| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| 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.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 18:58:00 -
[4]
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...
|
Major Stormer
Caldari
Demon Womb
Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:00:00 -
[5]
amazing post!
And yes, i totally agree on most points. However, 1 point i do wish to add is that i would enjoy seeing blob warfare slightly nerfed, if just to make fleet commanders slightly less lazy and start to employ correct tactics.
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.
If you have a fleet commander that knows other things other then "bring more ships then the enemy and hope for the best" then good, but they are rare.
Many battles ive been in with celest lately is a intresting skirmish or 2, and then a blob turns up on one side or other and the other docks becuase they cannont see a way to defeat the enemy forces.
--------------------------
AHH the Stupid forum DELETED(!) all my mod chat in my sig when i added this image :( |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:05:00 -
[6]
 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.
|
DefJam101
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:05:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Major Stormer
amazing post!
And yes, i totally agree on most points. However, 1 point i do wish to add is that i would enjoy seeing blob warfare slightly nerfed, if just to make fleet commanders slightly less lazy and start to employ correct tactics.
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.
If you have a fleet commander that knows other things other then "bring more ships then the enemy and hope for the best" then good, but they are rare.
Many battles ive been in with celest lately is a intresting skirmish or 2, and then a blob turns up on one side or other and the other docks becuase they cannont see a way to defeat the enemy forces.
NO easy way to solve this problem, but it must be done, the "longer lock per # of people targeting" would just allow more exploiting.
If a lot of subtle changes are made to EVE blobs can be killed, not sure why CCP isn't getting on it, fleet PvP as it is, is boring, very very boring.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:07:00 -
[8]
Seeing some LOS combat would be nice too. Alot of complaints about EVE I've gotten from friends who played other MMOs is that in EVE, you can't use the terrain in combat, since shots go right through it.
Sorry you can't afford a dev so you get me instead ^^ - Xorus
I hear Xorus is only 50 isk an hour  - Immy
Oooh that could get Suvetar for the day! - Cathath
For 50, you can have my goat:P- Tirg |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:17:00 -
[9]
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.
|
turnschuh
Eye of God
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:24:00 -
[10]
Edited by: turnschuh on 15/09/2006 19:24:42
eve pvp is fine.
|
tookar
Amarr
Krookid
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:33:00 -
[11]
The fact remains that no amount of flybys will kill 10-20 deathstar pos in a system . You have to use dreads and bs and lots of them . What you are saying sounds cool and everything but it uisnt practical , the blob evolved because it is the most efficient way to protect your space and the mechanics are what is needed to change to prevent this .
|
Gift
Amarr
Loot
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: turnschuh
Edited by: turnschuh on 15/09/2006 19:24:42
eve pvp is fine.
no, it really isnt.
Pirates of Eve, Join channel "Pirate" Today!
|
Sorja
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:38:00 -
[13]
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.
____________________
Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings?
Quillan Rage > Iron ships |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:41:00 -
[14]
nice read
... oh well Rabble rabble ra...(meh) |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 15/09/2006 19:43:33
Originally by: Rells
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.
Heh... I didn't ask for myself, more so that your argument (which I agree with btw) would be strengthened. Your message whilst the way forward imo, flies in the face of current perceived wisdom amongst many EVE entities.
Just an imaginary situation to describe how asymetric warfare between two entities using Capital Ships, POS, BS and support might be carried out without the usual blob tactics, would go a very long way in furthering your argument.
|
Mal Hondo
THeOThErs
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 19:59:00 -
[16]
first - great post! :)
But how can CCP solve blobbing exactly? extending SB range to 200km?
Hate something. Change something. Hate something, change something - make something better!
Da doo be doo bi doo bi doo bi dooooooo! |
Ozawi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:00:00 -
[17]
Why should CCP 'solve' blobbing?
Let natural selection do it.
Blobbing won't hold against a better tactic. When blobbing loses enough times and costs people enough ISK, they'll adapt, and the can of blob-b-gone will have been sprayed.
------------------------------------------------
This sig is mine. There are others like it, but this one is mine alone. Mods keep out, or I will drop trou and sprinkle some tinkle in your Cheerios!
-I don't eat Cheerios. -ReverendM |
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:14:00 -
[18]
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 ?
|
wierchas noobhunter
Caldari
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:21:00 -
[19]
Originally by: turnschuh
Edited by: turnschuh on 15/09/2006 19:24:42
eve pvp is fine.
/me spanks turnschuh wery wery hard
plz say it again !
Hey i get paid to be ebil  - Xorus
So how much you want for the ebil goat??-Tirg
I don't  - Imz0r |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:22:00 -
[20]
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.
|
wierchas noobhunter
Caldari
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:22:00 -
[21]
well i agree that tactic > blob tbh
butpoint is not there
eve solo pvp is almost endet in noob carebear ganking
and going alone u can only find fights ( real ones )
in test server
Hey i get paid to be ebil - Xorus
So how much you want for the ebil goat??-Tirg
I don't - Imz0r |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:24:00 -
[22]
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.
|
Locke DieDrake
Port Royal Independent Kontractors
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:26:00 -
[23]
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.
___________________________________________
The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain.
___________________________________________
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:32:00 -
[24]
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 ....
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:38:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 15/09/2006 20:39:06
Currently, with long-range BS, everyone has everything in combat range and no-one has problems to track the enemies' battleships, so it's easy to just switch through the same targets for the whole fleet.
We maybe need more factors that work against this swiching through the same targets without thinking.
E.g. a ceptor pilot really has to do some work. He has to fly from target to target, chose a proper orbit, care about his enemies abilities like nos, webbers, drones etc.
If battleship piloting would also involve more effort like this, we probably wouldn't just switch through the targets with 20 BS or more ( and get more interesting and longer fights. ) Just a theory.
|
tookar
Amarr
Krookid
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:40:00 -
[26]
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 .
|
Merdaneth
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 20:42:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Merdaneth on 15/09/2006 20:43:03
Nice post Rells, but you are forgetting an essential thing:
Your point it essentially that the standard blob focus fire tactics can be overcome and exploited even *if* executed by properly trained people with enough skills, smarts, communication and the right psychological makeup.
What you are saying is analogous that if people just got smart, trained well and were not afraid to drive their cars, we wouldn't need seatbelts and other kind of safety measures for traffic, since we all know that 99% of all accidents are perfectly avoidable. While nice in theory, practice proves that it is extremely difficult to fullfill these conditions, and it hugely more practical to take several safety measures.
What you are saying is that PvP will be enjoyable and effective when employed by the elite few, and not by the others, because the average player lacks the psychological makeup, training and smarts to ever execute said tactics. What other people are saying that we should provide the EvE equivalent of seatbelts because reality proves there are a lot of traffic accidents.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:05:00 -
[28]
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 -
[29]
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.
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:10:00 -
[30]
Small sniping gangs, who operate at maybe 190km and try to take out some individual ships, are usually not staying long at one place. They are afraid of covert ops and interdictors. So they have a covert ops in space that watches you and that brings them into a new sniping position every few minutes. The chance to catch them is quite low then.
If I'm sniping in a small gang in a static position and locals fills up, but I see noone for minutes, I already feel the covert ops crawling towards us and the interdictor luring. Everything in me says: "It's time to get our ass out !"
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:18:00 -
[31]
You made several mistakes by making this post, Rells.
The first and largest mistake you made was to solicit EVE warfare as anything resembling balanced. No, it would be correct to say its more balanced than it used to be, a lot more. But balanced? Do you even know the meaning of the word? There are entire ship classes which are borderline useless, and try so hard to fill niche roles they end up with overlapping similarities. Even in the smallest fight, death is nearly instant. Ship setups have become standardized for certain tasks to the point where innovation clashes with newbie stupidity. Oh, and tens of thousands of people wandering around like idiots for hours on end, meeting other people and being given the choice of engaging every single time.
The second mistake was telling me how people have only themselves to blame for engaging in blob warfare, when you've failed to spot the blinding truth which is prevalent in all war. People don't kill each other because its fun to do so, they kill each other because its fun to win and then brag about it for the next weeks, months or years. People fight because they want to hurt each other, not because they remain forever thrilled at the same blue flash when a ship goes boom. What you're suggesting is something out of a Bushido scripture, where each combatant is trying to attain some spiritual cohesion with his tactical self. To find paths not travelled, and explore them for the sake of unveiling some hidden truths.
Yes Rells, you are naive in every sense of the word.
Whilst cunning and strategy are important, their importance dwindles with every gang member you include. The more people you have, the less restrictions you suffer (ie. what you simply can't do without refitting or swapping ships). It reaches the point where any two 100-man fleets have nearly identical ship composition, setup and combat strategy. The only difference is how flawlessly they can execute it. On the small scale it may remain true, but there is a physical limitation to how many ship types and setups your group will posess, and thus battle can be drastically different as you fight one group of hostiles to the next. Bring a 20-man gang of nanotyphoons, interceptors, bomberthrons, nosdomis.. whatever you can imagine, and a much larger fleet/blob will always posess the power to smack you silly. Firepower wins the day, Rells.
Your third mistake was using a bad example to illustrate your point. Your mini-spiel about how AGONY is "well known" for doing these new and innovative things is pretty laughable. The only thing you managed to do is take advantage of the order execution delay that large groups often suffer from. Again, a difference in organization that may or may not exist, depending on who you fight. The fact is, they can do the same thing in return and score the same exact kills. But that happens every day out in 0.0 and its hardly worth a mention, eh? Big giant blob massacres some poor newbies, and they never stood a goddamn chance. Hardly news. The difference you see is actually psychological. People like to cheer for the underdog and take notice of such things more readily, which only multiplies the shame your enemy feels after losing ships to inferior assets. But then you're not really talking about EVE mechanics here, are you? If you consider this a balancing factor in the game, then consider the psychological trauma which sheer numbers can bring down upon the residents of some region. I can assure you that more alliances have broken apart from overwhelming pressure than to random (elitist) gankers who think they're hot stuff. Hell, my last corp suffers from that.
So what I'm trying to say is; the number of tactics that you can effectively use against a fleet goes down as numbers increase , and the tactics it can use goes up. Until a small group of players can do something significant a large can't, the superiority of firepower is something that no alliance can ignore.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:29:00 -
[32]
Originally by: turnschuh
Edited by: turnschuh on 15/09/2006 19:24:42
eve pvp is fine.
QFT
Blobbing is a tactic and is totally legit. If you are too stupid to figure out a way to **** with blobs think about it, its not that hard.
Also, I agree with the OP that people are pussies. (I believe he called it risk-adverse) Almost nobody engages unless they're 90% certain of victory.
CFW (Certified Forum Warrior)
I kill people ingame too. |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:48:00 -
[33]
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.
|
tookar
Amarr
Krookid
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 21:52:00 -
[34]
Id be interested to see how you think these tactics could apply to attacking/defending sov space with POS as they are atm . How does a small force even get into a system to use this type of warfare? Does it have significance to a large enemy fleet of say 100 assorted ships that 20 frigs/destroyers are warping around? I find it hnard to believe that the smaller fleet would be decimated under almost all engagements involviing any enemy that can lock without being told to do so .
|
Sorja
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:01:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Rells
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.
The idea is too limit how much damage you can take per second, so lots of small ships hitting a single target would only hit the cap if there's really LOTS of them firing at the same time.
In fact, small ships would suffer less from this since it would take more of them to hit the cap than with battleships.
Right?
____________________
Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings?
Quillan Rage > Iron ships |
Eriv Kendri
Caldari
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:04:00 -
[36]
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.
|
Too Kind
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:11:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix
Also, I agree with the OP that people are pussies. (I believe he called it risk-adverse) Almost nobody engages unless they're 90% certain of victory.
Don't think so. Alliance pvp is warfare and bringing numbers is the best way to avoid getting outnumbered. People are often not just there for a bit shooty shooty for fun. They have a clear objectives that they have to fullfill, like secure an area or do damage to their enemies.
I don't mind to fight, if we have less numbers in our gang, if I still think, that we can make it. That's even cooler. If you win then, it's really satisfying.
But if you join an OP you usually don't know, what numbers await you exactly. The only thing you often know is your objective.
So if I had only the choice between blobbing and being blobbed, I chose blobbing. At least you achieve your objective with it, like securing the area. Being blobbed just means you have lost and are doomed to sit on safe. So if there is an important objective, you bring what you have and hope that it's enough.
To repeat: Alliance warfare is to win wars, not just about fighting a bit for fun. The results are not pointless.
--------------------------
Post with your main !!!111 |
Azure Skyclad
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:15:00 -
[38]
Weapon arcs.
Every ship in Eve is just a ball that is as dangerous on the bow aspect as it is on an aft quarter.
Dullness.
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Sever Aldaria
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:19:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Sorja
Originally by: Rells
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.
The idea is too limit how much damage you can take per second, so lots of small ships hitting a single target would only hit the cap if there's really LOTS of them firing at the same time.
In fact, small ships would suffer less from this since it would take more of them to hit the cap than with battleships.
Right?
Interesting idea if I understand you right. I'm not sure how you would implement a dps cap though. Someone fires a shot and a (x) second timer starts such that any damage exceeding the damage cap for the duration of the timer is reduced to 0 or something like that? I suppose target painters increasing the signiture radius would therefore increase the damage cap? Sounds a little too crazy to be implimented but its the most interesting idea of game mechanics altering I've heard in a long time.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:21:00 -
[40]
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.
|
Sorja
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:34:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Sever Aldaria
Interesting idea if I understand you right. I'm not sure how you would implement a dps cap though. Someone fires a shot and a (x) second timer starts such that any damage exceeding the damage cap for the duration of the timer is reduced to 0 or something like that? I suppose target painters increasing the signiture radius would therefore increase the damage cap? Sounds a little too crazy to be implimented but its the most interesting idea of game mechanics altering I've heard in a long time.
Implementation is not really relevant when talking about a concept, the first thing to figure out is whether the concept would be beneficial to the game or not.
There has been some extensive discussion about it like one year ago, and the devs noticed it.
At the moment, Tuxford is interested by the idea but thinks it could lead to exploit.
The logical procedure would be to first decide if the concept is worth investigating, then think about the right way to implement it, which is CCP's job.
I also suggested a new damage control module which could put your ship in what is best described as 'reinforced mode' once you reach 20% structure with all modules disabled including your warp drive and engines.
When coming out of that 'stasis' state, you're free kill for the enemy if your team didn't win the battle or free to get to a station for repairs if you're allowed to escape.
This is nothing more than brainstorming, trying to come up with solutions to discourage blobbing, following a recent Tuxford thread.
I don't believe in miracles, even if CCP finds out what is lagging the game out atm and buys new yaaaarware there will always be insane lag for fleet battles as long as people bring hundreds of ships, it's getting worse and worse since Castor.
A solution is needed to bring PvP back to the game and discourage outrageous blobbing.
Well, at least it's my humble opinion, some will disagree.
____________________
Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings?
Quillan Rage > Iron ships |
DigitalCommunist
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 22:42:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Rells
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.
My, my, aren't we a bit arrogant this evening?
What you call tactics, just plain isn't. You're not doing anything different, you're just doing it faster. When you stop to realize that, you'll see that skirmish warfare is no longer a significant part of serious warfare. Serious warfare is for keeps. When a Dreadnaught armada steamrolls your outpost, and you drive them off with the amazing ingenuity of sniping, you can come back and tell us all about it.
Until then its moot.
People do skirmish warfare because its fun, not because its the most effective way of winning. Your goal is to get a great fight, and get the kill ratios to make you feel good about its outcome later on. Well grats, I've only been doing that for three years now along with the majority of PvPers in EVE.
You're completely ignorant for thinking I'm set in my ways. Why don't you check my employment history and tell me how many of those corporations are capable of forming a fleet, much less a blob fleet. And even six months into BoB I've yet to participate in more than half a dozen fleet battles. Being in an alliance does not prevent you from relishing the joys of skirmish warfare, which this entire thread seems to be aimed at promoting. 90% of it is running around chasing travellers, fighting small gank forces, busting up camps. The usual.
The difference is I now have a reason to do those things, and when a serious threat comes along I don't have to make forum posts pleading people to kindly consider alternative ways of doing things which are more compatible with my corporation's abilities.
Sorry Rells, there are many things wrong with high end pvp (read: fleet battles) - their occurance or necessity is not one of them. What you should be doing instead is reconsidering your previous claims of balance and preaching a solution to fleet battles in which numbers mean less than composition and strategy.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 23:11:00 -
[43]
@DigitalCommunist
Well, like I said you are entitled to your opinion. I wont agree with you however.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 23:54:00 -
[44]
Hey. Its completely fine if you don't believe me, but you're the one thats preaching. Its your job to convince the skeptics, and this one don't fall for short skirts and a pretty smile.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Crimson Knights Trade Federation
Thundering Mantis
|
Posted - 2006.09.15 23:59:00 -
[45]
Question: What are you all considering a "blob"??..
When I hear "blob" I think chaotic mess of idiots who are ganged together and are wandering around aimlessly after some poorly defined goal (been there!).. Tactics and organization by a smaller enemy could easily rip groups like that apart..
Other people seem to call ANY large group of ships a "blob".. But to me, a large group of ships with a plan, good leadership, and some organization is a "fleet".. And a fleet will generally kick the living snot out of any smaller group because they too have tactics, work together, and have something the smaller group doesn't - more organized and appropriate firepower..
Seems to me that might help clarify some folks arguments..
|
Ozawi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 00:04:00 -
[46]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
...this one don't fall for short skirts and a pretty smile.
Paints a nice picture though.
After that bit, I can't even remember what the rest of the thread was about. 
------------------------------------------------
This sig is mine. There are others like it, but this one is mine alone. Mods keep out, or I will drop trou and sprinkle some tinkle in your Cheerios!
-I don't eat Cheerios. -ReverendM |
Gragnor
Order of the Arrow
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 02:50:00 -
[47]
With respect to the author and to Digital Communist. I think you're both wrong.
The frigate death squads that Agony are renown for are lethal in their own way. I know - I took the course and learned first hand how a small fleet can ruin a battleship's day. However, the asymmetrical warfare model is built around the traditional doctrine of guerilla warfare; pick your target - get in - smash it in seconds and run.
In the larger sphere of Eve - this strategy will not see you gain any territorial advantage. While you will inflict vastly disproportionate losses to the enemy - you will not be able to take and hold space. You will only be able to deny the enemy full use of his space. Sooner or later you will find your enemy hardening up his space and the 15 man friggie blob will bump into the prepared position and get pwned.
Comments about the tactical skill needed are very valid and Digitial is, in my view, wrong to criticise you for that. Just look at the ISS debacle where 43 loss mails resulted from a poorly thought out and executed blob strategy (I cannot wait for the cartoon from Killer8).
On the other hand, Eve is a space sovreignty game. If you want to have and hold space you need weapons that control space - the capital ship and battleship fleets; where massed firepower and skill is needed to dominate and decimate attackers. Digital is very correct in saying that without an adequate battleship and capital ship fleet with its ability to do masses of damage quickly - you are doomed. I know - I am ex-huzzah and I lost my home to those who could muster the fleets.
No amount of tactics or guerilla warfare will ever defeat the massed phalanx of larger ships transiting en masse that the big alliances in Eve possess.
So- we do have a balance. The big fleet actions espoused by Digital to determine sovreignty will be decided by capital and battleship fleets. On the other hand, the vicious and effective small fleet raids that sting like Agony, deny those that hold sovereign space full use of it. But don't compare the two as one determines who is king for a month; the other determines who is king for a minute.
|
BlackDog Rackh'am
Minmatar
Euphoria Released
Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 03:46:00 -
[48]
There was a more or less good idea some time ago about splitting the effects of sensor boosters and tracking computers into two different modules for each.
Currently, a small tier1 BS contingent, like nos phoons and domis, warping in on the hostile fleet (while you still have your own snipers) will cause a lot of dissaray and some quick kills, but the enemy snipers can hit you just as easy, wether you are 30km or 200km out. The outcome is just a calculated suicide for a quick and maybe brief reduction in the amount of guns shooting you (kills+warp outs).
What was proposed was to split sensor boosters in two varieties, one that increases lock range at the expense of lock speed, and another one that does the opposite. Similarly, tracking computers would come in two flavors. One that boosts range but applies a penalty to tracking and another that helps your tracking at the expense of range.
This way, a small squad of AB/MWD tanked BS with fast locks, good tracking and close range guns would pose a real threat to a bunch of snipers that will take longer to lock and won't track for squat when a tempest is orbiting them at 500m/sec.
Furthermore, that would immediately bring about new setups for both long and short range fittings. You could employ a typical long range setup of today, but using tracking enhancing and fast locks at the expense of range and play in the 50km range. Or if you think your guns track well enough, get a ship with close range guns and combine short range/fast lock sensor boosters with low tracking/extra range tracking computers. 2 tacklers to web target and assist with tracking and a blasterthron that can hit out to 35-40km sound any good?
