increase coordination costs then ? You need to increase complexity (the amount of relevant variables in different situations), by increasing the impact of range, tracking and everything related to ship sizes/classes in general, various forms of targeting disruption requiring coordination... NB. In Rust We Trust
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:21:00 - [93] Edited by: Ithildin on 02/09/2006 12:22:44 So, did I understand it correctly? Near the BLOB is the SOD. The SOD is bad and dangerous. And the effective reach of the BLOB is a COD, and extension of the SOD. Dark skies torn apart Heavens open before me I, the light of death
Luric Vizjier The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:34:00 - [94] Edited by: Luric Vizjier on 02/09/2006 12:35:12 Edited by: Luric Vizjier on 02/09/2006 12:34:47 Said it before and I'll say it again. Environment and player blocking. You should not be able to hit through an asteroid or station anymore than another player's ship. This would SEVERELY stop blob tactics as you would have to have a clear line of sight to your target so as to not hit a friendly ship. Range is not the problem. Am I wrong? EDIT: Plus, this brings in new roles to fleets like giving tankers an actual purpose such as being able to block fire from other ships. -----------------------------------------------
Zar Dim Minmatar Anus Horriblis	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:36:00 - [95] I like the idea of the force field, which prevents high speed particles in, but allows slow ships to come inside the radius. That should discourage 200km sniping. You are eather trying to break field which should be pretty hard but manageble, or trying to close down with an enemy and launch short range ships - weapons. Also add AOE effect to torpedoes. This is not resource intensive and should help to spice up battles and decrease long range fighting and reduce blobs.
Xenofur Di-Tron Heavy Industries Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:39:00 - [96] dunno if it was mentioned yet, but one way to create a powerful AOE weapon that wouldn't be teh pwn would be to create bomb drones. drones that do damage like smartbombs do, and can be set on a single ship, which it then approaches and on contact promptly explodes. they would have to be quite powerful, but even when you go as low as 10m¦ per bomb drone they would be VERY limited in terms of ammo as well as would reduce the number of normal drones you could bring.
Akira Kaneshiro Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2006.09.02 12:53:00 - [97] Originally by: Ghoest 3 Tux didnt mention this. In a real fleet your damage would be reduced by blobing. A good part of the time your gunners(or really a computer) would have to halt firing so as to not hit friendly ships in your way. Since EVE physics dont work like this there should be a damage penalty. Reason 3 is actually the main reasons formations are used by both ships and air planes historically. ---- sig of truth ---- Stop whining. Deal with it or quit the game.
Shao Lyn	Posted - 2006.09.02 13:00:00 - [98] A few suggestions... 1) Make most ECM weapons burst type weapons which affect all ship friend or foe. This would increase fleet cohesion racially and spread friendly fleets out greatly. 2) To keep ECM platforms viable, those ships would be able to use ECM mods which center on a ship target and area of effect is a cone. This would ensure enemy fleets keep spread out too. (Do this with the standard 95-99% reduction in cpu/grid for the ecm platform ships) 3) Gang size should increase locking time for the gang exponentially after say 10 in gang. Would encourage smaller gangs, and make them an even more effective anti-blob tactic. (Could be countererd to some effect with the use of command modules) 4) Have each ship be limitted to how many people can target it at once based upon it's sig radius. (No more 10 man killmails on a shuttle) 5) Introduce logistical modules for logistical ships. Something that would say give 10 ships a 10% armour increase. Have stacking penalties as normal and only highest skill score in effect per gang. 6) Module damage on hull hits anyone? 7) Have the load processors take into account structures in a system (POS, outpost, etc.) might help a tad with lag too. That's all for now from this noob. Wonder if I'll have a face...
