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)
Ituralde Fate.	Posted - 2006.09.03 15:02:00 - [31] Edited by: Ituralde on 03/09/2006 15:08:09 Just increase the power of short range ships in EVE - make it worthwhile to build a short range fleet that can jump inside all the snipers that can't track worth crap when you are up close and personal - if they can really boost the short to medium range role and make it decently survivable (I.E more HP or somesuch)- and most importanly, not so laggy that its instadeath for anyone who tries it, and all the modules take way too long to activate in a fight such that trying to move to engage means not engaging 90% of the time - I might argue then you might start seeing shorter range BS jumping into long range fleets on a sling, and snipers being used more as support. That might even give Pulse Lasers a useful role, if they actually did damage that is... If you had a powerful short range role, that would force untanked snipers to spread out so the shorter range ships could not just chill in a single 10km blob and move relatively little to kill everything in it. I would say really overall the biggest thing stopping this is the lag issue that just makes the relatively uncomplicated task of operating a sniper BS the most viable simply because all you have to do is lock and shoot with relatively little maneuvering. Fear is the mind-killer.
Nidhoggur	Posted - 2006.09.03 15:31:00 - [32] Edited by: Nidhoggur on 03/09/2006 15:34:41 Originally by: Ginaz 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 The first bit is a really, really good idea, though we need to let long range exist a bit. As always in eve, people should be able to modify their ships how they want, but it can be made a little tougher for snipers to insta-gank... The 'Signal Amplifier' idea you mentioned, should work as an opposite... -Locks slower. -Increases lock range. Thoughts? This would kill gate-sniping completely. In fact, the more I think about this idea, the better it seems. If people wanted to beat the range of the turrets, they would lock so slowly that they would never catch anyone. There is still a place for snipers though, and they would be great for all sorts of things, if people were willing to specialise.
Elve Sorrow Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:30:00 - [33] I find it rather amusing that CCP introduce Tech2 Ammo specificly made for longrange, then want to reduce ship's effective range 6 months later.
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:31:00 - [34] First, twopointoh's vision of fleetbattle is excellent. I think most of us would like to participate in something like this. Originally by: Kunming 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. The question is then - what changed that? I'd wager it was T2 long-range ammo (Tremor, Spike, Aurora), but it could also be more characters trained for battleships or wealthy enough population which can afford to bring battleships (and lose them) in each fight. So, veterans, around which time did fleet combat change? ------ No ISK, no fun
Mr Peanut The New Empire R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:46:00 - [35] How about a smartbomb launcher that is outlawed in alliance space?
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:52:00 - [36] Splash damage weapons... looks like they finally found a good use for T2 ammo... Unless the game is rebalanced rather heavily, then splash damage isn't realistic in any other implementation than dedicated ammo for it. There was a reason why it was removed from T1 missiles previously, and that reason was CONCORD. - Base insurance payout: 40% of ship base price Platinum cost: 33% of ship base price Platinum payout: 100% of ship base price Ship base prices can be found in CCP's Item Database.
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:53:00 - [37] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub First, twopointoh's vision of fleetbattle is excellent. I think most of us would like to participate in something like this. Originally by: Kunming 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. The question is then - what changed that? I'd wager it was T2 long-range ammo (Tremor, Spike, Aurora), but it could also be more characters trained for battleships or wealthy enough population which can afford to bring battleships (and lose them) in each fight. So, veterans, around which time did fleet combat change? it changed cause the tight blob win most battles vs unorganised enemies From Dusk till Dawn
Cohkka LoneWolf Mining R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:01:00 - [38] 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. There doesn't exist such thing as an "instalock" if you can't play the damn game it's your own fault. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:13:00 - [39] My 0.02 bits about snipe blobs: - Allow ships to warp to all ships (not just gang members) when they're beyond 150 km. Adjust the range if needed. - Make intredictor spheres immune to smartbombs. Could also do with some range increase. In last case, make those not usable in a gate or station grid, so they don't replace bubbles. This makes sniping more risky, but doesn't make it useless it. You can still squeeze a single BS before having to warp out, but wouldn't be able to stay longer for fear of getting jumped by short range fleet and/or a dictor. Pure sniping fleet will be useless, as it's hard to make much of an impact with a kill ratio of 1 BS every 2 or 3 minutes. Even more, such continous warp-in/warp-out tactic is insanely boring and prone to screwups. I think this would be motivation enough for FCs to make a strong close rang group with some sniper support to pick off important targets (ECM boats, possible FCs, hated characters ...). ------ No ISK, no fun
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:18:00 - [40] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub So, veterans, around which time did fleet combat change? it changed cause the tight blob win most battles vs unorganised enemies So it means tools to make tight blob effective were here all the time? Even before T2 ammo? At the time of Great Northern War? Back in the days of Curse Alliance? In effect, was the only thing lacking back then commanders who knew how to run a sniping blob? Any discussion about changing the sniping blob is useless if we don't know what started it. ------ No ISK, no fun

XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:58:00 - [41] give us grenade launchers with a choice of splash and concentrated damages... and the thing with concord... u could just say boohoo my smartbombs are hitting cans... they havent banned them yet, missiles are a main weapon for a race and everyone elses secondary so u cant do splash on them. Grenade launchers= poor range, 2km splash radius.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:03:00 - [42] Originally by: XGS Crimson give us grenade launchers with a choice of splash and concentrated damages... and the thing with concord... u could just say boohoo my smartbombs are hitting cans... they havent banned them yet, missiles are a main weapon for a race and everyone elses secondary so u cant do splash on them. Grenade launchers= poor range, 2km splash radius. Grenade launchers? WTF?
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:56:00 - [43] 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. rofl you shoudn't pvp in shuttles and you shouldn't pvp if you can't afford a clone or if you have imps inside which you can'T afford to loose. I have to pay 16 mil each death myself and i'm fine with it. Removing the lock range bonus from sensor boosters (i.e. from the game appart from skill-wise lock range improve) would benefit to the whole game and sort the blob problem aswell. Everybody will warp at optimal or fleets will go back to close range battles like in history Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Taurgil Balanced Unity	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:58:00 - [44] Edited by: Taurgil on 03/09/2006 18:59:05 Launcher? Gallente Ships (e.g.) have (near) zero launcher hardpoints. If launcher, then give all the ships enough hardpoints or a specialized ship that have em, if not the idea is crap.
Bainie	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:04:00 - [45] Another suggestion is that of volatile components. Missiles explode when you shoot them at someone...why dont they blow up and cause damage when the ship containing them blows up to all those within a vicinity. I have long despised blobbing and gate ganking in general. If components upon the destruction of a ship would explode as well causing damage to those around them then that might add another interesting concept to combat. Sure you may lose your pod in the explosion....if you didnt bail out first and warp away, but you might get some of the bastards that got you depending on the cargo. This would I think add a new dimension to gate ganking and pvp. For one if you find an enemy blob 200 km away and can get a cov on tops of them, or pop one and then warp to the can...you can warp in a few badgers full of explosive material and deal a crushing blow to the blob as a whole, 3-4 may be enough to pop them all in their battleships. A freighter could have a huge area of destruction.....or a huge amount of damage...maybe a new tactic in pvp. If this were to be implemented it would also make sense to incorporate some sort of cargo concealment cloaking systems...or everyone can keep using cans in their cargo holds to conceal them from scanning. But wouldnt that make you feel warm all over if one badger 2 with the right cargo could kamikaze the ganksquad to hull or lower depending on the kits? If things in this game blow up...or are unstable it would only make sense that the components to make such...or at least certain components would also be explosive as well. I would love to see a blob of 50 BS desomated by 5 Indy Bombs and get eve back to pvp and not blob vs player.....or blob vs blob....as that isnt all that fun...and takes so much of skill out of the game. If you get into an incredibly damaging gang of 15+ BS sniping...you should be expecting the enemy to be countering that someway-by kamikaze indy bombs or something else...at the present there is not anything else in place for this, though this could be a solution. They would obviously have to place some limitations on it of course, empire, around stations etc...but ccp can sort that out. This was just an idea...flame away!
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:11:00 - [46] Originally by: Bainie Another suggestion is that of volatile components. Missiles explode when you shoot them at someone...why dont they blow up and cause damage when the ship containing them blows up to all those within a vicinity. Read the damn thread and you know why AoE effects were taken off torps. Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Ezra Gallente Calista Industries	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:12:00 - [47] Originally by: Wulfgard 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. I don't think introducing AoE is inherently going to cause problems, but CCP does have to be careful. For smartbombs - Honestly anything CCP does with these won't help. Due to the fact that they originate around you and will hit friendlies, I don't see them used often except as an occasional anti-drone measure or in solo ships. Yes, increasing their range and damage will cause people that use them to spread out, but I feel that the end result will not be people who use them spreading out, but even fewer people using them. I think CCP should think of some method to increase their desirability, but they would have to be very careful not to do it in a way that makes blobbing worse. Perhaps halving the DPS in exchange for not hurting friendlies? AoE could work very well for anti-blobbing if a new class of AoE weapon is added, one which is a ranged AoE. High fitting costs, high cap usage, low damage, but VERY large radius. Such that a bunch of them stacked would HURT if a fleet were bunched up but could easily be countered. It's a difficult task, I think AoE can be the solution, but its implementation must be carefully thought out. Not one of CCP's strong points unfortunately... ------------ Ezra Cornell pe0n, Calista Industries
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:15:00 - [48] Edited by: Ginaz on 03/09/2006 19:15:25 mini-doomsday device for dreads. would give a reason to put a dread into a fleetbattle Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Anjor Minmatar VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 21:26:00 - [49] lol, mini doomsday device. Oh you mean back in the day the old Hellfire Self Destruct SB. Oh god I miss that thing. 10000 kinetic dmg. If they did bring those back I would have so much fun popping expensive t2 fleets of cepters/dictors and frigs. Back on topic though. Yes I agree on the anti blobing, the AoE side I can see having issues, as it requires a new set of ships and weapons. So I see 3 points which are nice 1. Limit the max lock from enemy ships 2. Allow better catagorization of gangs. Primarly what comes to mind is subgangs within a gang, aka Wing, Cadre, Air Group (Space group in this case) then Fleet. This would also allow in things like Dread ops to place them all into a subgang, the tacklers in another, snipers in 1, etc. Much easier to direct. 3. Give more reasons why to drop out of sniper range into mid/short range combat. Longer lock times based on range, or changing of modules to either allow longer range/slower lock. All of which have nice input. The question is, how much is CCP willing to do for this subject at hand? __________________________________________________ Yes im Minmatar, but I'm a freed slave that has Amarrian blood!!!
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.03 22:57:00 - [50] ...then CCP need to start with T2 amo. //Maya

Hamatitio Caldari ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.03 23:23:00 - [51] a close range fleet will annihilate a larger long range fleet with scouts and dictors. People are just too afraid to do it. Watch Fate's video, it demonstrates this well :). --- I'm going through sigs fast these days.
Hamatitio Caldari ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.03 23:26:00 - [52] Linkage --- I'm going through sigs fast these days.
Rigsta Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2006.09.03 23:27:00 - [53] 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" ROFL XD Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Stuart Price Caldari Mercatoris Technologies	Posted - 2006.09.04 00:32:00 - [54] The more people that are locked onto a ship, the worse tracking becomes for all fire at that target due to signal interference of tens or hundreds of ships trying to get a signal. Imagine 100 people with really long sticks, if they all try to beat the same person, a lot of those sticks are gonna hit each other and deflect or be blocked entirely. Actually, now I'm just thinking about 100 people with really long sticks roaming the countryside and beating people up... "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.04 00:41:00 - [55] Bad thing would be to get podded due to splash damage... ---
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.04 00:50:00 - [56] Stuart Price, yea, imagine not being able to hurt ships properly in small group combat, with smaller ships activelt reducing your DPS, making anything less than a gank BS a negative. Because EVERY stat group discussed so far for that has done precisely that. Except global ECM. (Global ECM...a slowly ramping factor, it becomes only noticeable with 50+ ships and significant at 100+. It affects missile explosion radius and turret signature resoloution, making smallers ships considerably more survivable in fleet combat...) "Imagine 100 people with really long sticks, if they all try to beat the same person, a lot of those sticks are gonna hit each other and deflect or be blocked entirely." The first five people with the pikes will kill you. So there is no accurate comparison there. //Maya
whiteouter	Posted - 2006.09.04 01:02:00 - [57] Would giving bonuses to smaller gangs of ships.. help any? I ask casue I was thinking about 'homeworld'.. in it you had differing formations for your attack/defense (I recall formations.. like the claw, wall, delta etc..) so for example.. a set number of ships flying in a certain formaation would grant bonus.. ( ok it may step on command ship roles)... And , im not arguing that the ships visualy fly in formation... but say a inty fleet in certain formation can warp to a target ship ... ( gang leader selects formation) obviously there flaws.. but.. possibility? Its late .. just thinking out loud!!
N Solarz Caldari FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.04 04:00:00 - [58] i know orvas dren, and we might have talked about this, but the max number of locks is a good idea, just needs to be a little more complex, point values ie a megathron has lets say has a max lock on him of 20 points, and when he locks someone he takes up 5 point the points are scaleble by size frigs/inties/afs: 1 point dessies/ interdictors: 2 points crusiers/hacs/recons/supoport: 3 bc's/command ships: 4 bs: 5 therefore going back to our mega, he could have any number of combinations of ships locking him, but not a 40 man bs fleet with 20 tacklers also the amount of lockable points would vary by size with the new gang advances with gang heirarchy and such, the new voice chat, and such, this will make the game more tactical
Usotsuki	Posted - 2006.09.04 04:22:00 - [59] Thumbs up to making ships do damage when they explode. Thumbs down to max locks on a target. I'd like to see an overall decrease in optimal and increase in falloff. And also an overall speed boost to all ships. And make missiles travel faster but have less flight time. imo
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.04 04:43:00 - [60] 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. snip 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. ;) I think it could be done (mostly) with the game we have right now. The main problem is that tools like Teamspeak don't adaqutely support ways to orginize groups of the size of modern Eve blob warefare. Rather, they were envisioned as support tools for team-based FPSes with groups the size of 5-15 players. Some of the more effective alliances are already working around such limitations, and the Eve integrated voice chat (whatever its possible flaws as a business model) may help, too. I also think that the first alliances to orginize themselves like that will eliminate traditional blobs twice their size. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth



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.