| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
   |
Posted - 2006.09.15 18:35:00 -
[1]
Preface: I fear this will be a long post and possibly controversial. I ask your patience to read the whole thing before commenting on it. Please feel free to disagree but lets keep the conversation civil shall we? 
When you look at most of the complaints about PvP in the game, you see that a lot of the people complain about what they call "blob" warfare. They use the nature of the blob and the instadeath it entails to suggest a sweeping series of changes which are at least dangerous and possibly even extremely fatal to Eve if they were implemented. For example, the suggestion to nerf multiple ships damage on one ship comes out of the solo player that gets attacked by a "blob" in his opinion, locked down and neutralized and killed. His statement to the forums is "that is no fun." Another example brought up frequently is large gate camps and how they kill small groups fast.
The reality, IMHO, is that Eve is balanced very well. (Dont worry, I have my flame proof suit on.) Eve is the ONLY MMOG out there that I know of where 10 players new to the game less than a month can gang up and KILL a plaer three years old. That speaks volumes for the health of the game and the ability to bring in fresh blood. This is despised by a very few of those 3 year players that feel they should be invincible but TBH I could care less about these elitists. The game has so many points of complexity that it brings up volumes of chances for situational and tactical warfare.
So then what about the dreaded blob? Well a blob is a military tactic called "overwhelming force" and if you CHOOSE to fight it with the same tactic you will need more force. This is complicated by the fact that you are dealing with people who don't especially want to lose their 100 million isk fitted ship (risk adverse). Once you are in that situation, the pilot will demand a significant win rather than an even battle; and thus even battles between large fleets are a rarity in Eve. So the blobs get bigger, each counting the guns of another until they eventually collide at 100km snipe range and ... well little happens other than lag.
The thing to notice about the previous paragraph is that the selection of tactics was a CHOICE made by the commanders in the field and not forced upon them by Eve. They chose a path unlikely to get them any kills and maintain the status quo. They could have chosen a different military tactic and gotten different results depending upon the situation. For example, in a war with the now defunct Forsaken Empire, ATUK was drawn into a large fight in HPA. Instead of engaging in traditional tactics of blob warfare, they kitted out a small number of ships to kill frigates at long distance and sniped out the support (which was stupidly with the main fleet at 100km). I clearly remember the Forsaken Empire fleet commander laughing that ATUK wasn't focusing fire while the frigates all around them were going boom. The Forsaken Empire fleet commander failed to use his ships properly and paid for it. A week later the same fleet commander was screaming for tacklers and none wanted to come. I wonder why? ATUK chose a different tactic other than overwhelming force and got different results.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 18:36:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Rells on 15/09/2006 18:36:42
In summary, there are thousands of tactics that are facilitated by the game mechanics. However, most pilots learn only "overwhelming force" and end up in blob or warpout situations. Instead of learning things like peripheral attacks, probing attacks, tactical maneuvering, flybys and so on, the pilots count guns and come out with sums. Hence the state of Eve warfare. The problem doesn't exist in the mechanics of Eve but rather in the minds of the fleet commanders and pilots of Eve. The only problems that can be attributed to mechanics are aligned stabbed snipers in lowsec, they can warp before you get out of warp in less than a second and dock wars on stations. The first problem can be solved by applying a minimum time to form a warp field no mater how fast you are going and increasing redocking and gate aggro timers to 4 minutes or so.
There are no need for massive changes, nerfing the blob and so on. Instead the pilots of Eve need to get a hammer, break the box and start thinking of tactics and strategy rather than counting. That starts with the small ships and goes all the way up to the battleships. Why warp in your antifrigates with the heavies? Wait til there is a need for the antifrigate work before bringing them in -- in contrast to bringing them in hoping they will draw fire off your battleship. Let your tacklers really learn how to use their ship instead of learning how to suicide. Think of what your enemy is thinking and how to counter it. If your enemy is a blob warfare guy, counter overwhelming force with asymmetrical tactics that render that force irrelevant -- tactics are the name of the game and what most PvP pilots are missing.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 18:36:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Rells on 15/09/2006 18:36:16
AGONY is well known for doing that as well. The complaints about snipers at 150 km in the forums are rife but people fighting AGONY quickly learn that this is a bad idea. Mainly because AGONY will use tactics and apply a number of asymmetrical warfare tactics that will result in isk losses of 100 for every 1 AGONY isk lost. In addition, the psychological effect of the tactics is dramatic. It is hard to get pilots to keep bringing their toys to the field when there is a distinct chance that the toys will get blasted to a million pieces. The fact that AGONY is not afraid to take casualties in the process is one of the most important deciding factors. AGONY fleet commanders are taught to think in terms of strategy and tactical situation rather than "I can't lose a battleship or assault frigate in the fleet or people will hate me." This is the single most strategic point in our combat tactics and the spotlight that illuminates the problem with many fleet commanders; if you cant take losses then the ONLY strategy left is "overwhelming force."
Another problem of alliance warfare is the improper use of ships. One of the first thing a newbie alliance pilot hears is, "Get in a fast frig, equip a microwarp and a disruptor and come tackle." These people are being treated as cannon fodder and rarely do they survive a large number of ships. As tacklers they represent a major danger ot the heavies so the heavies target them and destroy them. This wouldnt be a big problem for the tackler if he was fitted and flying properly. Instead, the 500% signal radius bloom of the microwarp in addition to the rapid cap depletion of trying to hold both modules concurrently on mediocre skills proves fatal. The fleet commander sent a bunch of tacklers to certain suicide and will be wondering why no one wants to tackle anymore. If he had used his light ships properly he would have scored several major kills and a certain strategic victory. As it is, he only scored a frigate slaughter and warpout party. I have seen covops used as glorified scan alts, battleships that are best at short range kitted out for long, destroyers warped into close range and used as tackler rather than remaining with the fleet, exposure of small ships to heavies by warping them in at the same time and a whole list of other "oops" of improper ship use.
Risk adversity hits the heavies as well. Consider a fleet of 10 battleships vs 10 battleships. Fleet A is siting on the gate and fleet B warps in at 150km to snipe fleet A. Fleet A has the choice to snipe back or withdraw. As fleet B is probably not all set up to snipe, their best action would be to withdraw. However, fleet C is in the mix now. It has 5 battleships to its name. What does it do? In traditional battleship warfare the answer is "nothing" or perhaps enter a snipe and warp out folly where every primary target warps. However, if the ships were not so risk adverse they could all retrofit to blasters and extremely close range, employ a covops and come right in on top of the 10 battleships. They would tear the 10 apart losing only one to every three of the enemy on average. Yet I saw such tactics very rarely in fleet ops because of risk adversity. People dont want to take that shiny BS in so close in scramble range.
Evidence for this can be found elsewhere but just for giggles try the following in your next engagement. Have your ships warp in and everyone lock 5 different targets and start firing on one (a launcher on each will do). Scramble 1 or 2 targets but leave the rest unscrambled and watch what happens. The heavier the ships, the more likely they will warp out when they think they have been called primary. Once their fleet has scattered leaving only the scrambled targets, shift everyone to those targets and destroy them. This is psychological warfare, exploiting your opponet's risk adversity to gain a tactical advantage.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:05:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Major Stormer
for example, one idea i heard was use of locking disruption, the more ships lock a target the longer it takes to engage the lock. would at the very least make blobs more fun.
There really is no need to nerf blob warfare. It can be combatted by competent pilots using tactics and skill. Your suggestion here would make warp core stabs incredibly powerful. (Remember the risk-adverse thing?) Then ou would have blobs of stabbed people. If you get locked down by 7 people you will possibly loose your ship but that says nothing about whether you won the engagemnt or not. Think about it if all of the enemy is firing all on you they are using 10 times more force than they really needed to bring you down. If your ships are distributing the firepower instead then your fleet will take far less losses.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:17:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Edited by: Nez Perces on 15/09/2006 19:02:39
Could you give us some concrete examples of how your ideas would play out on the battlefield with say 2 enemies facing eachother at a POS or open field engagements with balanced fleets of capitals, BS and support.
Eitherway I agree with the OP, I think its high time blobbing tactics faded into the history books...
There are lots of tactics, hundreds of them and I dont want to go to far into my own ideas for obvious reasons. My suggestions is that you start thinking tactically. Think about why the other fleet is there, what its goals are, and ways you can thwart that goal. Think about their psychology, be calm and considered in your actions (a POS takes a LONG time to ***** so you have time to do something considered rather than rash). Also think about why they are there and whether that shows any weakness in your organization (too much territory to defend, etc).
The point is to think about the situation. All situations have their own tactical dynamics to consider. Throwing overwhelming force at it is at best inefficient.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:22:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sorja
Don't forget that focus firing has detrimental effects to the game.
It leads to blobbing tactics and to lag.
Besides that, it's boring and doesn't involve any skill besides locking and pressing weapon hotkeys.
So it's not to suit 'one's personal' tastes that the diminishing returns on focus firing idea has emerged one year ago.
It was for the good of the game, nothing less, nothing more.
I can't see any reason why this idea couldn't make it's way through, besides exploits.
Exploits are avoidable once the designers are seriously looking into that new game mechanic since it would basically be a cap to how many damage a ship can take per second according to it's signature.
I think we have little choice in the matter at the moment, the game is close to unplayable so every solution has to be investigated to give the game some fun again and put an end to the lag complaints.
Focus firing already has detremental effects. Namely waste of firepower. When the targer blows, just look at how much ordinance is still in the air. All that is wasted firepower. It doesnt take 50 battleships to blow up a battleship, 5 will do. Diminishing returns on focus fire would represent an incredible nerf to light ships and would basically remove the one thing that makes eve pvp great: namely that newer players can compete if they work together. Kill focus fire and you will need BSes to kill BSes and that will ENCOURAGE and even FORCE blobbing.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:24:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Plutoinum
Edited by: Plutoinum on 15/09/2006 20:23:04
You mentioned mwds, tacklers and sig radius. The mwd increase the sig radius only, while it's running.
So usually a tackler uses it only to get in range, keeping enough traversal that snipers most likely miss and when he orbits, he switches it off, except he needs to escape.
So what's wrong with it ?
edit: I used to fit AB only on jamming Stilettos to safe cap. But didn't use it for months now.
Me misses the good old intie ganking gangs with a lot of EW. Was fun. 
Battleship gun locks them, can hit them because of sig radius and POP. Its suicide. Only small ships that can use MWD effectively are inties.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:32:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
The solution to blobing is to make more area effect weapons, and also make ships exploding do huge amounts of damage in the immediate area. I know there are alot of other things this would cause to happen, but the first and foremost is that fleets would break up into gangs and stay seperated by at least reasonable distances. This won't actually stop BoB from locking a system down with 600 pilots in it, but it's a start.
Well I suppose at least one person had to reply without bothering to even read the OP. ... sigh ....
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:05:00 -
[9]
Dumbing down a game because some people are vocal and lazy has been a source of game destruction for 15 years. Eve desnt need to be dumbed down, its pilots need to get smarter. If they dont, they will die. We teach tactics with light ships and it works. We can blow away one or 2 BS from one of your blobs right under the nose of the blob and warp away with a 100 to 1 isk killed to lost ratio. We do it so regularly that standard alliance tactics in syndicate would just get you a really bad day.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:06:00 -
[10]
Originally by: tookar
Edited by: tookar on 15/09/2006 20:42:31
 Trouble is the snipers usually use stabs in small fleets and most inty wont have enough scram and in larger fleets theres usually some tacklers around to pop any approaching inties . Covops could use a speed boost imo :) allow them to use mwd while cloaked?
I dont always agree with you rells but you have some interesting and well thought out ideas .
Stabbed aligned snipers are tough to stop. In 0.0 it can be done with bubbles, in lowsec it is nearly impossible.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
You made several mistakes by making this post, Rells.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, on a daily basis AGONY locks horns with people that have superior firepower and come out with a 100/1 isk Killed/Lost ratio. We have taken on gate camps of several BS with frigates, tech 2 frigates and destroyers, a fleet number 10 to 15 and inflicted such losses on them that they withdrew down several heavies while we suffered inconsequential losses.
A large fleet has inertia that makes it problematic. Moving that fleet is difficult. We will take advantage of that fact to score hard kills and make the blob itself warp around chasig us and getting nothing. Gurilla tactics are, in real life as well as in game, very effective measures and you cant counter them with firepower but rather with adaptations in your own strategies.
Also if I may postulate that you have been playing this game a LONG time and perhaps you dont see alternatives because of being set in your ways. I know a lot of alliance pilots that are like that, well respected people that just cant see a different way. Most of them told me my experiments of light ship fleets were doomed to failure as was my PvPU. They were wrong.
I will never believe that raw force is greater than tactics. Military history over 3000 years will back me up on that.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:21:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Eriv Kendri
Edited by: Eriv Kendri on 15/09/2006 22:04:25
Interesting post, but come back after you have say 10 sovereign systems and some outposts to defend and tell us your insights on pvp in regards to that.
This post is nonsense. It says nothing about the content of the post and just tries to advance a proposition that the poster is more "elite" than others because of that situation.
You have very little idea what I have and have not done in this game. I will tell you that this is my third Main char and I have been playing since beta and have done lots of things in the game. My current lack of desire to be in an alliance or participate in politics and POS wars is intentional.
However that doesnt preclude the use of tactics in such a situation. What tactics I would have will remain mine. Others need to think out of the box more than simply shoot SHOOT SHOOT!
Anyone that thinks pvp in Eve is about blobbing and the F keys is spectacularly wrong.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 23:11:00 -
[13]
@DigitalCommunist
Well, like I said you are entitled to your opinion. I wont agree with you however.
|
| |
|