Gabriel Karade Office linebackers Blood of the Innocents	Posted - 2006.09.02 13:29:00 - [99] ItÆs still lacking a reason to not focus fire all the time. Under most situations you would want to put as many of the opponents under 'stress' as possible, as a combatant not taking fire, not suppressed, is far more dangerous than one who is (plus the whole LOS issue which has been mentioned previously) Essentially if you have 10 of your ships firing on one, the other 9 unmolested ships should be causing havoc by putting all of your fleet under fire, causing damage and reduction in offensive capabilities (this would be a whole new layer of complexity beyond the simple # HPÆs remaining). And working LOS would be a god-send for high damage, heavily tanked close range ships - if an enemy does bunch up and blocks all their own LOS, you get in amongst them and tear them apart. ---------- - Office Linebacker -
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.02 13:34:00 - [100] Things which will ruin Eve PvP: artificial limit on how many ships can target another ship stacking penalty on damage (only the first 3 will do full damage, then the damage will get nullified) Eve PvP is just dots shooting other dots, and intregrating unlogical stuff to compensate for that is wrong, and wont feel like a spacegame. From Dusk till Dawn
Lacero Callrisian Minmatar Solar Storm Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.09.02 13:56:00 - [101] Originally by: Tsavong Lah End of the day, what is needed is to reduce the percentage of "gangers" in the average fleet, and make the players interested in doing more than pure damage - it's difficult, but it's been pulled off in WoW and other games well, CCP just need to think outside the box and see what can be played with. Removing kill mails would be a good start. /me hides in his asbestos bunker
Leign	Posted - 2006.09.02 13:58:00 - [102] The effect of trying to fight amongst a tightly packed group of ships would be to reduce your opportunities to fire on the target due to obstructions. So your rate of fire drops, making the gang less effective in a blob. How could this be simulated in Eve? Add up the sig radius of every ship within a 5 or 10km radius and use this as a negative modifier on your RoF. Possibly include the number of ships as a factor, as it would be easier to keep a small number of ships from obstructing each other than a large number. However, if your target is also within that radius, the RoF modifier doesn't apply.
Isyel Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.09.02 13:58:00 - [103] Originally by: Nafri Edited by: Nafri on 02/09/2006 13:38:37 Also people forget why we focus fire: A enemy can warp out within 2 seconds if he is aligned, in that 2 seconds you need to kill him or you wasted time and firepower. Unless CCP changes the way ships behave to be more inline with what they should (afterall we fight with real big ships) there is no way fleetcombat will change. To stop focus firing a bit you need several stuff: - friendly fire - direction of fire - sluggy ships - hitzones - rework of tanking - rework of warping To kill a BS must need much more time, BS must be much rarer and basicly Eve would need to be rewritten. I agree regarding the BS behaviour. I dislike the EvE scaling, BSs even look small. (they are like 1km in lenght usually) Thy should behave like that too, not to mention in any common space game they would already be Capital Ships (they're actually bigger than usual cap ships i think :S). But it's a bit too late to change stuff to make BSs rare.
Merdaneth	Posted - 2006.09.02 14:06:00 - [104] The problem is not that focus fire is an effective tactic (thus encouraging blobbing) its that focus fire is easy to execute and the opponent has almost no ways to disrupt the tactic. Limit Overview What I would like to see is that the overview only lists the nearest 10 hostiles or so. If you want to target others, you can, but you have to do it manually. This would set up lots of tactical and formation options. For example: a group of interceptors rushing forward may disrupt enemy tactics pretty badly (especially if they reach enemy lines), requiring the enemy t to counter with interceptors (or interceptor killers) of their own. It is a fairly simple solution (and easy to code) but just think of the tactical possibilities it opens up. Picket lines, support ships positioning themselves at the back of the fleet, tanking ships on the frontlines, ships rushing forward and then back again in an attempt to disrupt enemy fire control by alternating available targets, fleets getting an advantage if they attack enemy flanks or rear. Interceptors rushing to support a breached flank etc. etc. Of course, large area of effect weapons can also discourage people to blob, but that is just a 'fix' for blobs, not an option that actually opens up tactical options. This probably needs to be combined with a reduction of range, so that ships from both fleets actually have a chance to get in close.
Daxes Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.02 14:33:00 - [105] Tux reminds me of someone who wants to fly to another galaxy while he isnt even able to get to the next damn planet. Even if there are all those new fancy features (which will anyways never happen) how do those help you if u are lagged to death? Its just a blog stating the obvious and tells noone with any clue something new. It even leaves out some thing like that the "destruction" of blobs would mean that it gives even more strength to the defender of a place. Any AoE weapons mean that u would have to warp in from many different directions/positions, alone this would give the defender a great advantage and would discourage fleets even more to warp into the enemy as long as there isnt something like a formation feature in Eve and tbh i dont expect a working one before the year 2012. So what do we have in the end? Again a lot of talking and new ideas/feature which will (like always) leave the biggest problem aside => lag.
UndergrounD Caldari Corsets and Carebears Whips and Chains	Posted - 2006.09.02 14:41:00 - [106] Try reduced targeting range based on ships in the grid. Like, Introduce an accumalative dampening effect when 20+ ships are in the same grid, increasing the effect as more players enter that grid. would prob crash the servers when a 100 man gang warps in, but by all acounts that nothing new anyway. -----------------------------------------------
Tohm Raerdor	Posted - 2006.09.02 14:45:00 - [107] Reading the blog and the suggestions, I agree with line-of-sight calculations and area-of-effect weapons. The calculation for line-of-sight is a simple dot-product calculation coupled with one range check, which should be pretty fast even if you have 200 ships in system. To reduce the calculations for large fleet battles, you could use the same line-of-sight check for weapons fired within 2 or 3 seconds of each other. Maybe ignore moving drones. And you may not have to update certain line-of-sight calculations if both X and Y ships haven't moved. As pointed out, this alone will encourage formations (simple line formations of follow the guy in front of you will suffice). Area-of-effect weapons increase the incentive to spread out. Pretty straightforward. Maybe allow interdictors to launch AoE damage weapons in addition to their warp bubbles with their launcher? That is currently the only ranged AoE weapon that I know of.
Cherybol Trader's Academy Daikoku Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.02 14:57:00 - [108] I think that when ships blow up, they should do damage within a certain radius. I mean common, flying metalic shrapenel. I just kinda skipped the pages just so i can add my 2 cents. And if this is already happening, then make it more powerful. It makes sense, and it discorages people to get in a pack of 20 people. AoE would be sweet to.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.02 15:01:00 - [109] 1. Don't limit the number of ships that can target a specific ship. It will be abused. What prevents 5 friends locking each other to make sure they can't be locked by others or by less enemies? 2. Line of sight checks? Do you want more lag? I cannot imagine how this could ever be implemented without increasing lag considerably. You'd have to check for every shot whether people are between you and your target. 3. AOE damage might work. I'd limit it to dreads though. Gives them a role in fleet combat, and prevents it from being abused by every tom, **** and harry for ratting or whatever. Make it expensive ammo. 4. Other viable solution would be some kind of interference depending on the number of ships near you. Problem is that if you do this not exactly right, range becomes even more important. Because if you want to have a lot of friends near, they have to be spread out. And which means if you want to spread out, but still hit the same target, range becomes everything.
Lucre STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.02 15:11:00 - [110] I know drawing historical parallels is sometimes iffy. But historically there were 2 reasons "focus fire" didn't happen. Back in sail days, it was because your arcs of fire were relatively narrow so if everyone aimed at the same target, the ships would all be sailing in different directions and your formation would be messed. In WW1/WW2 days, range/arc was no longer an issue - the problem was shell-spotting. If everyone aimed at the same target (or even more than one ship aimed at a target) then working out which "splash" became problematic and your accuracy degraded as you couldn't tell which way to adjust fire. Interestingly, whilst most suggestions to fix focus fire have tended to use the second analogy e.g. effectively putting a stacking penalty on focus fire, your ideas almost seem closer to the first, especially the directional defences. Fascinating idea. Say ships could fit a genuine "invulnerability" bow shield - could be triggered like a siege module and use fuel. Probably stop you firing too. But the effect on fleet actions would as you say then be to force fleets to try and surround the enemy as otherwise any ship you focus-targeted would just retreat behind its shield.
Ethan Magnar Gallente	Posted - 2006.09.02 15:28:00 - [111] I'll voice my thoughts not just on blobbing, but combat in general. I haven't put any real thought into a solution, but I'll post my thoughts, in hope that the devs take notice. The biggest problem with combat in EVE, in my opinion, is that it's too quick and not tactical enough. Right now, you just call primary and alpha-strike your target, it goes down in a matter of seconds and you move on to the next. Now, about a year ago, a game called Nexus: The Jupiter Incident came out, a space RTS/sim. The beautiful thing about this game is that it took quite some time to take down a ship. Not only did they have generally more hitpoints, you had to think about what weapon you were gonna use at what time (there were different types of weapons against shield/armor etc), subsystem targetting, etc. Ok but that game is not EVE you say. Correct, but I do think it's something to work towards to. In general, I think battles in EVE should take far, far longer than they do now, and should be a lot more tactical instead of the call primary then alpha-strike. On topic then about the blobbing: dunno who said it, but I liked the idea about your exploding ship doing damage, I think this would not prove to be a final solution by a long shot, and raises problems of it's own, but I think it's a start.
herot Icarus Ascendant	Posted - 2006.09.02 15:34:00 - [112] Edited by: herot on 02/09/2006 15:34:47 One way to deter from close knit fleet formations would be to introduce a damage effect from exploding ships, akin to the damage done by a smartbomb but with the damage effect lessened by distance. This would force the commander in a fleet engagements to have to make a tactical decision about; whether to keep his ship close, to maximise the damage to prime targets, whilst running the risk of increased damage/loses if the tide in the battle turns again him, and his own ships starts to disintegrate under the enemy fire; Or should he instead spread out his fleet risking not having all in his force able to bring their weapons to bear on the primary targets, but on the other hand not as susceptible to a domino effect of losses, induced by his own ships breaking up. Of course the ship types would have to cause different amount of damage and at different ranges. But a frigate should be forced to think twice about being close to a capital ship on the verge of breaking up.
Gierling Gallente Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.02 15:51:00 - [113] This is a lot of awkward guffawing about the only really practical solution. SKill based limits on gang sizes with accompanying organization changes.
PhalHell Minmatar Rome SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.02 16:22:00 - [114] Originally by: Noriath Originally by: RayGic Luke Things that might make fleet combat more interesting than blobbing: 1) Friendly Fire (You just can't shoot thru your mate to hit the enemy, can you?) 2) Weapons AoE damage (Even a small scale AoE weapon will make ppl think twice before hugging each other's ship) 3) Damage from Ship's explosion (Similar effect to small scale AoE damage) If all the above 3 points are in the game, how will a fleet battle turn out? Pretty much the same way it does right now. The ranges that ships can fire at and the ranges that ships can and have to move during a battle are so completly out of proportion that it makes no difference wether your enemys ships are 1km or 10km apart. It's impulse movement that's the real issue in Eve. Nobody wants to impule anywhere, people don't even want to impulse to the gates, and they sure as hell don't want to impulse 200km towards an enemy so they can engage him in a ship that doesn't shoot that far, not to mention that he will simply warp off if you even get close. The whole way ships move in eve pretty much leads to one thing: If you don't warp in within your weapons range you will never get into weapons range, because either you will die before you can fire a single shot, or your enemy will just warp off if you manage to get close enough to still win the fight. Bcause of that long range will always win out in Eve. Also there is the whole issue with large weapons having a really easy time killing small targets that are very far away. Now what the hell is that? If a battleship simply could not hit a frig that's 200km away fleet battles would look quite different, believe that. Pretty much what Eve needs is a change to a point where moving to the right place on the battlefield and the ability to do that quickly is just as strategically valid as how much range or firepower you have. In order to achieve that stuff needs a lot less range, more speed and ability to go places, and most of all, the way warping works right now just has to go. The mobility of a ship will never really play a strategic role as long as all positioning is done by warping rather then acctually moving a ship. QFT. I don't want to highjack this tread but making all ships faster could resolve this and the bookmark problem in one way. Why ? Because moving faster will allow more tactical moves outside warping as it is now. Shortrange guns could add speed as an attribute. It is logical to do so as no one would fit short range weapons on slow ships. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my corps, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary.
Skid Pants	Posted - 2006.09.02 16:29:00 - [115] How about increasing the lock time if you have more than say 4 or 5 ships targetting you ? Would make focus fire still viable but less economical, especially if the locking times stacked making a 7th or 8th person trying to lock you almost a waste of time.
Wanten RONA Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.02 16:48:00 - [116] I think shortening the range on a ship might allow for longer battles although it doesnt stop the ships warping in ontop of the enemy and "blobbing" them. Although i think linked with an idea like ships within a certain range of friendly ships say 5km will cause damage every time a ship fires a weapon, clearly this cant be 100s of hitpoints but it needs to be enough that if there were say 4 ships in the close area it would worry the pilot, hopefully this might encourage people to disperse their fleets. ----------------------------------------------- Rona Corp
Rafein Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.09.02 16:49:00 - [117] My ways of changing things. 1. Gang size should be limited by gang skills, following a tree much like corp skills. Now, anyone can join a gang at any time, but for gang bonuses to be applied, someone must have the skills to contrl the gang. Gang is too big, no one gets gang bonuses. But new skills and gang controls appear, fleet command, so it gets broken up into a more military structure. Each gan shares their bonuses, which then answer to their squadron leader, which answers to the fleet leader 2. New gang mod- Damage link. Basically, it adds the variable of moving ships into combat. When the mod is running, a flat 10 % of all damage taken by a target are instead taken by his gangmates, if gang bonuses ar shared. So the "primary" takes 10% less damage, but the rest of the gang takes some of the damage for him. Also a skill that adds 2% per level, so a 20% max reduction in Primary's damage taken, but the damage isn;t lost, the rest of the gang shares it.
Crellion Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.09.02 17:02:00 - [118] Tux mate just fix the lag the rest is irrelevant. With no lag issues on can dance around a blob all day.
Miri Tirzan Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.02 17:59:00 - [119] Edited by: Miri Tirzan on 02/09/2006 18:04:16 . I can think of several things that would help with this issue but to be effective it would be a complete redo of the way fleet combat is done. Suggestions: Gangs 1. Have two levels of gangs: Squadron and Fleet 2. Have different sets of formations for Squadron or Fleet 2. Have gang leaders at each level 3. Put a gang size limit based on the leaders skills and ships on how many can be in a gang. 4. Restrict Fleet gang members to only Squadron Leaders Then 1. Make called fire a squadron command with no penalties 2. Make group fire by individual ships (not members of the same squadron) have penalties for multiple ships firing at the same target (I would think that anything after the first 3 do no damage) 3. Make the formation of the squadron affect the quality of the called fire 4. Make the formation of the Fleet affect the quality of squadron fire Additionally 1. Make the Fleets Area of Control be a map gird and if two fleets of the same corp. or alliance over lap then all the bad things listed below for squadrons happen to the fleets. 2. Make an area of control for the squadron gang leader that contains the squadron 3. If any squadronÆs in the same fleet enters the area of control all gang bonuses are removed 4. If more than 3 or more squadronÆs area of control over lap for the same fleet, then the gang bonuses become gang penalties 5. Make the range of remote energy/armor/shield be larger than the formation of a squadron 6. Make the use of remote energy/armor/shield be squadron (gang) list based 7. Make the use of utility drones use the squadron (gang) list Additionally this makes taking out leaders much more effective that just killing the biggest ship. I would also suggest that once a Squadron or Fleet Leader is killed. There would be a time period where no new gang commands at the level of the loss could be issues. This reflects the change of command. I also thing that regardless of who dies during the battle, no gang benefits change until the battle is over (but that may be hard to program) svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
FactorzGT Quantum Industries	Posted - 2006.09.02 18:00:00 - [120] 1)increase relative ship maneuverability can you imagine 20 BS's being gang warped to 15KM of the same destination ... and then trying to double click in space to head in all different directions and form a meaningful fleet formation ... all the while trying to avoid the pitfalls of not accidentally clicking on some [moon, planet, stellar object] that would result in the game not receiving the correct command if you give a pitch, yaw, and roll interface then pilots would be able to conceivably form and keep formations ... additionaly the relative movement is key. instead of the "turtle race" that would ensue by BS trying to form up ... make afterburners non modular ... don't have them use cap, but rather their own independent "cap" ... it would allow battleships (and all ships) a boost of speed to cover distances and increase gaps in the formation' the speed boost can be easily tweaked via attributes to maintain an even keel across the ship classes and races 2) give us the option of an in***pit view with its own set of keyboard mapped ship controls like a dogfight almost, but without getting away from combat as we know it also incorporate true space movement ... if i head in vector A at 300m/s ... i can then rotate my ship 90degrees clockwise to in effect have a strafing view of my opponent ... my thrusters having been fired in the direction of Vector A will be disabled, inertia will maintain the vector, and maneuvering thrusters will have pointed my*pit in the direction i want to view now, using 1st person***pit view, i want to fire on my opponent, ... step 1, allow me manual targeting, allow the use of my mouse reticle to track, lead, and shoot a ship ... if this is the method in which i'm trying to shoot an oppenent then you better believe i don't want a blob of a fleet around me 3) obstructions i'm torn on this one ... but an ammo round fires in a straight line ... if a non targeted [ship, obstruction] is in the way, the ammo round would hit that ... sooooo ... if a blob of ships is your formation ... and if the target was obstructed by a friendly ship ... this would greatly discourage the blob additionally, a small ship could then in theory hide inside a hollow asteroid ... however in theory this hollow brittle asteroid is being hammered by huge ammo rounds, it deteriorates and would over time expose a hole to then blast the small ship in the case of missiles ... well they're guided so a blob fleet shouldn't affect them, i would say the missile would bump off the friendly ship, using up precious flight time ... once the missile gets near the target hiding behind the object, slow dumb missiles would just explode only dmg the obstruciton ... but fast smart missiles like light missiles, would track around the object, and (flight time permissive) make it to the target one last note about obstructions - wall like obstruction would protect ships only until the fleet maneuvered around them, however this might be just enough time the ship needs to align for warp and get away

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.