| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
   |
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:29:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 22/01/2008 19:30:49
(edited for clarity & typo's)
The idea is that rather than trying to "fix blobing" by fiddling with what is already there, add something extra to make combat a little less 1 dimensional. I.e. a 2nd dimention (duh)
The extra dimension I talk of is tactical environments:
Imagine there is something like effects on ewar or speed or other things that affect combat and "carbear" activities. Across a system or constellation it is analogous to terrain in RL combat.
Then you get varying and constantly changing strengths or different effects in different systems and areas within a system. This is the "weather". So you plan tactics to take advantage of the terrain but the weather on the day can completely mess that up if really severe.
That way you just don't get generalised setup roaving gangs (such as nanogangs) and you have to have truely balanced fleets, with small gangs who use the environment to their advantage able to take on homogeneous setup fleets where atm they would just get out blobbed
Khaldari
khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Naridos
Caldari
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:31:00 -
[2]
sounds like a good idea... but weather in space? I mean its a nice idea but adding stuff to the environment wont help anything if there is a blob war going on.
 Quote:
Pandas are the PWN of Eve. Pandas!
|
Bronwolff LeCroix
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:34:00 -
[3]
I belive he is talking about things such as meteor showers, Dust clouds and such screwing with ships in space not weather.
|
Naridos
Caldari
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:35:00 -
[4]
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.
Quote:
Pandas are the PWN of Eve. Pandas!
|
Haurian Commando
Gallente
Cursed Souls
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:36:00 -
[5]
still not going to stop blob tactics in the war down south, especially as goons NEED to blob to be effective
---
beer for anyone who mods this sig! |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
mUfFiN fAcToRy
Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Naridos
sounds like a good idea... but weather in space? I mean its a nice idea but adding stuff to the environment wont help anything if there is a blob war going on.
Solar wind 
() ()
(â;..;)â
(")(") |
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:50:00 -
[7]
Guess I was more thinking in response to this thread and the medium sized homogeneous fleets (nano-gang fleets being the flavour of the month in that respect atm)
This is rather than the giga-blobing at the highest level of alliance fleet combat, which is a different sort of problem, one that stems from the dynamics of large scale strategic combat.
Khaldari
khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 20:07:00 -
[8]
The idea of shifting environmental effects is an interesting one, but Im not clear as to how you envisage these effects reducing players concentrating their forces?
The problem in my view is that most players do not think strategicaly in fleet warfare, have no reason to do so and have no tools to do so.
The only static objects that exist that could be potential targets to a fleet which splits up (e.g to strike targets in systems X,Y and Z) are POS's, which are so resilient that they will survive long enough for a defence force to arrive.
For example if Alliance A splits its fleet to attack POSs in systems X, Y and Z is far more sensible for the defending alliance to blob up a large fleet and destroy the attackers sequentialy.
Until CCP introduces limited objectives which can be attacked simultaneously (and thus widen the battle field beyond one system) then there will be no incentive to divide a force.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Turin
Caldari
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 20:29:00 -
[9]
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.
_________________________________
|
Chemical Castration
Chemical Castration Lotto
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 20:33:00 -
[10]
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.
Info on current and past lottos + mini-guides |
Naridos
Caldari
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 20:46:00 -
[11]
Unless you can think of a ship or a solution to breaking up blobs like said above, there is no solution to fixing the problem.
Quote:
Pandas are the PWN of Eve. Pandas!
|
Mavrix Able
Black Avatar
Hexad
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 20:51:00 -
[12]
Spoon, here are 17 lovely forum pages to dig trough on the topic, Devs are reading that thread so why not throw your suggestion in the end of the line if they have not been suggested already. 
-NWS/Mav
|
Angel DeMorphis
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 21:01:00 -
[13]
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.
Not stupid. Either you're relatively brilliant, or you read Ender's Game. This was an amazing weapon called something like "The Little Doctor". Anyways, you'd deploy it on a blob and it would continue like dominoes, eventually passing to all other members of the blob. Very effective way to hit everyone in a blob in a single hit.
Not sure if or how it would work in Eve, but as an idea of a weapon to break up blobs, yes.
My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED] |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 21:04:00 -
[14]
Portal Storms 
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 21:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Angel DeMorphis
Not stupid. Either you're relatively brilliant, or you read Ender's Game. This was an amazing weapon called something like "The Little Doctor". Anyways, you'd deploy it on a blob and it would continue like dominoes, eventually passing to all other members of the blob. Very effective way to hit everyone in a blob in a single hit.
Not sure if or how it would work in Eve, but as an idea of a weapon to break up blobs, yes.
You're referring to the Molecular Disruption Device (a.k.a. M.D. Device, which lead to it's nickname, "Doctor Device") that would create a self-propagating shockwave that deconstructs objects on the molecular level.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
azura nester
White Shadow Imperium
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 21:38:00 -
[16]
there are those wonderful things called stealth bombers....that launch bombs...that do AOE damage....cap neutralising bombs work great btw
|
Aknot Wat
Gallente
Carbide Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 21:45:00 -
[17]
As I posted before. Add a self destruct option to player ships that actually does some damage.
Like on Star Trek when a warp core goes critical.
Not only could this "clear" out some ships it also makes Pirating far more engaging if when you go to pop a ship or take it there's a chance the player has activated a self destruct that's gonna blast everything within 20km with 30,000HP of THERM damage. (course you could pop his ship before it cycles down to go boom and avoid this)
Still the gamble and risk would be fun. Players may not always leave in their pod. They might chose to stay in the ship as it self destructs so you can't just count on seeing a pod popping out as a warning.
BAD A$$!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please let us chose the old ship voice as an option. |
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 21:46:00 -
[18]
If you want to dissuade "blobs" and only have small gangs in-game, then everything has to be re-tuned to be destroyable by a small gang. ... yeah, ok.
Besides, AoE doesn't dissuade blobbing. Do Doomsdays dissuade big fleets from forming? No. You just evade the DD and re-form / re-blob.
But it still comes down to the fact that that Titan can't be destroyed by a small gang.
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 23:59:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 23/01/2008 00:01:46
Originally by: Mavrix Able
Spoon, here are 17 lovely forum pages to dig trough on the topic, Devs are reading that thread so why not throw your suggestion in the end of the line if they have not been suggested already.
-NWS/Mav
Observe the date that thread was started. This thread is partly a "bump / hint" that this subject years on from when it was first forwarded by devs and the community has still not seen the light of day
20/06/2005 ?
Did ya read that thread? I posted in it iirc about 6 months ago
---
The point is that there is a second dimension to just fleet numbers in a fight. Sure a 5 man gang isn't going to beat 50, but they might beat 15, if they know the terrain and take the opportunity of a bad ion storm or something as their chance to strike
Right now, any gang of 5 no matter how good the pilots and ships and how poor the opposition will almost certainly lose barring complete incompetence from the 15 man side
Also it makes roaving gangs think twice about just using some generic setup, and if they fly 3 regions away set up for the environment there, they may get sunk in the in-between
Also it just gives a little character to the Eve universe. Atm you could be in Delve or in Tribute and it doesn't matter in the slightest, the only difference is in who you are fighting
Khaldari
khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 00:05:00 -
[20]
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?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Raygin Sunflare
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 00:24:00 -
[21]
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.
Interesting idea. My sugestion would be to create a new weapon for capital ships. This high slot module would act as a nos based smartbomb. When activated the module drains a small amount of cap from all ships in range then redirects and fires the energy.
I'll throw out some numbers for example these can be tweaked for balance.
Range = 50-100km?
Cycle time = 30 sec
Base damage = 10
multiplier = 5% (per ship in range)
Power and cpu requiremts for capital+ ships.
Now for the numbers
1 ship in range 10.5 damage
20 ships 26.5 damage on each ship
50 ships 115 damage (>200 total dps output from module)
100 ships 1315 damage
150 ships 15079 damage
I would also recommend a hard cap on damage output maybe 15k just so a lucky shot on a group of 250+ doesn't wipe everyone out.(250 ships would be almost 2m damage)
for those interested in trying out other base and % damage combinations the formula is:
1.05^#ships * base damage.
This would leave titans DD useful for fleets >100 where it would take 25+ capitals firing modules all at once to equal a DD. But if you caught an enemy gang with 150+ just 3 capitals jumping in could hit like a DD. Comments positive and negative are welcome.
Thanks,
Raygin
http://www.voogru.com/images/signature/farmers.jpg |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 00:24:00 -
[22]
rainbows lollipops and gummidrops
all that a carebear needs 
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 00:25:00 -
[23]
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.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 00:28:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Raygin Sunflare
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.
Interesting idea. My sugestion would be to create a new weapon for capital ships. This high slot module would act as a nos based smartbomb. When activated the module drains a small amount of cap from all ships in range then redirects and fires the energy.
I'll throw out some numbers for example these can be tweaked for balance.
Range = 50-100km?
Cycle time = 30 sec
Base damage = 10
multiplier = 5% (per ship in range)
Power and cpu requiremts for capital+ ships.
Now for the numbers
1 ship in range 10.5 damage
20 ships 26.5 damage on each ship
50 ships 115 damage (>200 total dps output from module)
100 ships 1315 damage
150 ships 15079 damage
I would also recommend a hard cap on damage output maybe 15k just so a lucky shot on a group of 250+ doesn't wipe everyone out.(250 ships would be almost 2m damage)
for those interested in trying out other base and % damage combinations the formula is:
1.05^#ships * base damage.
This would leave titans DD useful for fleets >100 where it would take 25+ capitals firing modules all at once to equal a DD. But if you caught an enemy gang with 150+ just 3 capitals jumping in could hit like a DD. Comments positive and negative are welcome.
Thanks,
Raygin
Again this wouldnt work - straight away I thought "right, Ill get my buddies to bring along a pile of alts in noob ships/frigates to max out the DD damage". Bringing 'bigger guns' doesnt solve the issue even using an inverse law like your own to calculate damage.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar
Fnck the blob.
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 00:30:00 -
[25]
Yeah combat in eve is nothing like RL which annoys me.
In RL I like to hide my giant space ship in foxholes and behind bushes and I think eve would be much better if it supported this.
Also why dont we limit the size of fleets?
To 50? 30?
Then you need at least a few semi competent FCs giving warp ins and the like to blob... now its generally 3-4 competent people leading a blob of complete ******s who just align to where the broadcast is and shoot the primary.
The only reason this wouldnt work is because 30 people cant kill a pos, and pos's are everything right now.
Hint hint.
|
Ghostwarden
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 01:28:00 -
[26]
In deference to the OP and the other posters here....I dont believe that it is possible to "fix" blobbing without making it difficult for the players to "call primary". The only suggestions that I've seen that could accomplish this are to have a build up of "natural ECM" based on the number of ships targeting a single ship or to make the communication of which ship to target impossible by removing ship/player names from the overvier.
With that said....I do think that it might be possible to give players other options on how to conduct hostilities. First, give us multiple points of egress into a system....instead of jumping into a system at a static gate give the players the choice to warp to a number of points (the jump gate, the primary planet or planets ect. That way if your going to blob an incomming fleet you will have to watch multiple places and react to where and when the oposing fleet jumps in. POS warefare, from what I've seen and read is most likely always going to be handled with a blob because its easier.
The second thing would be to make all of the objects alread in space (like asteroids, other ships or stations) interrupt direct fire weapons. This however is going to put futher strain on the server and so I dont know if it is feseable or not.
Just my 2 Cents worth.
Ghost
|
Raygin Sunflare
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 04:18:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Chemical Castration
Again this wouldnt work - straight away I thought "right, Ill get my buddies to bring along a pile of alts in noob ships/frigates to max out the DD damage". Bringing 'bigger guns' doesnt solve the issue even using an inverse law like your own to calculate damage.
C.
I had considered this as well, thats why I added the 15k max damage for 150+ ships. Even if the FC was pushing his luck and had 100 ships in one location you would need to bring 50 alts in frigs to get max effect which is neither an easy or cost effective tactic. When the first module fired most if not all the T1 alts would be wiped out reducing the ships in the area to the original gang numbers. The fist shot could be artificialy boosted but at the 15k damage hard cap even a 60% damage resist will only recieve 4500 damage, for most BS setups this barely scratches the paint. Now your left with 50 dead alts and several capital ships (doing relativly low dps) sitting in tne middle of an angry 100 man gang.
The only time the weapon has DD like effect is when you have 150+ equally well tanked ships, and several capitals attacking all at once. Once the weaker tanked ships start poping the ship count drops and the damage from any further capitals firing is reduced quickly.
I realize this won't prevent 600 in local you'll still have multiple FC's running 100 man groups all over the system but you wont see 200+ sitting at a gate.
Raygin
http://www.voogru.com/images/signature/farmers.jpg |
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente
Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 04:23:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Haurian Commando
still not going to stop blob tactics in the war down south, especially as goons NEED to blob to be effective
Where did you get your degree for being an armchair general?
|
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 04:41:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ghostwarden
In deference to the OP and the other posters here....I dont believe that it is possible to "fix" blobbing without making it difficult for the players to "call primary".
Heh heh heh, Fog of War!!!1111one You shoot into the darkness, maybe you hit an important ship.
|
Arturus Vex
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 05:03:00 -
[30]
Blobbing isn't broken. It makes perfect sense that both sides would bring as many pilots as possible.
The server not handling blobs is the problem.
The majority of these solutions are either counter-intuitive (reducing damage as number of pilots increases? wtf?)Or potentially game unbalancing (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).
Adding in damaging ship collisions and turret line of sight may be a possible solution (also might give tactical reasons to retreat to asteroid belts and the like). But then you have the problem of people being able to take down cap fleets at all.
On top of this, we have people suggesting more forms of the doomsday, which really doesn't do much other than to restrict battles to capitol ships.
|
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.
|
NvyoU
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 19:10:00 -
[61]
Maybe giving certain ship formations and organisations over distances bonuses?
Would that help thin the blob?
|
Burt Gummer
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 19:19:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Burt Gummer on 23/01/2008 19:20:47
On the idea of multiple objectives in different systems...
How about an anchorable structure, perhaps a communications array of some sort, that sits outside a POS's shield. This stucture would link to a POS in a nearby system and could be destroyed by a 20-30 man fleet. A POS could have say 3 of these arrays linked to it, and if they are all destroyed it could lose it's defensive capabilities such as not being able to go into reinforced, or the reduction in CPU of the tower causing some structures to offline.
This could help break up fleets by having them go to multiple objectives at once, because these arrays could be replaced relatively easily, so these structures couldn't just be destroyed by several groups that simply rejoin the main fleet once they are gone.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 19:26:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Burt Gummer
... and if they are all destroyed it could lose it's defensive capabilities ...
One note on ideas like this. Change the idea of destroy all to having a minimum number that must be functional. If all must be destroyed, then the defending fleet can just blob up at one and wait for the attackers to come to them. But, if say three of these things must be functioning and to "offline" one, another must be under attack, then we force people to spread out to multiple objectives at the same time.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 19:26:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Burt Gummer
Edited by: Burt Gummer on 23/01/2008 19:20:47
On the idea of multiple objectives in different systems...
How about an anchorable structure, perhaps a communications array of some sort, that sits outside a POS's shield. This stucture would link to a POS in a nearby system and could be destroyed by a 20-30 man fleet. A POS could have say 3 of these arrays linked to it, and if they are all destroyed it could lose it's defensive capabilities such as not being able to go into reinforced, or the reduction in CPU of the tower causing some structures to offline.
This could help break up fleets by having them go to multiple objectives at once, because these arrays could be replaced relatively easily, so these structures couldn't just be destroyed by several groups that simply rejoin the main fleet once they are gone.
the corollary is that this would probably require more POSes to be put up and thats pretty much the last thing anyone wants
|
Burt Gummer
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 20:50:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Burt Gummer
... and if they are all destroyed it could lose it's defensive capabilities ...
One note on ideas like this. Change the idea of destroy all to having a minimum number that must be functional. If all must be destroyed, then the defending fleet can just blob up at one and wait for the attackers to come to them. But, if say three of these things must be functioning and to "offline" one, another must be under attack, then we force people to spread out to multiple objectives at the same time.
However, if the defensive fleet decides to blob one of these communications arrays, then the main POS would be undefended and could just be destroyed the old fashioned way, so blobbing one objective wouldn't be an entirely good idea, but I could see having a fleet ignore 2 communications arrays just to focus on the one a bit more as being a slight problem. So I think that your correction is fine, the finer points of my idea could certainly be revised a little.
Originally by: Dramaticus
the corollary is that this would probably require more POSes to be put up and thats pretty much the last thing anyone wants
Not necissarily, you could anchor any number of these to one POS so that one POS in a system could help support every POS in adjacent systems if you wanted. Many established alliances already have a network of existing POSes they could use for this purpose. The only problem I see is a new alliance trying to get started in 0.0 with a small number of POSes and none in neighboring systems to help strengthen it's defenses.
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 20:55:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth
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.
Right here, this is it... All you need to do is just reduce the HP for POS/Anchorables/Station systems
TO fight the blob allow less people to do more. Cut the stront timers down as well, I know this means less planning but at this point, mega blobs break the game. CCP wanted to have more things for smaller gangs to do. The best way to do that is have TRUELY SMALL GANGS take out station services and put POS's into reinforced. JUST DO IT CCP
|
Westly Synpa
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 21:04:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Edited by: Matrixcvd on 23/01/2008 20:56:26
Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth
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.
Right here, this is it... All you need to do is just reduce the HP for POS/Anchorables/Station systems
TO fight the blob allow less people to do more. Cut the stront timers down as well, I know this means less planning but at this point, mega blobs break the game. CCP wanted to have more things for smaller gangs to do. The best way to do that is have TRUELY SMALL GANGS take out station services and put POS's into reinforced. JUST DO IT CCP... the best part is there is no need for weird, buggy solutions, you just change a couple numbers and what the ammo fly
are you stupid or something a full load of stront is only a day and a half.
a small gang should not be able to do any of the things possible here.
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.23 21:52:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Westly Synpa
are you stupid or something a full load of stront is only a day and a half.
a small gang should not be able to do any of the things possible here.[/quote
hillarious logic... CCP introduced station services and move POS hardware outside the shields to encourage small fleets, but the amount of HP involved in doing this only has large numbers of ships, nobody likes shooting stationary objects so it must be done FASTER with MOAR SHIPS!. The original idea is better than having 800 morons flood a system till it crashes. if 10 to 15 guys could do the job of taking out station services/POS in 15 minutes large blobs would be ineffictive and fast nimbler fleets for both aggressors and defenders would be needed. Obviously this would hit some of the largest alliances where they have their only advantage
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
|
Posted - 2008.01.24 03:17:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 24/01/2008 03:18:29
Sorry to be a damp squib, but you're all getting off topic somewhat I feel. People complain they are no longer able to go solo or small gang hunting anymore, (and when they do and a large fleet comes to intercept they cloak up or nano up, blob complains of untouchable targets and small gang complains about getting out blobbed).
That is more the problem I'm trying to solve with my op, rather than POS warfare.
Edit: Thinking from the small gang warfare, that would hopefully slowly propogate up
Khaldari
khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.01.24 03:37:00 -
[70]
Make it to where if too many warps are engaged in the same area within the same time frame a horrible hyperspace storm kills everyone. Oh wait, sorry, a horrible depleted vacuum storm sucks everyone up, and they die horribly.
This would make it impossible to move large groups of people simultaniously. You could even use hit and run tactics. If 'large fleet' was going from point A to point b, you could have a 'small fleet' of about comparable numbers to the safely-warp-at-the-same-time figure, who can come and harass the first (or last) group of people in 'large fleet' while they are warping to the next gate getting ready to jump. You would have to go in and do your damage in a small time window then get the hell out before the rest of 'large fleet' arrived.
Only warping out would cause this. SO you could, say, move your freshly jumped in fleet to different locations around the system, and then simultaniously converge at a single location, but it would still take time to warp everyone to their locations.
Of course the problem of having to keep track of how many people have used warp within a certain area remains... I guess something would keep track of where someone was when their engines engaged, then draw a sphere around that, and if too many spheres overlap the game triggers a chance for disaster, the more warps, the higher the chance.
This would also have the nice side effect of killing everyone in jita.
|
Herring
Alcatraz Inc.
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2008.01.24 03:59:00 -
[71]
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.
This.
Although if they added something like a high density torpedo (think big bomb w/launcher, fitted on a black ops bs; finds the rough center of gangs (fof style ai bomb) that are 50+ people or more and detonates [range ~ 100km] and give it a not so good refire rate. More expensive than bombs to build but at least 5x the AE damage. If there's not enough people present it just flies in a random direction and explodes) with an explosion radius of about 75 km.
Oh and it shouldn't have the crappy negative sig radius damage modifiers like bombs do (that make them so ineffective, even against frigs). Either that or give this thing a ginormous explosion velocity. It'd also make the black ops BS a little sexier.
CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |