| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
I hate blobs. They kill the very soul of this game IMO. So in that light here's a suggestion.
Why not have a diminishing return on DPS that gets applied to a ship when attacked by multiple trgts ?
Any damage applied by X number of ships gets reduced, factored by the target size. This could be explained by shells, lasers, missles, etc... hitting each other going into, and at, the target. |

Epofhis
StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
This is an awful idea for the following reasons: -Supercaps become invincible. -POS bashes will take weeks. -Any well tanked ship will own.
-1. Not supported. Before posting in Features and Ideas, please remember that Eve is in no way obligated to change based on your stupidity, ineptitude, or well honed sense of personal butthurt. |

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
214
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
I don't claim to know exactly what the soul of EVE is, but it's not about fights being fair. If anything it's about dark and ruthless capitalistic system where everything goes as you try to compete for dominance and survival. Having more people on your side than what your enemies can deploy seems to fit quite well in my version of EVE.
You do also understand, that the blobbers will still win against you in the new system just like they do in the old system. Ignoring the obvious balancing issues, larger numbers is always an advantage and should always be one all other things being equal. If it isn't DPS, it's going to be RR, Ewar, or whatever mechanic you can think of. The people who have been able to make the most out of the current game mechanics aren't going to continue doing what they do now. They'll adapt and still be on the top in the new system and we will be back to square one with these complaints how unfair it is, that others have more allies than some people and how fights against some foes simply can't be won with the resources you have.
Not supported. |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 07:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Epofhis wrote:This is an awful idea for the following reasons: -Supercaps become invincible. -POS bashes will take weeks. -Any well tanked ship will own.
-1. Not supported.
You missed the part about "..factored by the target size.." When it comes to ship size, so -1 for reeading ability.
POS were never mentioned, but could easily fall under the factor for size portion, so another -1
You never asked, I dunno, relevant questions like number of ships that this would effect, amount of DPS actually getting omitted, etc... so you get yet another -1.
Thanks for trying anyways and for your input |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 07:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:I don't claim to know exactly what the soul of EVE is, but it's not about fights being fair. If anything it's about dark and ruthless capitalistic system where everything goes as you try to compete for dominance and survival. Having more people on your side than what your enemies can deploy seems to fit quite well in my version of EVE.
You do also understand, that the blobbers will still win against you in the new system just like they do in the old system. Ignoring the obvious balancing issues, larger numbers is always an advantage and should always be one all other things being equal. If it isn't DPS, it's going to be RR, Ewar, or whatever mechanic you can think of. The people who have been able to make the most out of the current game mechanics aren't going to continue doing what they do now. They'll adapt and still be on the top in the new system and we will be back to square one with these complaints how unfair it is, that others have more allies than some people and how fights against some foes simply can't be won with the resources you have.
Not supported.
Yet another low wattage bulb thats A: not reading and B: reading into what I said.
Where oh where did I say antyhing about fair ? Please point it out and we'll go from there.
Instead you go on some day trip about capitalism and the "dark and ruthlessness" of the system..Dominance and survival !...Blah blah and so forth and then go to talk about balancing and how it won't matter anyways ?
Are you daft ? People in this game spend BILLIONS on their ships trying to eke out a few extra percentage points of resists, damage, speed, etc.. and yet you say fleets will ignore totally the effect - which is easily explainable and makes sense by the way - of numbers of their shots getting wasted ? Measurable percentages ?
You seem to think I am advocating nullifying one side having more ships than another. Where the hell you get that in my simple statement I haven't the slightest. Thats probably one of the biggest reasons I can think of that people don't post more is that TROLL like creatures with preconceptions spew on other peoples posts, babling about things the poster never. Even. Said.
So kindly point out where I advocated or said what you implied, or retract, please. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
332
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 11:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lasers wouldn't care if they hit each other, and the chances of slugs hitting eachother on the way to a target is fairly small as well. Missiles I would assume were programmed with proximity detection so they also wouldn't hit eachother. Add to that the fact that most ships are fairly large, and you'd have to look at a lot of ammo heading its way for any to "hit each other". |

Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 13:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Personally I like it.
As it stands any ship regardless of how well tanked is dead as soon as it gets called primary... so why bother with a tank at all, may as well delete the modules from the game. And don't get me started on Armour reps.
IMHO there needs to be something introduced that discourages a 400 VS 1 fight war of attrition every time fleets engage, a 500 man fight should be 40 or 50 separate fights with a unified goal.
|

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
332
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 13:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
That's called "fixing the sov system to encourage 100v100 or 200v200 (or thereabouts) rather than 1000v1000 fights". |