In any case, more variety would force people to re-adapt and it would add versatility, as long as it's well thought out and not the kind of "versatility" that used to plague minmattar desings like the typhoon
This way, a 100 man gang would have to cover every possibility simply because an enemy that will is probably going to come on top. Imagine a 50vs50 sniper slugfest with short range BS coming in to attack on each side, then you call in your medium range alpha strike group to instapop them until they mwd close to them and force them to flee. Complicated=fun to a certain extent, don't you think?
I'm not saying this idea will solve everything, it isn't even my idea after all, it will probably need loads of juggling around and testing to be balanced for all races but when i read about it i thought it was interesting to say the least.
|
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 04:24:00 -
[49]
Excelent post Rells. I strongly agree that tactics will beat overwhelming firepower any day of the week. You can have 100 sniping bs's, but if you get jumped by 10 blasterthons along with a mixture of cruisers/frigates to help tackle (god forbid you get hit with tracking disruptors) you will suffer a far greater losses (especially if you manage the order in which the ships jump in). Of course its an oversimplified example but the point is the same. EvE is in many ways like homeworld... every ship has an extremely effective counter.
And gurilla tactics are just as effective as overwhelming force to hold territory. The end goal in holding territory (at least in eve) is to incur such losses on your enemy that they simply can no longer afford to keep fighting. Wether you have overwhelming forces or not doesn't matter.
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
SengH
Black Omega Security
E.R.A
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 04:34:00 -
[50]
Originally by: K1K1R1K1
Excelent post Rells. I strongly agree that tactics will beat overwhelming firepower any day of the week. You can have 100 sniping bs's, but if you get jumped by 10 blasterthons along with a mixture of cruisers/frigates to help tackle (god forbid you get hit with tracking disruptors) you will suffer a far greater losses (especially if you manage the order in which the ships jump in). Of course its an oversimplified example but the point is the same. EvE is in many ways like homeworld... every ship has an extremely effective counter.
And gurilla tactics are just as effective as overwhelming force to hold territory. The end goal in holding territory (at least in eve) is to incur such losses on your enemy that they simply can no longer afford to keep fighting. Wether you have overwhelming forces or not doesn't matter.
I'd like to have whatever your smoking. 100BSes will have enough drones to BBQ your cruisers and frigs to hell and back. Furthermore when mwding your sig is as big as a small moon. A 100 BS fleet will be spread out significantly and you'll get owned by the other side of the fleet. Guerilla tactics plays no decisive force to holding a region, because at the end of the day, the POS is still there and theres nothing your frig/cruiser fleet can do to ***** it. Heck if you want a ingame example of how "well" ganksquads work at holding territory, look how well it worked for NBSI when they were in the north  (no offense guys but its true).
----------------------------------------
Back for a month cus BS5 finished..... |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 04:35:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Rells
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.
Well.. my opinion of the content and message that the OP was trying to deliver has dwindled somewhat after reading this section of posting.
You started this thread, which seemed to ecompass pvp in EVE across all scales of warfare. However, you refuse to give an example of how your asymetric warfare could be waged where POS, Capitals, BS and support are involved.
You say that blobbing is not the best way to conduct large scale engagements and I agree with you, however, I for one want a concrete example of your tactics in large territorial driven engagements, which is where the game is getting truly stuck atm due to overwhelming lag.
Otherwise I and no doubt many others shall have no alternative but to write you off as another talking head.
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 04:44:00 -
[52]
You lost me the moment you claimed eve was balanced very well. You know it isn;t not sure why you suggested it was. I mean you're the self proclaimed advocate of how sniping Bs aligned are nearly unstoppable. How can that be close to balance lol. Here is another problwm a gang of 15 pilots in frigates worth a grand total of 20-30 million can kill a player in a faction BS outfitted for a total cost of 500+ million sorry nothing remotely balanced about that. I know people dont want the game to degrade to a BS = pwnmobile, but it shouldnt be cannon fodder for 20 million in frigates either. this is again where the balance of EVE is terribly off, if you want 15 frigates to kill a BS then 15 frigates should have a similar price tag of a BS, the pendulum has swung way to far in the favor of small fast ships for thier minuscule price tags. that is just another example of a cheap tactic that works due to unbalanced gameplay.
Don;t get me wrong there are indeed serious flaws in eve's pvp, heck is there even PVP in eve? LAst i checked it is simply a bunch of mobbers gang banging solo pilots calling it pvp, when they have like ZERO risk of losing. As far at military tactics in eve? come on lmao. Literally none existant. Focus fire, hit and run. hardly a large arsenal of tactics there lol. Please do not tarnish the ideal of military tactics by using the term in eve combat :)
|
Rasitiln
Minmatar
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 04:50:00 -
[53]
I think I want to have digitalcommunists kids now 
Want to be a pirate? Join Sniggwaffe |
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 05:41:00 -
[54]
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: K1K1R1K1
Excelent post Rells. I strongly agree that tactics will beat overwhelming firepower any day of the week. You can have 100 sniping bs's, but if you get jumped by 10 blasterthons along with a mixture of cruisers/frigates to help tackle (god forbid you get hit with tracking disruptors) you will suffer a far greater losses (especially if you manage the order in which the ships jump in). Of course its an oversimplified example but the point is the same. EvE is in many ways like homeworld... every ship has an extremely effective counter.
And gurilla tactics are just as effective as overwhelming force to hold territory. The end goal in holding territory (at least in eve) is to incur such losses on your enemy that they simply can no longer afford to keep fighting. Wether you have overwhelming forces or not doesn't matter.
I'd like to have whatever your smoking. 100BSes will have enough drones to BBQ your cruisers and frigs to hell and back. Furthermore when mwding your sig is as big as a small moon. A 100 BS fleet will be spread out significantly and you'll get owned by the other side of the fleet. Guerilla tactics plays no decisive force to holding a region, because at the end of the day, the POS is still there and theres nothing your frig/cruiser fleet can do to ***** it. Heck if you want a ingame example of how "well" ganksquads work at holding territory, look how well it worked for NBSI when they were in the north (no offense guys but its true).
Right, because there's no way for those cruisers and frigates to spread out and use smartbombs.
I'm not going to argue tactics for holding territory (especially involving pos's) because I'm still relativly new to EvE, but I understand that every ship/setup has a highly effective counter to it which allows for a weaker force to anhilate a stronger force. Thus tactics can defeat overwhelming force. The only problem is how to realistically make this happen.
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
Sniser
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 11:03:00 -
[55]
Originally by: K1K1R1K1
[
Right, because there's no way for those cruisers and frigates to spread out and use smartbombs.
lol yes. Lets them kill themselves using smartbombs
|
Christopher Multsanti
Euphoria Released
Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 11:09:00 -
[56]
Eve Warfare isn't all about capitals ships and territory. Eve on the whole is a very balanced game, don't believe me? go play another MMORPG see how balanced it is.
In large fleets good FC's and more firepower wins the day as it should, people in Eve do not blob because of game mechanics they blob because of their own mentality. I'll point BOB out as the worst at it, because they play the game to win. simple as.
Every large alliance has entrenched themselves in their own space, they don't want to lose they don't even want to lose a fight and be made to look bad ont he forums, they take no risk what so ever. Large alliances are boring.
<Kurenin> Oh hello Christopher Exploitisanti! |
RuleoftheBone
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 12:14:00 -
[57]
Again...an interesting post from Rells. Being newish to EvE I will not comment on blobs, POS battles etc; however, I still find fault with Rell's tactical viewpoint with regard to EvE PvP combat.
Obviously you (Rells) know what you are doing ingame and have mastered the ability to fit ships for appropriate situations. You might even have a RL background in tactics (possible former military) and have probably read various books to include Sun Tzu, Clausowitz, Rommel, etc etc. But---and a big BUT-is believing that beyond the ability to get players of diverse backgrounds and motivations to communicate effectively, follow orders, fit ships appropriately, and instill a willingness to bore in against the odds is NOT going to change the nature of EvE's currently implemented "fun" combat.
I beleive I asked this question in your other thread and yet to have it satisfactorily answered. And I'll take it a couple steps further...and if you can actually answer these in a concrete fashion I'll cheerfully admit that I was wrong:
1-Another poster in this thread mentioned "immovable objects" and terrain considerations. How on earth can you expect to use actual ACM (SCM??) concepts when I cannot maneuver my ships in an asteroid field in an effort to break lock? I can happily fly into another ship/rock/gate without taking any damage. Ditto my magical ability to stop on a dime and turn a 180 ignoring the basic laws of physics!
Where is the ability for me to run a co-ordinated wagon-wheel strike (coming in from all points of the compass) which to me would be a classic way to harass and break up the "blob" syndrome...getting em scattered for follow-on forces to clean up?
2-Another poster put it quite well in mentioning that the fire arcs of the ships modeled ingame are...well...implemented for fun. What if your turrets could not magically fire through a 360 degree arc? Sure you would increase the realism but you would turn off a lot of people who play for FUN! And then CCP runs the risk of turning a game that is designed for fun into an actual simulator requiring ridiculous hardware on the client end and an actual flight model that would be beyond a lot of casual/fun players ability to easily master! What if there was actually a HUD in game (I suppose the tactical overlay is a sort of HUD and has a bit of usefulness) with pitch/roll/yaw ladders....how many folks actually want to know that stuff?
3-And I leave one last note....3000 years of military history (as you say) does NOT always prove that tactics win over superior numbers. I hate to burst your bubble...but the Spartans eventually lost...heroically to be sure...but they got wiped. Despite excellent German local tactical abilities in WWII the Russian onslaught left a greasy bratwurst smear from Moscow to Berlin in the end...and US tactical doctrine still favors overwhelming FIREPOWER at the point of attack (the shwerpunkt as it were)...although proper training in the use and application of said firepower is key (i.e. train as you fight...fight as you train).
Bottom line....EvE is FUN...great fun...but it's not a bloody simulator! If you really want to try your tactical acumen in a more realistic virtual environment I respectfully suggest a space sim like Starshatter or I-War that actually have a physics model. Even better--give IL-2 or Falcon IV a shot...or Steel Beasts. Check out www.simhq.com for more advert free ideas and articles and a vibrant combat simulation community forum...there you will find all the tactical goodness you seem to be craving.
Again...no disrespect intended...but beyond the ability to understand the complexity of ship fitting (rock-paper-scissors) and understanding how to work within a team environment and communicate effectively with wingmen (ok...corp mates [:D) I really don't see how your ideas of tactics can be fitted within the context of the EvE environment.
Bone out.....
|
Lifewire
Caldari
TunDraGon
|
Posted - 2006.09.16 12:47:00 -
[58]
To topic creator:
You make one mistake when you compare RL with EVE: sure in RL wars there is the option of "overhelming force"! But in EVE this simply cannot be simoulated well because the more ships are on the battlefield, the more lag will happen - and lag, favours the bigger group.
I have just 1 example: one day a merged Roaar and TDG team attacked 20 enemys with only 5 BS. Since 25 ships on the battlefield cause not much lag, we were able to use a tactic (shield transfer each other) and win this battle! Now lets say 20 ships try exactly the same tactic versus 80 players. And here you will see that the really excellent tactic of shiled transfering each other would totally fail because the lag would make it impossible. Second reason why it would fail is that if 100 ships fire at 1, this one will die and no shield transfer can change this.
So the so called "blob-tactic" does in fact DESTROY any higher developed tactic. The "blob-tactic" reduces EVE to a bad game that looses all its nearly infinite options. Since a blob simply causes massive lag, it makes shield boosting-, ecm-, mwding close range-, ceptor- or any other tactic be useless.
It is time for CCP to react - good strategist all over the galaxy have described the problem and pointed out clearly that blobs are bad for EVE.
The solution is gang nerf and fleet volley nerf. This also has been said often enough. It must be useless to have 200 ships. This is how EVE can be fixed.
Gang nerf:
Gangs need to get disadvantadges instead of bonuses! 20 ships should not be affected, but 40, 50, 100, 200 should get massive penalties in speed, tracking, sensor strenght.
Fleet volley nerf:
When 3 ships fire at one, no nerf should happen, but when 20 fire at one, then the target should be harder to aim at and more misses should happen. The more damage a ship receives per second, the harder it should be to hit it! This way larger battles get split up into smaller teams that might be on the same battlefield, but each pilot ot subgroup has to choose its own target! This would make fleet battles be exiting since atm ther is only one commander needed. With a fleet volley nerf a fleet would need several "wingleaders" and an admiral coordnating those. Ships would last longer on the battlefield, since small groups would fight each other within this large fleet battle. To sum it up: it would be cool mass-PVP!
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |