EVE Search - Tux wants to break the blob!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tux wants to break the blob!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
inSpirAcy Caldari The Solopwnmobiles	Posted - 2006.09.03 00:06:00 - [1] And in true EVE forum fashion of taking a comment completely out of context, here's my favourite quote: Originally by: Tuxford We're looking into ways to break up the blobs. Potent AoE weapons would definitly encourage people not to stay to close to each other. Boosting smartbombs FTW! Go read the dev blog, it doesn't quite imply that.
Verus Potestas Caldari Fiat Mort	Posted - 2006.09.03 00:14:00 - [2] Edited by: Verus Potestas on 03/09/2006 00:15:08 Sing along now... "As I jump through the stargate to Amamake I take a look at my slots, and realise there's smartbombs there cos I've been blasting and laughing so long that even my mama's capsule has been done but I never meant to pop a noob, who didn't deserve it but letting someone go? You know, that's unheard of You better watch how you're jumping, and where you're warping Or you and your corpies might be in new clones I really hate to stab, but I gotta, see As I warp I see my name, in the local smack I'm the kinda pie the little swigglets wanna be like At a gate, in a phoon, bombing bears to get their loot Been spending most our lives, bombing in a camper's paradise..." Signature removed - please email to find out why (include a link to the original image) - Jacques([email protected])
Azerrad	Posted - 2006.09.03 00:14:00 - [3] Smartbombs with any meaningful range would most likely be overpowered. I'd rather not see CCP attempt to make smartbombs into a full fledged weapon class since it would probably destroy close range combat. signature removed - please email us if you want to find out why (include the URL to it) - Jacques([email protected])
Arkanor Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:15:00 - [4] Originally by: inSpirAcy smartbombs FTW! Smartbombs suck (out of context quote ftw!) If we had like bomber class ships that would be interesting, perhaps a role to give to the Stealth Bomber. Originally by: Ghosthowl WoW = hardcore paladins smashin dat face. Originally by: HippoKing I just cried, you know that?
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:19:00 - [5] I want smartbomb launchers!
Phrixus Zephyr Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:23:00 - [6] Originally by: Audri Fisher I want smartbomb launchers! Fires a smartbomb module out of his 425mm "ooow... that really hurt... i mean who fires a smartbomb.. honestly"
Laekon Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:30:00 - [7] Why not t2 torps with ae dmg? Not really balanced by race though.
ThunderGodThor KIA Corp	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:36:00 - [8] Originally by: Laekon Why not t2 torps with ae dmg? Not really balanced by race though. They did have torps that did AE.. the result was you killing someone and there pod at the same time. That and you'd kill friendlys. Also image using them say in jita thats why it was removed. One of the first missle nerfs i think tho all this is before my time and precastor.
Iota Belisarius Procurare Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2006.09.03 02:48:00 - [9] Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr Originally by: Audri Fisher I want smartbomb launchers! Fires a smartbomb module out of his 425mm "ooow... that really hurt... i mean who fires a smartbomb.. honestly" Short funnily named asian men? --------------------- Your sig is inappropriate. Please read the forum rules before reposting. -Tirg Sig jacked and nerfed in one day, just my luck.
Arcterran Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 02:58:00 - [10] 'Potent AoE' is not the answer. Do you really think that will stop a corp/alliance from bringing everything they have to a fight? "Oh no, the enemy has AoE weapons, let's just bring 5 people." AoE would be another easy way to kill frigs/intys/cruisers, as if T2 ammo doesn't make it easy enough as is. If CCP thinks this is the right direction, then they need to turn the map right side up, because they are going backwards.

Scorpio Dantes	Posted - 2006.09.03 04:44:00 - [11] How bout an energy-destabalizing bubble launcher? Sure you can stay in your blob, if you want the whole fleet to have empty caps! Ignore my suggestion if it's too nooby - i have absolutely no experience with blobs.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:07:00 - [12] Originally by: Arcterran 'Potent AoE' is not the answer. Do you really think that will stop a corp/alliance from bringing everything they have to a fight? "Oh no, the enemy has AoE weapons, let's just bring 5 people." AoE would be another easy way to kill frigs/intys/cruisers, as if T2 ammo doesn't make it easy enough as is. If CCP thinks this is the right direction, then they need to turn the map right side up, because they are going backwards. I agree... AOE weapons is not the answer to blobbing I think. Then again, its easy to critizise. I think this thread should be about alternative ways to decrease blobbing instead... not that I can think of any myself. :p --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
BoinKlasik Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:17:00 - [13] give me ender's weapon, the more there are, the more powerful it is. doh, I broke my edited sig :/ cries this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
Dopefish Amarr Quad and Fish	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:30:00 - [14] Tux wants to break up the longrange sniper blob, not the map blobs.
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:33:00 - [15] For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. 200 man fleets have to coordinate much better and wing commanders become important. Adds more stragedy to fleet fights. Forces smaller gangs even if you want to show up with 200 ships. Adds more than one primary target. Seems to me that it would allow heavily tanked command ships a chance to stick around for a bit. Maybe also carriers and BS's. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
Anjor Minmatar VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 07:22:00 - [16] Quote: For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. Actually, thats not a bad idea, but coming from a programmer, that would be hell since you would have to custom edit all ship files to set a max target. Since even if you used a global variable you would still have to set it into all the ship submodules. But I do think this is a better answer to gank squads, capital ships, and the like being that you don't have insane blobs hitting 1 target. I do however see one problem with only 5. Lets say you have a group of 10, 4 tacklers, 6 dps. Well the tacklers are most likely going to lock first which means only 1 dps will lock, and the like, so its going to annoy some people lol. Then again setting a max lock might have people bring more things like logistic ships and or booster ships since it would be a bit more useful without having them called primary and dying so fast. __________________________________________________ Yes im Minmatar, but I'm a freed slave that has Amarrian blood!!!
Orvas Dren Gallente The Nest	Posted - 2006.09.03 07:51:00 - [17] Edited by: Orvas Dren on 03/09/2006 07:52:46 Slight problem with the max locks... As a FC, I would have my guys target 1 primary called out for their sqaudrons, I would put them in groups of five, then I would have my squadrons target each and every one of their teammates, and maybe even others in the fleet. Next thing you know the smaller fleets have only friendlies locking their gang-mates and the enemies can't get a lock at all... If the other fleet doesn't do the same, then its a massacre, if they do, its a stalemate.... Max locks won't work. EVE-Mail me for custom signature work. Price Negotiable
Ather Ialeas Amarr	Posted - 2006.09.03 08:05:00 - [18] Originally by: Azerrad Smartbombs with any meaningful range would most likely be overpowered. I'd rather not see CCP attempt to make smartbombs into a full fledged weapon class since it would probably destroy close range combat. Smartbombs are currently a make or break-type of weapon; you can't tank any ship with them after activating them so if you fail with your try, you can kiss your ass goodbye. DPS-wise smarts spit out about ~560dps with max skills so they're not that overpowered. All we need is a range bonus (15km to large ones maybe) and some sort of falloff (another 15km? Or should it be 5km optimal + 10km falloff?).
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.09.03 08:19:00 - [19] Originally by: Orvas Dren Edited by: Orvas Dren on 03/09/2006 07:52:46 Slight problem with the max locks... As a FC, I would have my guys target 1 primary called out for their sqaudrons, I would put them in groups of five, then I would have my squadrons target each and every one of their teammates, and maybe even others in the fleet. Next thing you know the smaller fleets have only friendlies locking their gang-mates and the enemies can't get a lock at all... If the other fleet doesn't do the same, then its a massacre, if they do, its a stalemate.... Max locks won't work. Programming issues aside. CCP should be dedicated to fixing the blob problem and put in the programming time to do so. That said just have Corp, Alliance, and Gang locks not count towards the total lock number. Total lock number only from hostile/non-friendly ships. I dunno, I just hate the blob combat we have. it is boring and stupid. What ever the fix, I do not think modifying weapons is the way to go. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 09:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Hayabusa Fury For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. That's an awful idea. How do we hold down a Vagabond now? Of break capital ship's tank? And it of course pretty much obsoletes groups with more than 5-8 people. Before you say "u sux coz u blob", think of the poor T1 frig ganks. Focus fire is not that detrimental to the game that it must be abolished completely. ------ No ISK, no fun

Terraform Gallente	Posted - 2006.09.03 09:47:00 - [21] Bring back splash damage on torps and you'll see the blobs seperating!
twopointoh	Posted - 2006.09.03 10:24:00 - [22] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Hayabusa Fury For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. That's an awful idea. How do we hold down a Vagabond now? Of break capital ship's tank? And it of course pretty much obsoletes groups with more than 5-8 people. Before you say "u sux coz u blob", think of the poor T1 frig ganks. Focus fire is not that detrimental to the game that it must be abolished completely. The only little problem is that current large-scale warfare is... boring as ****. Sure it might be interesting if you're commanding a fleet. But if you think that blobbing is fun, go do some solo PvP. Better yet, get a few buds together and do some small/med sized gang PvP. I guarentee that you'll have more fun than warping in and out of safespots, focusing fire, running away, or getting instapopped cause you got called. And the waiting around forever in safe spots? God that's boring. I'd rather be scanning sectors and spend twice the time looking for good targets. My 'vision' of a space fleet battle goes something like this... The defenders have a grid of battleships spread out over a large area, with the cruiser sized ships scattered amongst them, smaller frigate sized ships zipping around, keeping a close eye on the perimeter for warp-ins. The offense is splitting up into two or three groups, with battleships taking point and support ships behind. There's a simultaneous warp in and the defense grid is suddenly surrounded by three groups of battleships... the frigates move in first - being fastest - trying their best to lock down/jam the larger, or take out other frigate sized ships, dogfights going on left and right. The cruisers supplement the frigate's damage, maybe sending waves of drones at the incoming frigates who are looking to lock down their battleships. The battleships slow to a halt in front of each other, anywhere from one on one to three on one... slugging it out with heavy fire, smaller ships zipping in and out in between the two, fighting each other, possibly targeting crucial systems on an enemy battleship and attempting to disable them. The battle is won through strategic placement, maneuvering, formations and smaller strategic fights spread throughout the larger battle. The win is placed more upon the chain of command and the aptitude of the squadron leaders. I don't know, that sounds a lot more fun to me than somebody saying over Vent "Organize player names alphabetically. Start from the top (or bottom). Align for warpout upon arrival, fire until your target is dead, move to the next." Pop goes 3-4 BS, and warping away! Yay! I know that my idea of a fleet battle would be incredibly hard to implement. In fact, you'd probably have to rebalance so much that it would be an entirely new game... but hey, we can all dream. ;)
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.09.03 10:27:00 - [23] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Hayabusa Fury For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. That's an awful idea. How do we hold down a Vagabond now? Of break capital ship's tank? And it of course pretty much obsoletes groups with more than 5-8 people. Before you say "u sux coz u blob", think of the poor T1 frig ganks. Focus fire is not that detrimental to the game that it must be abolished completely. 5 was just an arbitrary number. It can be 8, 10, 15. But there should be a limit. A Battleship should never be insta popped is my point. Limit the lock number to less than capital ships only. As for vagabond being overpowered, it is a different matter. This game is primed for evolving and dynamic fleet battles. But, it really comes up short. Blobbing is what we have and it is lame. It would not be 5-8 man gangs only it would just mean they all couldn't attck the same target. Now we have 40 ships shoot at the primary target and 40%-70% of the shots never hit the target as it is popped before the bullets even get there. It's why the Raven sucks in fleet battles. Slow moving torps/missles. It does not need to be abolished. Just made more dynamic, strategic, and actually fun. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
xaioguai Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.03 11:19:00 - [24] Make game behave more like missile weapon firing at the target after missile launched, during the missile flight time, if the target is dead or warp away, the missile will still fly off toward the edge not doing any damage. Guns on the other hand, after shots are pressed, if target is not available, the shots will return to the owner and can be used on the next target. That is why missile users will need to distribute fire power or even stop launchers even before target is dead while turret users simply just smash F1-F8 on primary. Focus fire currently does not lose any firing opportunity if primary target is unavailable due to warp away or dead. and so why spread fire power. If 100 tempest pilots smashing F1-F6 on a shuttle as primary and a pod as secondary. only the first 4 shots will get registered on the server, pilots can use those shot not being register on the server on the pod. uber effeciency on firepower. Imho, if 100 tempests 600 artilleries firing at a shuttle, the shuttle should be dead by 600 large shells instead 4. hense that will make focus fire less flavorable due to waste of firing chance. and that way, fleet battle will be more like many small squads against small squads instead of 2 giant gatling guns firing at each other.
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 11:34:00 - [25] Edited by: Kunming on 03/09/2006 11:36:28 Originally by: twopointoh ... My 'vision' of a space fleet battle goes something like this... The defenders have a grid of battleships spread out over a large area, with the cruiser sized ships scattered amongst them, smaller frigate sized ships zipping around, keeping a close eye on the perimeter for warp-ins. The offense is splitting up into two or three groups, with battleships taking point and support ships behind. There's a simultaneous warp in and the defense grid is suddenly surrounded by three groups of battleships... the frigates move in first - being fastest - trying their best to lock down/jam the larger, or take out other frigate sized ships, dogfights going on left and right. The cruisers supplement the frigate's damage, maybe sending waves of drones at the incoming frigates who are looking to lock down their battleships. The battleships slow to a halt in front of each other, anywhere from one on one to three on one... slugging it out with heavy fire, smaller ships zipping in and out in between the two, fighting each other, possibly targeting crucial systems on an enemy battleship and attempting to disable them. The battle is won through strategic placement, maneuvering, formations and smaller strategic fights spread throughout the larger battle. The win is placed more upon the chain of command and the aptitude of the squadron leaders. I don't know, that sounds a lot more fun to me than somebody saying over Vent "Organize player names alphabetically. Start from the top (or bottom). Align for warpout upon arrival, fire until your target is dead, move to the next." Pop goes 3-4 BS, and warping away! Yay! I know that my idea of a fleet battle would be incredibly hard to implement. In fact, you'd probably have to rebalance so much that it would be an entirely new game... but hey, we can all dream. ;) Well old style fleet battles were pretty much like that, non of this sniping blob bull****.. we would send in the frigs and fast ships first so the enemy targeting organisation would need to retarget once the big ships come in, support craft was important at this point and you would see small skirmishes left and right of the battlefield. This uber long range is killing alot of fun in EVE IMO. SOLUTION: Split tracking comps and sensor boosters in 2, one that boosts range but slightly nerfs tracking, the other that boosts tracking but slightly nerfs range; same for sensor boosters, one that boosts locking range but nerfs locking time, and vice versa.. This would make hit and run attacks with sniping boats impossible, snipers would need to stay on the battlefield longer and resulting in mixed fleets and task forces with each of its own mission. Fleets that want to utilize their firepower in a more efficient way would need to come closer, standart fleet battles would take place in mid ranges with some sniper groups moving in and out to score a clear kill, while cov ops and short range boats try to hit the sweetspot and mow through the enemy fleet. Will it solve focus fire and blobbing? not really, but at closer ranges you can utilize your firepower better and couple smaller groups with multiple targets are more efficient than a single blob with a single target, it will force the blob mentality to be more than just "warp in, primary, secondary, warp out". Unfortunately we dont have an advanced gang structure with wings and wing commanders.. You cant force ppl not to create blobs, but you can make it tactically less viable compared to a more organised fleet that covers all fields of the fight. Currently we only have 2 fields in a fleet battle: snipers and support.
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 12:15:00 - [26] a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range then change some other module like signal amplifier or whatever to boost locking range SLIGHTLY. Or just remove the i_can_lock_you_from_250km_pwn_ability from the game, i.e. no module increases locking range. Locking range would totally depend on long range targetting skill and so fights will be limited to a 80-130km area. That would be a start Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Wulfgard Minmatar The Older Gamers Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.03 13:48:00 - [27] Limiting the number of people locking the same target makes sense. Another option, would be related to RL Navy combat, the more ships shooting the same target = the worst your accuracy becomes. Introducing AOE is opening a door to a lot of problems imo.
Twilight Moon Minmatar eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.03 14:18:00 - [28] Originally by: inSpirAcy And in true EVE forum fashion of taking a comment completely out of context, here's my favourite quote: Originally by: Tuxford We're looking into ways to break up the blobs. Potent AoE weapons would definitly encourage people not to stay to close to each other. Boosting smartbombs FTW! Go read the dev blog, it doesn't quite imply that. Tux wants flamethrowers! Tux for President! ...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Death Kill Caldari direkte	Posted - 2006.09.03 14:23:00 - [29] Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range Yeah, and pods nor shuttles will have no escape from interceptors ever. Recruitment
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 14:25:00 - [30] Originally by: Death Kill Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range Yeah, and pods nor shuttles will have no escape from interceptors ever. Buy halo implants



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.