Jiska Ensa
Unour Heavy Industries
34
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 13:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
This will not diminish blobs. Instead, blobs will simply stop "primarying" targets. You'll end up with either 10 wings targeting 10 different ships, or 10 different fleets targeting 10 different ships. Either way, a larger blob will still defeat a smaller one faster.
Without seriously changing the way eve works, there is absolutely no way to stop blobbing. Human nature is to join together in large groups for security. A bit of a hold back to our herding instincts from long before the monkey days, I would imagine.
You can't fight human nature.
There may be one way to diminish blobbing - change sov such that you must attack multiple targets simultaneously, and any undefended target becomes incredibly easy to kill (i.e. if no ally is on grid with the target when it comes out of reinforced, its hp drops by 90% and stays that low until allies show up. Make up some BS about the crew abandoning it when they realize their masters aren't going to save them). This won't reduce the numbers of the large coalitions but it might (MIGHT) make fights smaller and more numerous (and will certainly make steamrolling alliances that refuse to fight a lot easier) |

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 15:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Monomorium wrote: Are you daft ? People in this game spend BILLIONS on their ships trying to eke out a few extra percentage points of resists, damage, speed, etc.. and yet you say fleets will ignore totally the effect - which is easily explainable and makes sense by the way - of numbers of their shots getting wasted ? Measurable percentages ?
People rarely spend billions for ships to be used in "blobs".
If it is a multi-billion isk blob fleet, chances are they'll have heavy RR and e-war. In which case, as is pointed out above, the blob still wills.
Monomorium wrote:You seem to think I am advocating nullifying one side having more ships than another.
(...)
So kindly point out where I advocated or said what you implied, or retract, please. Below?
Monomorium wrote:I hate blobs. So you hate blobs, and want to "fix" it. But you don't want to nullify one side having more ships than the other? So you're not going to fix blobs? 
tl;dr: learn to scout. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
332
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 15:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Monomorium wrote:Are you daft ? People in this game spend BILLIONS on their ships trying to eke out a few extra percentage points of resists, damage, speed, etc.. and yet you say fleets will ignore totally the effect - which is easily explainable and makes sense by the way - of numbers of their shots getting wasted ? Measurable percentages ? I'd be surprised if this was done regularly on anything other than supercaps. |

Misanthra
Alternative Enterprises
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 16:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Blobs would target each other to cut down dps.
Your dps/alpha nerf would be based on numbers of targetting ships, not actual incoming fire. Or else this a wast of time as with good/lucky timing...you'll get several canes to fire not at the same time. And then you have the drakes whose missiles hit wheh they hit. If 50 canes and 50 drakes do not hit at same time...no nerf.
Ships active trargetiing being the counter fo this nerf takes this away...but now you have 400 people spider targetting themselves. |

Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
382
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 16:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Add AOE dmg on ship pop. Down with blobs and pods. Problem solved. |

Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 19:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Better idea, if there is anything in the line pointing from your gun to your target, your shot/missile will hit the thing between you and the intended target instead.
In addition, add subsystems to all ships that can be modified, though not to the extent of T3s. Add subsystem targeting skill and the ability to target a ship and then specify a part that you want to start breaking. Make it so that depending on the angle you're at, that part might be easier to damage.
So if your drake is right behind another drake and you fire, your missiles hit your bro's engines and he may suffer a velocity loss. Or your artillery volley could sail right through another Mael's solar panels and wreck their capacitor recharge, wrecking their tank. |

Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
71
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 20:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
It's been suggested before. Best implementation idea I've seen is to reduce the sig radius of a target being hit by multiple foes. Any remote rep will bloom the sig back up to it's natural state. This would allow DPS application and pressuring of logi to be efffective tactics, and not merely alpha.
It would have to be balanced by ship size (no effect on capitals in particluar) and be PVP only. A lore explanation is easy, since even in RL vaporized material from the target reduces the effectiveness of lasers. Easy to explain how debris and vaporized armor from a ship under fire would interfere with targeting. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
116
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 20:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Better idea, if there is anything in the line pointing from your gun to your target, your shot/missile will hit the thing between you and the intended target instead.
In addition, add subsystems to all ships that can be modified, though not to the extent of T3s. Add subsystem targeting skill and the ability to target a ship and then specify a part that you want to start breaking. Make it so that depending on the angle you're at, that part might be easier to damage.
So if your drake is right behind another drake and you fire, your missiles hit your bro's engines and he may suffer a velocity loss. Or your artillery volley could sail right through another Mael's solar panels and wreck their capacitor recharge, wrecking their tank.
And when the fireball that used to be a server is put out... |

Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 21:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Aglais wrote:Better idea, if there is anything in the line pointing from your gun to your target, your shot/missile will hit the thing between you and the intended target instead.
In addition, add subsystems to all ships that can be modified, though not to the extent of T3s. Add subsystem targeting skill and the ability to target a ship and then specify a part that you want to start breaking. Make it so that depending on the angle you're at, that part might be easier to damage.
So if your drake is right behind another drake and you fire, your missiles hit your bro's engines and he may suffer a velocity loss. Or your artillery volley could sail right through another Mael's solar panels and wreck their capacitor recharge, wrecking their tank. And when the fireball that used to be a server is put out...
Running checks to see if there's anything in these lines will cause servers to catch fire? I suppose if it was as in-depth as I initially stated it would be, maybe, but it doesn't have to START like that. If that's too heavy-duty for servers to handle then it can start with hits occurring like they do now. |

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 21:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Running checks to see if there's anything in these lines will cause servers to catch fire? I suppose if it was as in-depth as I initially stated it would be, maybe, but it doesn't have to START like that. If that's too heavy-duty for servers to handle then it can start with hits occurring like they do now. Yeah, calculating line of fire would be hell for a server. So would calculating trajectories, accuracy and the effects of hitting specific components.
Also, the interface... how do you "aim" at certain modules? It gets messy pretty quickly. It's a nice idea, but it would be more suited to a genuine flight simulator game than Eve. |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 22:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Okay, again I am going to point out to the low wattage types that are responding to my original suggestion by quoting or implying that I am somehow trying to fix, make fair, or somehow nullify superior ship numbers...
I did not do that, nor is it in my post at any point. you are reading something that is not there, so either go get some help with reading comprehension or stop friggin posting here. Thank you,
Now to others arguing merits of the idea, thanks for your input and thoughts. my idea is based on what I see as actually happening to and around a ship under fire.
You have a target that has missles, shells and such exploding around it, lasers that are coming in thru a cloud of debris and other solids, etc... These are going to interact to a degree. If you can't picture that happening, well, not sure what I can say about that tbh.
..And no I don't think you would have to calculate every shot coming in. This is why they use algorithms, etc.. I don't wish to see the server burst into flames either.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
90
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 00:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
Different weapon systems fire at very different rates, depending on character skills, ship types, weapon classes, etc.
How would this damage reduction work?
- First hit, full damage - Seond hit, 98% damage - Third hit, 95% damage... - Fourth hit, 92% damage... etc...
Over what time window though? Arties fire at a rate on the order of 15 seconds, blasters on the order of 2 seconds. Damage received is not constant, like the dps graphs in EFT suggest but is arrives in a random and discrete manner. It varies in the incoming rate, it varies in the incoming quantity, it varies in the incoming type of damage...
How on earth can you balance Large Neutron Blasters aren't nerfed for taking 10 rounds to output the damage of 1400 Howitzers?
What happens when a fleet self targets the primary with 50 civilian gattling guns.... does this suddenly reduce the enemies incoming dps?
This just isn't feasible... |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 08:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Different weapon systems fire at very different rates, depending on character skills, ship types, weapon classes, etc.
How would this damage reduction work?
- First hit, full damage - Seond hit, 98% damage - Third hit, 95% damage... - Fourth hit, 92% damage... etc...
Over what time window though? Arties fire at a rate on the order of 15 seconds, blasters on the order of 2 seconds. Damage received is not constant, like the dps graphs in EFT suggest but is arrives in a random and discrete manner. It varies in the incoming rate, it varies in the incoming quantity, it varies in the incoming type of damage...
How on earth can you balance Large Neutron Blasters aren't nerfed for taking 10 rounds to output the damage of 1400 Howitzers?
What happens when a fleet self targets the primary with 50 civilian gattling guns.... does this suddenly reduce the enemies incoming dps?
This just isn't feasible...
You know whats funniest about this post ? The principal I am advocating - one which you and others are saying is so horrible and impossible to impliment - is already being used in this game.
Thats right. When a certain parameter is met, damage delivered to a target is modified. Already being done, albeit in a different form than what I am suggesting, but none the less the principle is used.
Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar.
When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing.
|

Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
168
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 09:22:00 -
[22] - Quote
Monomorium wrote:I hate blobs. They kill the very soul of this game IMO.
In that light, I could perhaps point you in the direction of literally any MMO with instanced PvP?
(in other words, go back to WoW) |

Jask Avan
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 09:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Monomorium wrote:Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar.
When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing. It doesn't reduce damage. It stops armor/hull from taking damage when being shot while your shields are below X%. |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 10:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:Monomorium wrote:I hate blobs. They kill the very soul of this game IMO. In that light, I could perhaps point you in the direction of literally any MMO with instanced PvP? (in other words, go back to WoW)
Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ).
Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed. |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 10:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jask Avan wrote:Monomorium wrote:Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar.
When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing. It doesn't reduce damage. It stops armor/hull from taking damage when being shot while your shields are below X%.
Uh, yeah. Thats why I quoted it so we could be clear on the effect. My point was that the principle - the idea that when X event happens, then Y formula is applied - is already used in game.
|

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 10:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
Anyone wishing to locate and blob Monomorium please join "Mono hearts blobs" channel after today's DT.
Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ).
Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed.
On a serious note, anyone who disagrees with you sucks. According to you. Everyone disagrees with you.
In short, you suck, according to everyone. |

PinkKnife
Garden Of The Gods Divinity.
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 11:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
Your whole thought process about this is wrong. If you want to avoid blobbing your best bet is not to change the gameplay, it is to decentivise being in large groups. As it is, the easiest way to own space, and make tons of isk doing it, is to own giant regions of space with huge alliances. The plethora of Capital ships makes it super easy for a large alliance to attack and take space from a smaller player.
Essentially, once you secure your borders, the inside systems of an alliance are relatively safe. Leaving whoever to do whatever they want and make oodles of isk doing it.
If you want to see less blobbing, split up the giant alliances that are blobbing. Make it so that sov systems are exponentially more difficult to maintane and fund, and you'll see alliances shrinking their borders, allowing for new branches to come in, allowing for more pvp action between smaller groups of people, and less giant blobs.
All this talk about diminishing returns and altering sig radius is just treating symptomatic problems caused by the ease of maintaning a huge alliance in eve. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
116
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 17:37:00 -
[28] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:
If you want to see less blobbing, split up the giant alliances that are blobbing. Make it so that sov systems are exponentially more difficult to maintane and fund, and you'll see alliances shrinking their borders, allowing for new branches to come in, allowing for more pvp action between smaller groups of people, and less giant blobs.
All this talk about diminishing returns and altering sig radius is just treating symptomatic problems caused by the ease of maintaning a huge alliance in eve.
No, you'd see TNT, TNT., TNT.., TNT.., T.N.T., T..N..T.. and a thousand other variations, each holding a handful of systems.
The way to disincentiveise blobs is to change the sov system away from shooting millions of HP of structures, but, not being a game designer, I don't pretend to know how to do that. |

Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
72
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 17:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote: The way to disincentiveise blobs is to change the sov system away from shooting millions of HP of structures, but, not being a game designer, I don't pretend to know how to do that.
You swap to a system requiring you to take multiple tactical objectives. These could be based off of traditional pvp game formats; king of the hill, capture the flag, zone control, etc. How to design them for EVE would be a good topic for a threadnaught. The main idea being that there are many, smaller objectives, and sov is won when a particular critical mass is reached. This gives flexibility and doesn't require an attacking force to engage all types of objectives, but to choose the ones they are most effective against. |

Monomorium
Mnemonic Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 18:29:00 -
[30] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Anyone wishing to locate and blob Monomorium please join "Mono hearts blobs" channel after today's DT. Also, hahahaha: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=12757282#lostLoadoutThat is probably one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I thought you were trolling, so I checked your KB, turns out you're just exceptionally bad at Eve. Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ).
Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed.
On a serious note, anyone who disagrees with you sucks. According to you. Everyone disagrees with you. In short, you suck, according to everyone.
No. I just despise when a forum post aimed at a suggestion, and its following discussion gets answers that are either non sequitor, trolling of the lamest sort or mis-characterize what I said.
Ones that are constructive and have a point to make that follows with said original post are happily welcome. You post for instance is nothing but a ill thought attack on me for doing nothing but trying to keep the convo going in the right direction.
The post in question , the guy said- and let me paraphrase a bit - " Blah blah blah, go back to WoW ". That fell, IMO, into the 'flush instantly' department. Much like your post.
And why use battleclinic ? We have our own KBs in MNEE. Heres the link http://mnee.eve-kill.net/ .And to explain that one particular loss ? A few of us had been sitting at a Core site waiting for the spawn, shooting at each other in boredom, when the spawn arrived and we then noticed the logi boat was nowhere in site . Hey, **** happens.
I may not put up those astounding numbers some do. We live in W-Space after all, and tbh don't go after sheer numbers. We defend our space when we can, and attack people in adjoining systems when the opprotunity arises.
edit : Tried to join that channel for blobbing me, and it didn't exist. Am so sad now.... |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |