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) |
John Criten
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 16:30:00 -
[211]
Just make ships that explode cause damage that way ships to close to it get a massive bomb going off next to them kinda like a suppped up smartbomb effect
|
C4w3
Minmatar Phantom Squad iPOD Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 16:53:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Nafri Not very interesting, but I give my input.
Why blob?
No friendly fire No hitzones No direction of guns
A blob just concentrates your firepower on one spot. If you want to optimize the surfuace of many dots, you just make one big dot.
Ill make some pictures to explain it:
Linkage
When you would introduce friendly fire, direction in which your guns can fire and some other stuff like plated sides and stuff, this game would be less blobby.
When you have to align your fleet like shown above, you have to maximize your surface direction towars your enemy. That would need tactics, and you could finally protect smaller ships with bigger ships.
A enemy also would need to shoot targets he can hit, and you could move more armored ships towards the frontline.
It would also enable the implention of realy primary, secondary and teriary weapon systems. Primary weapon systems would point into one direction, to oprimize the firewpoer of the ship. Secondary and tertiary would cover other sides, and are just there to cover unguarded points.
You could also enable people to decide where to place their guns, give ships more possible weapon places than they actual can fit, so that you can suripise your enemy with a unusual and creative weapon placement.
Then you can introduce automatic and self created fligth maneuvers, since you have to point
I just so much agree with you Nafri.
"If all the heroes are standing together around a strange device and begin to taunt me, I will pull out a conventional gun and kill |
Alexander Knott
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:14:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Tuxford Take less damage the more people are shooting at you - This has always sounded to me like it would be severely exploitable. This also just doesn't make logical sense to me. Lowering the rate of fire depending on ships close to you makes a bit more sense but I'm still not sure its the way to go.
If you were to do this, you wouldn't do it based on attacker count, but rather raw damage sustainable per unit of time. This is actually a fairly common mechanic to prevent people from getting one-shotted. Obviously in EVE it's a bit trickier because everyone can self-heal, so you could easily come up with situations where ships are unkillable or, conversely, resists are worthless in fleet fights.
If you're looking for the fiction for this sort of thing, it's not too hard in most cases: the heat of fire doesn't grow linearly based on the amount of fuel thrown on it, multiple EMP detonations near eachother may actually partially cancel eachother out (EMP is a wave effect), etc.
I still don't know if this would be a good idea, but there are some aspects of it that people assume are problems but probably really are not.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:31:00 -
[214]
Can someone explain to me how reducing range in itself does ANYTHING to reduce blobs?
|
Elisca Black
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:40:00 -
[215]
I've been in many fleet battles over 2.5 years and there is nothing wrong with big blobs. Except for the fact of the lag.
Let me assure you, once the battle has raged for OVER 1 HOUR with each field holding more then 15 ships on the field for over an hour nothing has given me as much pleasure in this game.
The problem as it stands is lag, you cant jump into a fleet like this , you have to be in the same system and even then, the battles are decided very quickly because people have 10second module lag and that is the difference between warping out and dieing.
FIX the lag and THEN think about fixing the mechanics of it. OTherwise the two will compound each other in a big cluster ****.
|
Gabriel Karade
Office linebackers Blood of the Innocents
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 18:10:00 -
[216]
Lag-fixing person! = Tux
Nothing wrong with trying to create more immersive fleet battles. There are dozens of things already suggested that would do that, whether or not those could be implemented could only be answered by the Dev's, no-one else here works on the TQ server afterallą
As for LOS creating un-manageable lag - well missiles had LOS back in castor and the old server didnĘt melt...
----------
- Office Linebacker -
|
Kunming
Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 19:14:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Lurtz
Originally by: Kunming Reading.. looks like a nerf on long range... finally! pulls out blaster
no what I read is big splash damage from weapons and ships blowing up.... stay further apart if your wingman is being shot at unless you want some too!
uhmm.. no:
Originally by: Tuxford
Less ranting, more on what you're going to do - Usually I get knocked around for just telling what we're doing and not explaining why we're doing it. I guess I just have to find that golden ratio of how and why. This blog wasn't originally supposed to be about blobs and how they are bad it was supposed to state the reason why we need to reduce range. How we're going to do that is subject for another blog.
see..
|
Ayla Vanir
Caldari InterSys
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 20:50:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Ayla Vanir on 04/09/2006 20:51:05 Reducing range may not have the desired impact you think on blobbing.
If you want to reduce range, go for it. But the reason that naval ship formations remain spread out is due to concern that a single air-burst will take out the fleet. Not because of issues with over-lapping fire and such.
Reducing the range of ships in EVE may just change the size and shape of the blob. For example, instead of a pair of Coconuts of Death, you end up with a pair of Mangoes of Destruction.
Anyway, if you want to reduce ranges, and this was just one way to rationalize that change, it makes no difference. If the objective was to reduce the effect of concentrated fire, or to get ships spread out further apart, I can't really see that a range reduction is going to help.
I'm just unclear from the thread what the actual objective of the change is.
|
Helen
STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 21:03:00 -
[219]
I find its not blobs that kill people, it's lag.
|
Emeline Cabernet
Amarr KVA Noble Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 21:18:00 -
[220]
swing and miss.... how about fixing the game? or fix the server? dont bring anything "new" into the game. just fix it.
|
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 22:05:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Malachon Draco Can someone explain to me how reducing range in itself does ANYTHING to reduce blobs?
Assumption 1: The blob is not the problem, the lag is the problem. People don't mind dying if they feel they had a chance to respond, but what is happening is "Arrive in warp, screen freezes, you find yourself back at station in shiny new clone"
Why? Because fomr the other side's point of view they only have to load one ship (you) whilst you have to load 100. They get to shoot first, and you die, without even seeing who shot you most of the time.
However, if the range of weapons was less than the maximum warp in range, you have an option...if you warp into 100km and their weapons are only good up to 50km, they CANNOT immediately fire upon you...they have to somehow close that 50km space first...giving your client a chance to load up and you a chance to assess the situation.
That's how range affects blobs. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Benco97
Gallente Cosmic Odyssey Chorus of Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 22:20:00 -
[222]
woo, new ships specifically designed for blob dispersal, some sort of special weapon that works like a flak cannon. I'd be perfectly happy with that.
Head of the Fedo Appreciation Group (F.A.G) and Registered Fedo breeder |
Dux Dar
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 00:21:00 -
[223]
A few ideas that are simpler then my last post:
- Area weapons
Basically, area weapons should be non-deadly (meaning electronic warefare like). Using one in hi-sec would not get a response from CONCORD, but anyone (that does not have you on positive standing maybe?) impacted by one will get a 15 min kill-rights on you (both in hi-sec and low-sec). Reduces griefing as much as practically possible.
- Increased effect by numbers
The more ships are in the area around the "point of impact" of a area weapon, the larger effect it will have (it has "virus-like self propagation through ship computers in range" or something).
- Area warfare expert
ECM, jamming, ROF, tracking and damage reduction area weapons/boms/viruses are examples. But be careful, as they works on ALL ships in a radius around the point of impact (even yourself if your to close). Typically role of area warfare expert will be to sitt back and try to influence more of the enemy then your friends.
- Warp ECM missiles.
Shoot a missile/mine/module that will speed ahead of you and explode just as you get out of warp, wrecking havoc on the targeting systems for alot of the ships in range (including your own). Can only be fired when already in warp. Lancher only takes one missile, and has very long reload time (as one shouldnt be able to use it on for instance each jump to a gate when traveling).
- Splash damage from ship exploding
As alot of ppl have suggested. Ships might do some splash damage when exploding. Damage and range depending on ship mass or something.
- Starbase structure
Gang Jump Gate. Will jump a gang to a random star system in the targeted region. Uses ice and stuff for fuel depending on range for the jump and the total mass of the ships in the gang. This makes smal incursions much easier, even if its a "one way ticket to death", (however, it will probably have a larger impacts, as people will be forced to have better control over the space they claim).
|
Rift Scorn
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 03:43:00 -
[224]
Edited by: Rift Scorn on 05/09/2006 03:43:47
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Tuxford Splash damage to missiles - There was a reason for it being removed, very good reason. Yes I know it was great fun but it made fighting with missiles in empire really really dangerous.
Yes it did. And taking it away was the first step in creating all the cries of "Missiles are easy mode" and "Missiles are for noobs".
I HATE it. I use missiles all the time, and if anyone starts a petition to reintroduce splash damage I'll be at the head of the line signing it. Twice. For each alt. I may even open another account to sign the damn thing again.
I repsectfullly submit that the devs caved in too quickly to those who found themselves Concordokkened having just "defended" a corp mate by launching several hundred tonnes of high explosive into the fray. Real life analogies were often used..."Why can't I help my friend who is being attacked?". If my frined was being mugged and I shot the mugger, he might thank me. I doubt he'd be so pleased if I lobbed a hand grenade in his attacker's (and HIS) general direction.
You removed the one main negative of using missile systems. Now we are left with missiles that were neutered because they were regarded as overpowered...and we still have turret users who claim we don't have to think about transversal and speeds of target because "missiles always hit".
PLEASE...reintroduce splash damage. It would be the best thing ever to happen to EVE, even though I know as I say this, it would make my style of play in particular considerably more difficult.
Here's an idea (they don't happen often )
With all the talk of AoE missile effects, how about introducing a new missile class that caters specifically for splash damage?
Make them Torpedo, Cruise, Heavy & Standard sizes that maybe do less damage to the target it hits, but ofc has an AoE effect to damage support protecting the main target etc, etc. Maybe increase the size of the AoE effect upon completion of LvL training? or reduction? i really haven't thought it through tbh.
But i'm with Grey in that i love missiles, and have been training hardcore Caldari since '03 and me and my CNR love it
If you introduced a new AoE class of sile, it would give missile users in empire the option of using missiles as they are now, or splash in low sec & 0.0. This would also give Tux's idea of AoE to break up the blob possibilities.
Just an attempt to add a constructive point, even if i haven't thought it through 100%. Hope people see where i was trying to go with this idea.
Your friendly clone activation expert, free of service to the eve community since '03! |
MIGHTYDWC
Gallente Sha Kharn Corp Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 03:50:00 -
[225]
Edited by: MIGHTYDWC on 05/09/2006 03:51:15
Originally by: Malachon Draco Can someone explain to me how reducing range in itself does ANYTHING to reduce blobs?
Exactly.
Why put the skills and components into the game for someone to use and be able to hit something at 200km, just to nerf that ability and have someone ticked off that they spent all that time training the skills for nothing? Blobing has been around for so long, and there are ways to fix it, ie: AoE events (someone said something about splash damage from warp core explosions)and or counter the blob. Any long range ship doesn't just carry long range ammo. Granted new styles/aspects of combat are always fun to learn, but please lets fix what's wrong with the game NOW before you start putting new stuff in that doesn't work/makes the game unplayable.
Favorite saying on TS: This "phoon of Doom" is very easy to kill things with. They die very fast. <---JaegerX
|
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 04:19:00 -
[226]
there are many ways to answer this question. Here are some of my ideas.
1. Ship explosion. When a battleship in the middle of a closely packed fleet goes down... there should be an effect on the nearby ships. A large amount of damage is probably a bad idea, as we'd have mwd kamikazi pilots abounding, but a small amount of damage coupled with an em pulse that would break target locks of nearby ships should be a nice deterrent to tightly packed fleets...
2. Active scanning interference. Every ship has a scanner strength, as well as a scan resolution & max targeting range. There's alot of em signals being sent out, especially in a large fleet battle. It would make sense that if too many ships were too close together, that their scanners would interefere with each other... causing a reduciton in targeting range, & scan resolution, based on the scanner str of the nearby ships as well as their distance from each other. I would think that radar would interfere with radar more "effectively" than radar would interfere with ladar, etc etc... but i would think that some interference would & should exist, which would encourage ppl to spread out their fleets a bit.
3. AoE. Introduce bombs. They're deployed and after a few seconds they detonate where they sit. this means ppl would have to get the payload to target without being destroyed & beat feet quickly or risk blowing themselves up in the bargain. This would force fleets to not fit for massive damage at a certain range but also to be able to defend against incoming enemies, or more likely scatter themselves so that if a bomber penetrated they fleet, they couldn't do massive damage to many ships... I see a fast durable ship being used for this purpose, assault ships come to mind, or even hacs... or perhaps a new class of true bombers could be introduced... the stealth bombers are so mis-named... -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them...
Tralala |
Lacero Callrisian
Minmatar Solar Storm Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 06:44:00 -
[227]
Originally by: MIGHTYDWC
Why put the skills and components into the game for someone to use and be able to hit something at 200km, just to nerf that ability and have someone ticked off that they spent all that time training the skills for nothing?
It's not like T2 guns will have a shorter range than T1 when they're finished, it's just that all guns would be reduced in range. I agree it won't do much to stop blobbing in itself, you'd have to reduce range to significantly less than the diameter of a blob for that to happen, but combined with something like reducing the amount of damage a ship deals based on the amount of damage it's taking it would allow more manouverability in fleets. I think that sounds more fun, although no one seems to like the idea of ships doing less damage while under fire.
|
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 08:00:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Malachon Draco Can someone explain to me how reducing range in itself does ANYTHING to reduce blobs?
Reducing range is intended (along with a few other changes) to make it more difficult to focus fire upon a single target with lots of ships. Since the primary advantage of a blob, is the ability to focus fire, this could reduce the effectiveness of blobs. However, a lot more will need to be done, for blobs to truly become less effective (such as changes in tracking on long range guns, or AOE effects). |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 09:08:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Malachon Draco Can someone explain to me how reducing range in itself does ANYTHING to reduce blobs?
Assumption 1: The blob is not the problem, the lag is the problem. People don't mind dying if they feel they had a chance to respond, but what is happening is "Arrive in warp, screen freezes, you find yourself back at station in shiny new clone"
Why? Because fomr the other side's point of view they only have to load one ship (you) whilst you have to load 100. They get to shoot first, and you die, without even seeing who shot you most of the time.
However, if the range of weapons was less than the maximum warp in range, you have an option...if you warp into 100km and their weapons are only good up to 50km, they CANNOT immediately fire upon you...they have to somehow close that 50km space first...giving your client a chance to load up and you a chance to assess the situation.
That's how range affects blobs.
While nicely explained, only holds true when the enemy fleet is alredy in place and your fleet warps in one by one (which is not the case usualy).
Also the lag reduction will not be that much when both fleets fire as the client has to draw many lines and process much impact data from the server.
A simple option would be to add a switch to graphics menu so that only the icon representation of the ship is ever drawn. Like the red crosses for enemy ships, stations and other garbage can remain the same. This is an advantage on the client side lag, but also a disadvantage in certain situations (no visual scouting, no sens of when ships will bounce each other etc.).
Every idea that works with damage/sensor effectivnes reduction based on ship density in an area is seriously exploitable, and if restricted to gang easily circumvented imho, so not that good an option.
Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Donmadefy
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 09:33:00 -
[230]
We could have cloaked suicide ships ... fly into the middle of a blob and click the smartbombs/ECM burst. Hopefully the loss of the cloak will give your side the edge :)
I reckon there should be a Smartbomb booster module, like the shield booster module, but it increases the range of the burst effect.
What about missiles that have an AoE that is like a temporary tracking disruptor/dampener? Although thinking about it, that may be a more complicating effect and thus more lag.
|
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari The Whitesands Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 09:47:00 -
[231]
I personally dislike flying in large fleets, or giant blobs. Tactically Focus fire is an obvious thing that anyone who flies in a gang should learn. I'm no fan of getting called primary for it though, which has happened too many times for my tastes. Real amusing considering the fact that even during all my time in the former Phoenix alliance I was never a fleet commander.
Think the thing that really needs to be done, is to #incorporate a "stacking" penalty based on the number of ships currently targeting another ship. The more people already targetting a specific ship, the longer it takes for others to lock on to said target. This could have a flag based on whether or not said target was in the same gang, making it possible for support ships in the same fleet to be able to target and assist that ship without that penalty. This could be due to sensor interferance caused my so many targetting systems pinging the same target at once.
Problem with Blobs is even in reality thats the way things work for fleets, if you're close to each other it's easier to boost each other. I don't think its necissarily and issue of the fighting ranges of the ships involved. For example I as a Raven pilot with level 5 caldari bs skill and good missile skills can easily fire cruise missiles 220km. I need to run 2 tech 2 sensor boosters to lock at that range though. And you know how many of those missiles will hit in a long range focus'd fire fleet battle? Not many, unless its against a cap ship or starbase.
Another reason blobbing occurs is because of current game mechanics. Most fleet battles are forced to occur either near a stargate, or starbase, and on rarer circumstances around planets and moons. There's no way for example to set up a warp disruption bubble in a strategic area between gates and such and have the bubble actually work to pull ships out of warp. Hell, you could make it so small warp bubbles could pull frigate sized ships out of mid warp, since anything bigger would have too much mass for the small bubble to stop. Cruisers for medium bubbles, and BS's for large bubbles. This could help to break up some blobs and cause fleet confusion, but at the same time it also allows the fleet using the bubble to blob.
Could also make it so lock times get a penalty if you're flying in a blob fleet when you try and engage. The more ships within X Km of you the longer it takes everyone to lock. Ships sensors interfering with each other. I think maybe that would be the best way to discourage blobbing, or at least to use combined close and long range tactics.
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 09:59:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Ris Dnalor
2. Active scanning interference. Every ship has a scanner strength, as well as a scan resolution & max targeting range. There's alot of em signals being sent out, especially in a large fleet battle. It would make sense that if too many ships were too close together, that their scanners would interefere with each other... causing a reduciton in targeting range, & scan resolution, based on the scanner str of the nearby ships as well as their distance from each other. I would think that radar would interfere with radar more "effectively" than radar would interfere with ladar, etc etc... but i would think that some interference would & should exist, which would encourage ppl to spread out their fleets a bit.
Maybe this could be implemented by giving each ship a default module like the Remote Dampener but works like a ECM burst. By default module I mean it is just there but don¦t need any slot cap, pg or cpu (just to clarify that bit). As suggested the stats should depend on sensor type and sensor strenght, and the range could be about 7km + 7km.
Kanuo
|
Haruko Red
Caldari Xenobytes Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 10:23:00 -
[233]
Edited by: Haruko Red on 05/09/2006 10:23:50 DISCLAIMRL: Everything below makes sence only in lagless battles. Fix the lag first!
Blobbing is not the problem - epic fleet battles are the reason to play this game for me. Focus fire is.
Why focus fire exists? Tux thinks it's a result of tight fleet formations and long range guns. But in my opinoin it's a result of battles being held in SPACE.
Huge open space with no obstacles, no friendly fire and no directional tracking automaticly create a perfrect conditions for sniping and blobbing.
How to solve this problem? Two words: TACTICAL ENVIRONMENT.
Example: In typical fantasy MMORPG a well organized group of archers in open area will WTFPWN anything, even with lesser damage of ranged weapons. But inside a building or in case of landscape obstacles their effectiveness is greatly redused for obvious reasons and other classes comes in play.
I dont think, what removing long range fleets from EVE is a good idea, they just shouldnt have a decisive role. In order to make close combat a viable option we need a proper task for closerange ships in fleet battles. (Actually there is such task - gate camps, but is it what we really want?).
Creating an environment in space is a hard task indeed. Currently I can imagine only couple of possible ideas.
Example: Blind spot for POS guns. Such spot(s) can be inherent or created by destruction of out-of-pos-shield turrets. In order to put a dreds in this spot you should clear it from enemies (and possible turrets). Make a shied-in POS guns unable to shoot ships close to POS shield or something like that (or reduce their tracking so they could only hit capital ships in close range. You should still move in order to be out of thier reach). It will be a fine task for closerange ships - jump in, clear the area form enemy ships and turrets, get the dread and snipe cover fleet jumpin in a relative safe space.
I do realize, what this example is vulnerable to critics (and LAGS too!), but I just want to show my view of the problem and possible way of resolving for it. ________________________________________________ "I dont smoke." (C) William Blake |
Eta Carinea
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 10:28:00 -
[234]
As others have said i think the best way is to formalise the Flight Commanders role make it a career path , He should train all leadership skills but have others added for size of gangs, ship types, maybe even weapon types and range that comes into effect Only when A fleet Commander is or has gang lead. The benefits for him/her forming the game is new tools at his/her disposal such as some other suggestions diverting remote repair operations against primaried ships. Perhaps a revived tactical overview with grid references that can look over a whole solar system based on skills. the details can still be fed in via cov-ops but he has a general overview of where ships are not types. I may even go as far as to say that probes launched from cov-ops ships relay details to his overview. :) (Maybe for the future). The bonus should come from a separate class of ship that is weak not battle hardened so it needs to be out of the way but has excellent command modules that can improve the accuracy of information and other bonuses. such as repair facilities that can withstand focused firing. ( This coming from someone whom has been in more than one battle where fc is podded and TS suddenly has the inevitable ermmm ermmm. lol), He should be able to group his gangs and send orders either via VOIP or screen splash messages go to grid X autopilot maybe for the pilot?
The skills should be extremely expensive corp/alliance purchase only but with enough incentives to make large corps/ alliances want to invest in.
The tools should allow more tactics that ultimately would avoid the focus fire syndrome. and provide better options for large fleet battles.
One thing i see as a possible exploit is the fact that the fleet commanders may use these tools when in small gank squads perhaps limit the options to a minimum amount of ships. Or to bring things like grid references in local space online for all which may allow for better more spread out battles in small gangs too.
Just some thoughts
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
|
Spanker
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 10:39:00 -
[235]
Why not just limit the number of simultaneous locks people can have on a ship? Apart from the fact that your entire fleet would be locking each other to limit locks from enemies I mean.
Actually that opens up for a whole lot of funky stuff. Not only would it prevent 5 to 1 ganking and focused fleet fire, it would also mean some king size tactics would be available. Probably a bit like chess. Say you can only lock two seperate player controlled ships at once, and your own ship may only be locked by two other players at any one time. That means a group of say 3 ships could lock themselves down so they couldn't fire or be fired upon. Fleet battles would go on for aages with people coordinating all kinds off stuff
- Shpank |
Tana Pleiades
Caldari Phoenix Knights
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 10:57:00 -
[236]
Exactly! the guy above has it right, however I would simply say that each target lock takes longer to achieve. If you have 3 ships locking you the first guy is normal, the second is a third slower, and so on. Untill locking with anymore than 5 ships simply is not worth it. As someone said before role play it with "subspace interfance" Ie each others targeting ping effects each others. DONT JUST NERF RANGE! That would effect many other areas of the game. And we hate nerfs they are like evil smerfs. If your desire is to stop blobbing create a solution which only effects blobbing.
If a max of only 5 ships could lock, large blobs would have to be turned into 3-4 man squads which would create proper military structure it would be awesome! You would actually have to make sure each 5 man team is balanced and able to jam scram web and kill! An FC could assign a different enemy to each squad. Also if you a lone guy coming through a gate you ahve half a chance of getting away as a max of 5 people can hit you. The intys would get you first and they you would have that little bit longer to kill them or jam them before the rest of the blob can lock you. In other words you would have half a hope in hell.
The game would be way more fun!!
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 11:34:00 -
[237]
Edited by: Kanuo Ashkeron on 05/09/2006 11:34:51
Originally by: Haruko Red
Blobbing is not the problem - epic fleet battles are the reason to play this game for me. Focus fire is.
Why focus fire exists? Tux thinks it's a result of tight fleet formations and long range guns. But in my opinoin it's a result of battles being held in SPACE.
Huge open space with no obstacles, no friendly fire and no directional tracking automaticly create a perfect conditions for sniping and blobbing.
How to solve this problem? Two words: TACTICAL ENVIRONMENT.
You are completly right. You cannot hide, you cannot cover you can do nothing in space. So you cannot compare EVE-warfare to infantry warfare but more to naval warfare. And in this, technology superiority is one of the only determining parameters.
I suggested something about Tactical Enviroments a month ago.
|
Arthegon
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 12:45:00 -
[238]
A dampening/neutralizing/destabilizing/(list other negative effects useful against long range fleet ships..) kind of weapon working in much the same way the interdictor bubble works today. This could be either launched at longer distances or would require (specialized?) ships that would either launch these at range or drop them in the way interdictors do.. such a bubble would have negative effects that would have a major impact on the ships inside it and so would force them to move, and or reorganize - and ultimately unblob.
How much such a weapon wuld cost in terms of isk, skills and such - that would be a balancing matter for the devs to figure out.
|
Bishop 5
Gallente Perfect Order
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 12:48:00 -
[239]
Originally by: murder one With respect to the idea of splash damage for exploding ships: if that is included, which I think would be cool, make the optimal range for blasters 25km so I don't have to be inside the core of the explosion EVERY TIME.
Bam! someone talking sense... a very good point.. what happens to your blasteranis when the BS you're tackling goes kabooooooom? I don't want to die everytime after you've finished off a ship with blasters.
I really like the idea of exploding ships, but ffs don't forget the blaster lovers amongst us. -------------
meh |
Gragnor
Order of the Arrow
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 12:49:00 -
[240]
Every now and then I read something put out by the developers that annoys the crap out of me. This is it.
Fleet warfare and focus firing is not the problem because the simple solution is to warp out when you are targetted or caught by surprise. Once again IT developers focus on the "tres elegant" solution and not the problem. The problem is LAG- lag - lag- lag - lag - not focus firing.
The simple tactic of warping out when a huge fleet catches you ends the range debate. Of course, I would argue if you're caught you should be pwned but not the geniuses who run CCP.
Fix the problem - not the symptoms.
YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |