EVE Search - Solving blobing without nerfing

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Solving blobing without nerfing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.01.23 07:11:00 - [31] Gasclouds working as electrical conductors making amarr-lasers and EM missiles do areal damage to everyone on the grid
Westly Synpa GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.23 08:05:00 - [32] so long as 20 carriers with all their fighters deloped cause more lag then 100 or 200 people in 1 ship without drones there are always going to be issues.
Mozqito	Posted - 2008.01.23 08:25:00 - [33] In my opinion a good option would be to make it so that every ship can only be targetted by a finite number of people. IE (thought not balanced) a frigate can only be targetted by 3 people whereas a battleship can be targetted by 7 people. Don't get yourself hung up on the numbers now, just ponder the concept. Pros: It would make fleet battles last longer. The individual player would actually be more involved in the fight and not rudely ejected from it just because the other fleet's commander called his name out. Cons: Doesn't really dissuade blobbing per se. Does absolutely nothing to reduce lag. Can cause irritation when you can't find a target to actually target. Still, the more I ponder the idea, the more I like it.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.23 08:35:00 - [34] Blobbing is a tough one to solve, but one idea I've had is this: BS sized module. Activates on ship death or pilot activation. Destroys ship on activation. If less than 100 ships on grid, absolutely no effect apart from destruction of ship. If more than 100 ships on grid, the fun starts (damage and range going up with number of ships): 100-150 ships: 20-50km range, 500-3000 damage. 150-200 ships: 50-100km range, 3000-15000 damage. 250-300 ships: 100-150km range, 15000-60000 damage. 300+ ships: 150km range, WTFPWN damage. (ship numbers are probably too high, since even 200 ships lag the server to hell, but the number could easily be adjusted) A module like this WOULD mean that eventually people wouldn't bring blobs to battle, simply because it'd be too costly/risky to do so. Note that any idea along these lines CAN'T be directed against only enemy ships, since there is no easy (i.e. doable by the server) way to determine which ships are hostile. It HAS to target all ships. While we probably all agree that it would be best if EVE COULD handle the large fleet battles, the sad truth is that it can't, and is unlikely to. If the server can handle 200, people will bring 300 etc. CCP should realise that fact, accept it, and work from that. Its no good working from the assumption that the server can handle these fights when it so obviously can't. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.23 08:36:00 - [35] Originally by: Mozqito In my opinion a good option would be to make it so that every ship can only be targetted by a finite number of people. IE (thought not balanced) a frigate can only be targetted by 3 people whereas a battleship can be targetted by 7 people. Don't get yourself hung up on the numbers now, just ponder the concept. Pros: It would make fleet battles last longer. The individual player would actually be more involved in the fight and not rudely ejected from it just because the other fleet's commander called his name out. Cons: Doesn't really dissuade blobbing per se. Does absolutely nothing to reduce lag. Can cause irritation when you can't find a target to actually target. Still, the more I ponder the idea, the more I like it. This suggestion just penalises organised people (who know how to focus fire) and rewards unorganised blobbers..... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.23 08:39:00 - [36] Originally by: Arturus Vex The server not handling blobs is the problem. True, but it is unlikely to change. CCP then has the option of continuing to pretend all is well, or accept reality and restrict (somehow) the numbers..... Originally by: Arturus Vex blobbing is partially a result of caps and Supercaps, you need those 200 pilots in BS to even having a chance at breaking the a capitol spider tank. Or you could..... (gasp, shock, horror)..... BRING YOUR OWN CAPS! Dreads break spider tanks quite well! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Mozqito	Posted - 2008.01.23 08:43:00 - [37] Originally by: Kerfira This suggestion just penalises organised people (who know how to focus fire) and rewards unorganised blobbers..... In a way, yes, but on the other hand no. Organised gangs would get a tremendous advantage due to the fact that they would have assigned targets ready and gangs maximized against any given target. Unorganised gangs would suffer because people would randomly target whatever they could target (due to target shortage perhaps) and end up having Ravens launching torpedoes against frigates and the like.
Ari Chu Perkone	Posted - 2008.01.23 09:05:00 - [38] Originally by: Mozqito In my opinion a good option would be to make it so that every ship can only be targetted by a finite number of people. IE (thought not balanced) a frigate can only be targetted by 3 people whereas a battleship can be targetted by 7 people. Don't get yourself hung up on the numbers now, just ponder the concept. Terrible idea. Let us pretend the number was 5.. your BS could only be targetted by 5 others.... so what do you do? you grab a friend in another BS.. both of you sit on a gate, and send 5 light drones to attack your friend. You both can easily tank the light drones - but are unable to be targetted by anyone else. --- "The Galaxy is only as big as you make it." - presumably Eve Game Designers.
ry ry StateCorp The State	Posted - 2008.01.23 09:51:00 - [39] increased locking time, proportional to the number of people locking a target. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Kiiikoooloool	Posted - 2008.01.23 09:52:00 - [40] FIRST, the main weapon in battle fleets are Sbiper battle ships. then i don't know what kind of ships are over used in fleets... analyzing first. The thing is that huge amount of battleships, plated an sniping fitted are a crushing firepower. Fine What things, that already exist, are very effective against plated sniping battle ships? Are they usable in lag fest ?
ry ry StateCorp The State	Posted - 2008.01.23 09:54:00 - [41] Originally by: Kiiikoooloool What things, that already exist, are very effective against plated sniping battle ships? sensor booster nerfs. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.01.23 10:04:00 - [42] Originally by: Ari Chu Terrible idea. Let us pretend the number was 5.. your BS could only be targetted by 5 others.... so what do you do? you grab a friend in another BS.. both of you sit on a gate, and send 5 light drones to attack your friend. You both can easily tank the light drones - but are unable to be targetted by anyone else. Exact idea I had. Lock number tanking Anyway, artificial counters are stupid. Focus fire is a valid and useful tactic. If battleships could kill each other with 1-2 volleys, you'd see much less focus fire, but considering battleships take a considerably long time to pop with a battleship, focus fire is only sensible. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kiiikoooloool	Posted - 2008.01.23 10:14:00 - [43] agains't grouped and fortified ground units there is artillery firing barrage. But against grouped naval ships, i don't know. Fighter bombers? I am looking towards stealth bomber that already have bombs ... And assault frigs can maybe have specialized "one ammo" weapons against battle ships ?
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.01.23 10:29:00 - [44] Originally by: Kiiikoooloool agains't grouped and fortified ground units there is artillery firing barrage. You mean, artillery blob and focus fire? Originally by: Kiiikoooloool But against grouped naval ships, i don't know. Group of your own and focus fire (with multiple ships pounding on the same target) till you chop them up mostly ;) Originally by: Kiiikoooloool I am looking towards stealth bomber that already have bombs ... And assault frigs can maybe have specialized "one ammo" weapons against battle ships ? AFs don't need a stupid role, they need to be good ships first and foremost, and they are not atm. Giving them a niche fleet role doesn't fix them in any way. Focus fire is normal and only to be expected when you need quite a bit of prolonged fire to melt a BS using another BS. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.01.23 10:34:00 - [45] Heres one. 1/22/2008. Sorry but in the(inset name)system your(insert number)of people created a gravity affect on the hulls of your ships,causing the enemy ammo to deal 3x damage. Could be a good idea but it would be complicated and bugs golore. This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium	Posted - 2008.01.23 10:56:00 - [46] Originally by: ry ry increased locking time, proportional to the number of people locking a target. That is counter-intuitive. If you want to make things more realistic, it should be easier to lock a ship once another ship has locked it already in your gang as you assume your ships under the hood are communicating this stuff with each other, and you get better triangulation as well. Everyone has their own idea's but I suggested Tactical Environments because it adds something rather than taking away or messing with existing stuff. In hindsight, the title of the thread should have been "partial solution to blobbing without nerfing" Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists Recruiting
Chrysalis D'lilth	Posted - 2008.01.23 11:37:00 - [47] One of the main causes people Blob is to engage in POS warfare. POS warfare requires huge fleets to do effectively. POS warfare is a major contributor to why people form such huge fleets. Add to this that a protected system can't summon capitals (while the defenders still can), a large blob is required to overcome defenders otherwise even a small number of capital ships would pose a huge problem. POS mechanics need changing, otherwise people are going to have to blob, plain and simple.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.23 11:57:00 - [48] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 23/01/2008 11:57:39 Originally by: Naridos Yes i understand that part but the fact that you are adding more to the environment means more things for your PC to load and more stress on the visual aspect on the system. That just adds to the lagfest of blob wars. Do you actually have a clue about programming or do you like 99% of eve population think you know everything about it and copy paste the lines "your idea is nice but it will lag even more" into everything? Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Khes	Posted - 2008.01.23 12:26:00 - [49] Adding more things on a station to shoot like the different services helps a bit. The more stuff a smaller gang are able to destroy the more smaller gangs will be used. We need more stuff like this I belive. This only helps when it comes to station/POS warefare though and do not counter blobbing when its fleet vs. fleet encounters. Personally I have a hard time seeing a solution to this other then inventing some artificial hinderence for large fleets. And I dont like that solution at all as it is so obvious that its only reason to excist is to reduce fleet size. The solution should be more of an incentive to use small gangs rather then a penalty for using large fleets. But Im rather pesimistic when it comes to finding a good solution for blobs. The concept of blobs is too natural. When it comes to strength, the more the merryer, thats just the way the world works. So, the best I can come up with is more stuff for smaller gangs to shoot AND CCP decreasing the lag-problem imensly.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.23 14:27:00 - [50] Originally by: Khes Adding more things on a station to shoot like the different services helps a bit. The more stuff a smaller gang are able to destroy the more smaller gangs will be used. We need more stuff like this I belive. Except that this is never done with small gangs (because of huge HP of services). It's done by blobs! This 'feature' INCREASED blobbing, it didn't 'create stuff for small gangs to do'.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Khorian Gallente Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.01.23 14:33:00 - [51] Edited by: Khorian on 23/01/2008 14:33:54 Originally by: Chemical Castration How about... a weapon that shoots a bolt of lightning that jumps to the next person within 20km (except people who are ganged) and does 2x damage jump, but only hits each person once... :D So first shot is like 100, second 200, third 400, fifth 800, etc. etc. etc. Yes, I know, stupid, I'm just bored. And it would be funny as hell to watch. This would be insanely overpowered as seen in Diablo2 (Javazone) Gets more effective the more targets there are, pull the whole cow level and throw a few Javelins, done :) Fun times. goes off to play Diablo 2 ---
Khes	Posted - 2008.01.23 15:17:00 - [52] Edited by: Khes on 23/01/2008 15:19:40 Originally by: Kerfira Except that this is never done with small gangs (because of huge HP of services). It's done by blobs! This 'feature' INCREASED blobbing, it didn't 'create stuff for small gangs to do'.... I see. I don't know the HPs on station services but I expected it to be destroyable for enteties smaller then blobs. If it isnt, perhaps a HP decrease is in order?
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.23 16:43:00 - [53] Originally by: Khes Originally by: Kerfira Except that this is never done with small gangs (because of huge HP of services). It's done by blobs! This 'feature' INCREASED blobbing, it didn't 'create stuff for small gangs to do'.... I see. I don't know the HPs on station services but I expected it to be destroyable for enteties smaller then blobs. If it isnt, perhaps a HP decrease is in order? I think the SMALLEST of the station services has 25 million HP, and some have 2+ times as many. The problem is you can't make it a small amount as no outpost would ever again have services available, nor can you have large amounts without encouraging blobbing even more. Personally I think CCP should just scrap it again as a failure. Shooting them is boring, and repping them is boring too. Why CCP want to encourage boring gameplay is beyond my imagination as it just contributes to players leaving because the game gets too boring. They should remove PvS (player vs. structure) COMPLETELY from the sovereignty game (yes, also POS, leave them as industrial only), and base sov calculations on what peoples activities are in the area (with ship combat playing a large, but not 100% part)..... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.01.23 17:25:00 - [54] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Turin Under current game mechanics. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX BLOBBING! IT CANNOT BE DONE! I have thought about this for a long time. Its just not possible. You either need something that destroys blobs, yet not small gangs. I dunno how you can do such a thing. Titans are not the answer. Neither are stealth bombers. As long as people CAN bring more, they WILL bring more. period. The only sure fire way I see to fix blobbing is to lock a constelation to a max ammount of ship numbers. Notice I didnt say system. Constellation. Otherwise you will just have 2-300 people sitting on a gate waiting to jump in as soon as they can. As someone mentioned above. Until there is a way to make a reason to split up your numbers among multiple objectives, people wont do it. Locking speed penalty based on gang size? How?? You could just divide your fleet into 'x' number of gangs but keep them all co-located. C. Doing that reduces fleet co-ordination a lot. Eg: with a whole fleet in one gang, you just need one covops to provide a warpin point. With seperate gangs, you need one per gang. It also means that gang boosters can't boost as many ships. It makes communications more problematic. Most FCs will probably opt to stay with a single fleet and accept a targetting speed penalty, giving smaller gangs an advantage. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Alz Shado Ever Flow Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2008.01.23 18:05:00 - [55] Friendly Fire. AOE weapons. Midwarp interdictor bubbles. Tactical geography. Multiple strategically important objectives (System-wide boost to POS damage when multiple targets are seiged, deadspace POSes that have to be scanned, don't allow caps/MWD like missions, etc) That is how you beat the Blob.
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.01.23 18:24:00 - [56] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Cailais Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Turin Under current game mechanics. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX BLOBBING! IT CANNOT BE DONE! I have thought about this for a long time. Its just not possible. You either need something that destroys blobs, yet not small gangs. I dunno how you can do such a thing. Titans are not the answer. Neither are stealth bombers. As long as people CAN bring more, they WILL bring more. period. The only sure fire way I see to fix blobbing is to lock a constelation to a max ammount of ship numbers. Notice I didnt say system. Constellation. Otherwise you will just have 2-300 people sitting on a gate waiting to jump in as soon as they can. As someone mentioned above. Until there is a way to make a reason to split up your numbers among multiple objectives, people wont do it. Locking speed penalty based on gang size? How?? You could just divide your fleet into 'x' number of gangs but keep them all co-located. C. Doing that reduces fleet co-ordination a lot. Eg: with a whole fleet in one gang, you just need one covops to provide a warpin point. With seperate gangs, you need one per gang. It also means that gang boosters can't boost as many ships. It makes communications more problematic. Most FCs will probably opt to stay with a single fleet and accept a targetting speed penalty, giving smaller gangs an advantage. I cant see how communications are effected in anyway whatsoever. You might have a point about warp in points, but thats all rather irrelevant as the majority of fleet battles occur at a gate. Gang boosts - maybe, but then does the gang boost overcome the targeting penalty described?? Im not convinced. C. Improved Low Sec Idea!!
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.01.23 18:43:00 - [57] Well, the only way that I can think of to reduce the HP of everything so it's doable by a smaller gang, but still have it take a long time to destroy, would be to script encounters. Take a page out of WoW and instead of just adding more HP's to everything, script it so that you have to be blobbed at first, then spread out to avoid AoE, then bring in a certain kind of Ewar to counter something, then bring in the DPS again without blobbing them too much, then bring in energy drainers to counter some module from powering up and making the shields invulnerable, and so on and so forth, dance! Don't know if people would want that kind of game. Instead of combat taking long because everything is well-tanked, combat would take a long time because everything has to be choreographed, and you can't do the finishing moves without dancing through the whole thing.
The Internets	Posted - 2008.01.23 18:50:00 - [58] Make bombs far far cheaper. Let Stealth Bombers fit 3 bomb launchers. Introduce a larger specialized bombing ship with multiple 'smartbomb' type launchers with decent range for sustained bombing. More bomb types and bigger effective radius!
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2008.01.23 19:00:00 - [59] Originally by: Letouk Mernel à then spread out to avoid AoE à AOE is computationally expensive. I suspect Wow, as I have never played it, can do AOE much more efficiently since all combat occurs on a two dimensional plane, and likely a tiled plane at that. The numbers with which they are dealing, with regards to distance, are likely rather small. Eve on the other hand has three dimensions and the math is much more complicated, and there are no tiles, no quantum distance elements, no integers, instead floating point numbers, which can be expensive in their own right. If anything, Eve needs to move away from expensive calculations to inexpensive calculations, such as remove collision detection, i.e. bumping. The game will still need to keep track of where everyone is, but it will not have to keep track of the size one thing in regards to everything around it. Perhaps, make collision detection conditional, if more than X number of collide-able entities are on a grid, then don't do the collision detection. This could have a significant impact on performance. Instead of "let's add something" perhaps we should look at what can be removed. The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.23 19:05:00 - [60] Originally by: Kerfira Or you could..... (gasp, shock, horror)..... BRING YOUR OWN CAPS! Dreads break spider tanks quite well! yeah ima totally bring caps into a cyno jammed system.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.