Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 11:57:00 -
[1]
I've been mulling recently that one of my annoyances with the game is that people often blob when threatened or attacking and this isn't encouraging pewpew and roaming gangs just seem to be inflating. Super alliances can defend themselves far too easily, rather than having their fleet spread out over all their systems they can move their 100/200 man blob around with far too much ease.
My proposed solution to this would be to give all Gates in 0.0 capacitors. After all they're in nullsec, the empire's can't afford/justify having a full scale power plant at each gate. This capacitor only has enough juice for, say, 10 ships or x amount of mass to jump through. It takes somewhere between 1-5 minutes to recharge itself (not thought about the time too hard yet). Probably works like the ship caps with optimal recharge at 40%.
The positives:
1. Massive blobs won't be able to travel easily 2. Normal trade/ratting travel will be unaffected 3. You can still attack with large fleets, it just takes planning and time to move. This makes 0.0 a lot 'bigger' again 4. Capital ship carrying capabilities could become a lot more important/tactical 5. It stops massive defence fleets from easily moving around, encouraging smaller scale engagements 6. Black ops ships also become a lot more important for waging war 7. A huge attacking fleet would get strung out, leaving opportunity for more guerilla tactics maybe 8. People won't be so prone to just out blobbing each other
This idea needs some refinement as there are some gotchas, problems include
1. Does the cap at the other end get used too? Otherwise you can jump back through and stop pursuit 2. When you start chasing a fleeing gang they effectively stop you by sucking the juice in the gate 3. Invading a system will be harder, forcing you to get creative like jumping 10 remote repping BSes through at the start. However the defence fleet won't be able to move easily around, so you could just change your attack point 4. It could make capitals & cynos even more powerful than they already are 5. Do JBs get a smaller capacitor otherwise the defense gets too much of an advantage 6. Nanos would need to get balanced as these gangs are already hard to counter without blobbing, unless you bring extremely specifically fitted ships. Which is just pants and kinda ruining the pewpew for everyone but the nanos 7. People will only want high SP people in their gangs as they have an upper 'cap' on max number of pilots
|
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 12:18:00 -
[2]
Forgot to mention that this would probably need to be coupled with a bit of a weakening of POSes, etc.
|
Spoon Thumb
Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 12:36:00 -
[3]
Seems like a kinda artificial solution or the wrong solution to the right problem.
The problem is the defender will have huge advantage. They can get all their ppl into system using jump clones into outposts or jump bridges or titans or black ops or whatever, reship, and camp the chokepoint gate. Enemy comes in in little waves of 10 at a time and gets eaten
It kinda feels like putting speed limits on stuff. Would be the same as saying "No ship can go faster than the arbitrary limit of 10km/s" or something
Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 13:09:00 -
[4]
The reason it's not artificial is because at the moment no ships have fuel and stargates don't cost anything at all to use. This has lead to a situation where you can have massive fleets jump 100 systems for absolutely no cost but time and patience. So the logisitics of defending a huge swathe of space with a massive blob is never punished. Hence the rise of entities such as BoB, RA, the Goons, etc. holding disproportionality large amounts of space than if you calculated their average ships per system.
The point is if the defender turtle'd up in one system, JC'd in etc., you can just go attack another one, they can't stop you doing that as they come out in dribs and drabs, you can camp them in with a much smaller force. And if you're attacking their last system, you're damn right it should be an epic fight to take it. It takes a lot of time and effort to setup an alliance in 0.0, you shouldn't just be able to sweep them away without a 2nd thought just cause you vastly outnumber them.
The lack of logistical and fuel costs encourages blobbing and super alliances. It's artifical that there are none, and the gate capacitors actually introduce a fuel-esque system without introducing the pain of having to fuel your ship.
While thinking about this some more I realised that this might even be good in empire (with much larger capacitors) as it would encourage corps to fight over control of certain highways.
|
Spoon Thumb
Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 13:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kekzanid So the logisitics of defending a huge swathe of space with a massive blob is never punished. Hence the rise of entities such as BoB, RA, the Goons, etc. holding disproportionality large amounts of space than if you calculated their average ships per system.
This is why I said right problem wrong solution. Think about say Blood raider pirates. They roam around a vast area of space, some 5 or 6 or more regions. But they only actually claim a dozen or so as their soveriegn own.
I feel it would be more realistic if player corps in Eve were like that. So say a really big, powerful group might have some core of 3 or 4 constellations but project their power beyond that and don't necessarily live in a system, but none the less control it by regularly purging any pasers by.
What you're suggesting basically changes the game too radically. It has far too wide a reach for just trying to make Eve a little more realistic in terms of space and size
I'd be more in favour of a system whereby 0.0 alliances were pegged back not by being unable to jump because gate lacks capacitor but rather that they need to carefully manage the systems they claim sov over.
So something like planetary interaction I could imagine being one way of doing that. You have to manage an NPC population and do more than just refuel POS to get sov and get the bonuses / benefits
Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Yamato Gasaraki
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 13:36:00 -
[6]
Think about in another Way. It will enforce People to Gatecamp even more than they are now, because super Highways need super Gates or there will be a Traffic Jam and instead of Jita, the Areas around it will be locked down because People can not or don't want to (when they need to buy/sell Something) leave the Systems.
Kindest Regards, Yamato |
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 14:14:00 -
[7]
... if you want to make it like this you need to set a max that can be around a gate as well. so there can only be X people stationed at a gate. but this would be very hard to balance.
easiest thing would be just to let people jump into a random ss when jumping though a gate would fix the gate blob problem,. I declare war on stupidity |
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 16:16:00 -
[8]
Spoon, making it even more of a pain in the bum to manage sov isn't going to stop blobbing! It just won't have any effect on 100 man blobs. And the alliances will just seed planets just like they POS spam systems. Your suggestion won't stop a 100 man fleet ganking 20 man roaming gangs. Which prompts fleet b to make sure they bring 120, so fleet a brings 140, then fleet b brings 160.
Yamato/Buyerr, from your comments I don't think you live in 0.0 tbh. Gate camps aren't a major problem. The problem is finding regular fights that don't involve massive lag. At the moment in this game more ships = win. There's no penalty for blobbing and this is a suggested penalty.
Just look at the RSF vs BoB battles, BoB are obviously much better pilots but are being beaten not by superior tactics but because they are having 300 man fleets attack their 100 man. While it's fun to watch and the whole of eve is cheering them on, it's a depressing reminder that blobs > skill in eve atm. I was reading some guy saying blobbing shows better organisational skills. Nope, it just shows you don't want a chance of losing.
Forcing fleets to stagger in gives smaller defenders a much greater chance making it far more likely they'll stay for some of the fight before withdrawing and hiding in station/POS. Bigger defenders the assaulting force probably wouldn't have jumped in anyway.
One of the very reasons for suggesting this change is to stop alliances holding huge swathes of space so easily, so opening up the possibility that grants access to 0.0 for smaller corps is a lot easier.
One of the other limiters on small corp access tho is the stupidly small amount of 0.0 entrances.
|
Dr 0wnage
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 18:43:00 -
[9]
I think this is a wonderful idea! Ive been in my fair share of 0.0 engagements and a system such as this would only change eve for the better.
The implementation of limited gate jumps would force people to use TACTICS! OMG of all things tactics and strategy! No more mindless blobing!
Your idea will of course meet alot of opposition since most of eve knows nothing but "just blob it till it dies". These people will resist change since it would mean that their main tactic would become obsolete. However worry not, the anti-blob population is behind you.
|
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 20:45:00 -
[10]
This is a horrible idea. You'd create massive traffic jams anywhere near hub systems. And alliances in 0.0 could still get around this easily wtih jump bridges and titans.
|
|
Conrad Rock
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 21:07:00 -
[11]
Making logistics harder would not deter the formation of large alliances, it would only extinguish the smaller ones holding space at the moment.
|
Yamato Gasaraki
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:31:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Kekzanid Yamato/Buyerr, from your comments I don't think you live in 0.0 tbh.
Yet, I didn't state otherwise. Look at my Avatar, it's still a [!]. Anyhow, balancing an MMO for PvP will kill PvE, it's allways that way. So if you put a capacitor on Gates, it will better be a ~random swear~ large one, or you gona spawn more Problems than it solves, Period. Especialy in Caldari Space without a fixed "Jita Problem".
Kindest Regards, Yamato |
NightKhaos
Gallente Khaos Wielders
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 22:44:00 -
[13]
This is an interesting idea, like many, including some of my own (see my sig for more information, should really consider changing it) that is a great idea, could work, but there a various reasons why it could be a bad thing as well. I stand by my personal assessment of the game that a radical change needs to take place, and this is one of the many options presented to us. CCP is trying to balance the game, make it easier, make the ships closer together, make POSes harder to destory, make bigger and bigger ships, encourage bigger and bigger fleets added more and more systems.
To be honest, if I were actually living in EvE at this time it wouldn't be much different to the time just before the discovery of the EvE wormhole in the first place! I joined this game to have fun, and to be honest, in some aspects, it is hard to do that with the way things are. This was a constructive idea, as as much as it needs a thrashing to pieces, like so many ideas, all I can see if this idea will suddenly die because no one can be bothered anymore.
So... it will create traffic problems, yep, definitely, it would reduce blobs, yep, definitely. Now tell me, which one is more important to you? Lag and blobs trumps traffic imho. Do you agree?
Reshape EVE for the future! Sell the 0.0 gates to player owned corps, and encourage an open ended universe. |
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:48:00 -
[14]
Also, if gates have capacitors, then fleets will just start flying around with Augorors to juice up the gate real fast. It won't slow people down significantly.
|
NightKhaos
Gallente Khaos Wielders
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 23:52:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Berrik Radhok Also, if gates have capacitors, then fleets will just start flying around with Augorors to juice up the gate real fast. It won't slow people down significantly.
You assume that the gate capacitor will be rechargeable, or possibly you underestimate just how much capacitor is needed to throw someone a couple of light years. It could be that it needs 1 Million units of capacitor to throw one ship.
Reshape EVE for the future! Sell the 0.0 gates to player owned corps, and encourage an open ended universe. |
grgjegb gergerg
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 00:04:00 -
[16]
Originally by: NightKhaos
Originally by: Berrik Radhok Also, if gates have capacitors, then fleets will just start flying around with Augorors to juice up the gate real fast. It won't slow people down significantly.
You assume that the gate capacitor will be rechargeable, or possibly you underestimate just how much capacitor is needed to throw someone a couple of light years. It could be that it needs 1 Million units of capacitor to throw one ship.
http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/EN/starbasestructures/jumpbridge/27897.asp
It takes 500 units. Or whatever they take, I know crap about those things. But it would add more logistics and slow things down if you had to power the gates yourself. Thing is, the written fiction suggests that those gates are probably all fully automated.
|
NightKhaos
Gallente Khaos Wielders
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 00:42:00 -
[17]
Originally by: grgjegb gergerg
Originally by: NightKhaos
Originally by: Berrik Radhok Also, if gates have capacitors, then fleets will just start flying around with Augorors to juice up the gate real fast. It won't slow people down significantly.
You assume that the gate capacitor will be rechargeable, or possibly you underestimate just how much capacitor is needed to throw someone a couple of light years. It could be that it needs 1 Million units of capacitor to throw one ship.
http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/EN/starbasestructures/jumpbridge/27897.asp
It takes 500 units. Or whatever they take, I know crap about those things. But it would add more logistics and slow things down if you had to power the gates yourself. Thing is, the written fiction suggests that those gates are probably all fully automated.
Jump Bridge != Jump Gate. But I take your point.
Reshape EVE for the future! Sell the 0.0 gates to player owned corps, and encourage an open ended universe. |
Karanth
Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 01:03:00 -
[18]
Originally by: grgjegb gergerg
Originally by: NightKhaos
Originally by: Berrik Radhok Also, if gates have capacitors, then fleets will just start flying around with Augorors to juice up the gate real fast. It won't slow people down significantly.
You assume that the gate capacitor will be rechargeable, or possibly you underestimate just how much capacitor is needed to throw someone a couple of light years. It could be that it needs 1 Million units of capacitor to throw one ship.
http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/EN/starbasestructures/jumpbridge/27897.asp
It takes 500 units. Or whatever they take, I know crap about those things. But it would add more logistics and slow things down if you had to power the gates yourself. Thing is, the written fiction suggests that those gates are probably all fully automated.
Isotopes != capacitor either. Remember that cap ships need lots of both to jump about.
"Current Earth-Destruction Status" |
San Rintu
Asshats and Alcoholics Minuit.
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 01:04:00 -
[19]
Further adding to your idea. The jump gate could also be targetted by several support vessels in the opposing fleet and recharged quicker with the use of cap transfer arrays...hence allowing a larger flow of ships to continue passing through.
I am theorising we would be taking an enormous battery capacitance so for any real difference, a carrier would have to be on site to transfer cap.
Just an idea to make it more plausible...
|
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 01:04:00 -
[20]
Considering the gates use little black holes or something (according to what I recall from the fiction), each one probably produces more power than a titan.
|
|
San Rintu
Asshats and Alcoholics Minuit.
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 01:16:00 -
[21]
Well I think it would be quite funny at least to require several caps to boost the gates power to warp a fleet of 50 in at once...
Would certainly mean they wont be instablobbing
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 01:44:00 -
[22]
I had the same idea 2 years ago and after reconsidering it - I still think its very good :)
|
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 11:49:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Kekzanid on 02/03/2008 11:50:49 A couple of responses to criticisms:
- I said 0.0 gates, not empire, wouldn't effect pve - Someone mentioned fiction, yes fully automated, they get stripped as the factions step up to war - Logistics harder - no, as normal trade & travel will barely be affected because the travel is still easy if only a few ships are using the gate in a certain time period - JBs & titans - Yes, these would need a rebalance at the same time, I specifically added JBs to having caps as well - Loads of aurogars, I see no probs with that, that's part of the organising thing - Push out small alliances - no, it won't, because large fleets won't have the ability to roam as easily as they do now, so an alliance won't be able to 'project' it's massive power as easily, it will be forced to spread its forces a bit
|
JabJabVVV
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 12:25:00 -
[24]
Too many arbitrary limits, too hard to balance, too easy to exploit. Is fleet size even the issue that needs addressing? Wouldn't it be much better to make large fleet combat viable, fun and complex rather than just stomping all over it?
Just from thinking about this for a few minutes there are several glaring problems that would be very hard to balance:
1) With current POS mechanics the defender would be handed a absolutely massive advantage if this was introduced... if you had a POS coming out of reinforced the defender would just need 100 or so ships in the system before hand and all moons covered (this is easy enough to achieve) to completely block any attacking force regardless of size.
2) easy to exploit (for example just jump a small gang back and forth a few times to lock down a gate)
3) how would you stop people just putting 100+ ships on one side of a gate and slaughtering any gang that tried to come through? answer: you limit the number of people who can be within range of a gate. BUT how then do you stop people just putting the max allowed gang size on the gate and thus preventing people from even approaching the gate?
and so the list goes on. I don't usually like to offer purely negative feed back but I honestly can't think of a way to balance a game mechanic like this without drastically altering a whole load of other things at the same time (POS mechanics for example). I'm not saying it couldn't be done but if it was then you might as well chuck away pretty much all the current 0.0 game mechanics and start afresh (this should be done imo but is obviously a pretty massive undertaking). ----------- When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things. |
Reggie Stoneloader
Teikoku Trade Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 13:23:00 -
[25]
I'd say this was a wonderful idea if there was a way to similarly restrict the number of guys that could sit on the other side of the gate. Since WTZ, a gang of 70 armor-plated battleships can get around almost as fast as a gang of 10 HACs, losing maybe five seconds per jump to align. In the old days, when you had to chug to each gate, you could have scouting parties of interceptors and frigs out checking the path and searching for targets while the gang lumbered along at one jump every five minutes.
Making smaller gangs more mobile would make a distinction between a "fast response" and a "huge blob", a distinction that is made today only by the availability of pilots.
So I support the end you're seeking to achieve, but for reasons others have stated, the means is a little weak right now.
Crusades: Security Status |
Lisento Slaven
Amarr Macabre Votum Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 14:20:00 -
[26]
Gates = no
Jump bridges = quite possibly
If someone had a 40 man blob on one side of a gate already, and you have your 40 man blob on the other but only 10 people can go through - why go through at all? ---
Put in space whales!
|
Reggie Stoneloader
Teikoku Trade Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 15:31:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven If someone had a 40 man blob on one side of a gate already, and you have your 40 man blob on the other but only 10 people can go through - why go through at all?
Exactly. But rather than lamenting the futility of frontal lag-fest assaults, what if some new mechanics encouraged a different tactic? Say, instead of going through, you divide your forces and go around, entering through four different gates, or attacking four different targets? Maybe you go three jumps the other way and start burning their crops, and if their 40 dudes want to stop you, they have to come after you ten at a time?
Crusades: Security Status |
Spoon Thumb
Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.02 18:12:00 -
[28]
I still say this is artificially putting in limits. You're breaking the scalability of the game. There are a lot of situations where this would break things for the worse and with no good reason:
Example Two rival gangs each with 10 ships in system. This is not blob warfare, this is small gang stuff. Gang 1 is camping gate with dictor on other side of said gate. Gang 2 warps to gate, jumps and gets caught by dictor bubble on the other side. Gang 1 waits 5 minutes for gate capacitor to recharge whilst gang 2 nukes the dictor and escapes
Alliance X puts Alliance Y's POS into seige in a dead end system. X have 150 gang to take down POS when they come out and Y only 30 odd. Y setup gate camp on entrance to system and X have no choice but to jump 10 ships in at a time and get slaughtered. Sure they can hot-drop caps but that isn't the point. The point is 150 should beat 30 or 40
Q: What to do about it instead?
A: Get people fighting away from gates
Change sov mechanics: Imagine an alliance, as well as a few POS, have a whole system full of little installations, like deadspace structures, that serve the NPC population. They could be habitats or orbital farms or solar collectors. Each one contributes a little bit to the overall soveriegnty claim. Along with the big POS
This gives small targets to small gangs and lets the gangs split up and hit multiple targets at a time. Once the enemy are in system, they can hit a lot of stuff and maybe even start setting up their own little targets to help take sov away from the defenders
Basically same principle as putting POS guns outside shields, it gives something to shoot at, though shooting POS guns or station services doesn't affect sov atm.
Tactical Environments: These could be used to make the system more dynamic. Granted combat may still take place on gates, but it may be to the advantage of one side or another to fight in a particular location with system
Say the local environment reduces the effect of MWD's and AB's. It could vary in intensity throughout the system, meaning the fast roaving nanogang could bait the defenders to engage them in an area where the effect isn't so bad, where as it might be quite significant around a gate. Then maybe next day the reverse is true
Granted it doesn't stop blobbing per-se, but it will sometimes allow smaller gangs that know the terrain to defeat bigger homogeneous blobs. Also it throws an extra variable into the mix and with the right balancing could see much more variety in warfare than simply "biggest fleet wins," which I think is the main objective here
Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.03 13:35:00 -
[29]
JabJabVVV
Is fleet size even the issue that needs addressing? Wouldn't it be much better to make large fleet combat viable, fun and complex rather than just stomping all over it?
- I'm not saying get rid of it, I'm just saying stop it being the be all and end all. Look at yourselves, massively over extended and not much of a penalty for doing so. It was only massive numbers that could counter your ability to move your entire fleet around so quickly.
With current POS mechanics the defender would be handed a absolutely massive advantage if this was introduced
- Yep, but we all know current POS mechanics suck. Make POSes easier to put into reinforced, the defender has to choose where to defend
easy to exploit (for example just jump a small gang back and forth a few times to lock down a gate)
- I would view this as a good tactic. All it can do is slow the attacking force down tho
how would you stop people just putting 100+ ships on one side of a gate and slaughtering any gang that tried to come through?
- You don't. If you were a romaing gang you go somewhere else. If you're a massive attack force, you camp them in and take out another system. You're applying the mechanics as it is now to how it would be aftewrwards. With all their ships stuck in one system, they also have to get out if they want to go somewhere.
Do you honestly think they're going to release a tiny tweak to the POSes and everyone will have more fun instead of quite frankly boring stuff I have no interest in paying for like 1fps and who's got the loaded grid advantage?
Reggie Stoneloader
I like the phrase 'burning their crops'. I think this is what's lacking from makign the idea work. If a gang of 30-50 ships could some serious damage to an alliance's operations (and earn cash doing it), defenders wouldn't have the option of turtling up. As it is, might as well turtle as what the hell is that gang actually gonna do anyway. Look at the stargate?
Spoon Thumb
Changing where people fight isn't going to deal with blobbing.
NB: I am actually starting to go off the idea, JabJab is right, without some other fixes (which would probably be for the better), this idea might cause some problems. Small scale combat is dying because while it's fun, it actually has no objective or role to fill in alliance warfare. All you do is stop a few people ratting for an hour or so.
|
Spoon Thumb
Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.03 14:41:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kekzanid
NB: I am actually starting to go off the idea, JabJab is right, without some other fixes (which would probably be for the better), this idea might cause some problems. Small scale combat is dying because while it's fun, it actually has no objective or role to fill in alliance warfare. All you do is stop a few people ratting for an hour or so.
Hence my suggestions. They are to allow small gangs to have a role again or throw in some variables to combat, not just gate based combat/roaving gang combat to mix things up a little and maybe make big blob sometimes, but not necessarily always win
Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2008.03.03 20:08:00 -
[31]
I /sign this idea for the one sole fact that small gangs have NO role in EVE whatsoever because larger gangs will always get the job done better. Even attacking small targets like station services or POS guns are silly. The only POS guns are the ones on deathstar POSes and small gangs cant get there. Outpost systems are typically well-populated so they can typically rally a defense. Issues like sov. mechanics are just exasperating the issue. Finally, concerns about trickling in to a gate camp can be easily solved by the simple use of covop/inty scouts (which any good gang should already be using in the first place).
It can already be seen what CCP thinks the optimal gang size should be. Look at the alliance tournament: limiting ship points and quantity. This point system would mesh well with this suggestion. This also has other advantages, such as limiting the number of simultaneous grid-loads which should also help to reduce lag.
Finally, lets face it, defenders -should- have the advantage vs. attackers when fortifications are involved, otherwise there would be no incentive to put them up. Conversely, as stated before, it gives attackers the incentive to divide then conquer and exploit the weaknesses in the fortifications (a.k.a. undefended POSes/systems, force defenders to choose which are the most valuable). ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.03 20:47:00 -
[32]
Get a bigger alliance. Oh, better yet, go play WoW. It is "fair."
|
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.03 21:45:00 -
[33]
lol, why bother flaming in features and ideas, you goon. You might as well have posted everyone go join red or blue.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2008.03.03 23:13:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 03/03/2008 23:14:59
Originally by: Cursive Get a bigger alliance. Oh, better yet, go play WoW. It is "fair."
No no, I think you misunderstand. As I see it (and why I signed) this is intended to make things UNFAIR. The sole difference is that in order to take advantage of it, commanders have to plan further ahead and have to look at a larger combat theater. Whomever does a better job of scouting, securing supply lines, planning alternative routes, and going "RAWR! Suprise!" with smaller strike forces will win the day. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 00:22:00 -
[35]
That won't work at all. What will happen is this:
RSF owns the entire South, has thousands of players in key, controlling outpost systems. Alliance X comes along, wanting to try to take it from us and we laffo as they jump through 5-10 at a time into our held systems with hundreds of us sitting on the gate picking them off.
This doesn't stop blobbing at all, it stops offensive blobbing.
Fine, maybe you take the time, manage to get some ZOMG JAWSOME 1337 players into a key, outpost system without the enemy noticing. Then what? How do you take the system? Do you take the cyno-jammer out with 5 guys and then jump all your cap ships in to start the POS warfare fun? 5 people defending a bunch of dreads sounds awesome, too. Or maybe those 5 people can take the towers down themselves?
Sorry, wars are about resources and numbers. Not so much elite small combat groups, although they do have a role.
If you want to be a small and elite fighting force, fine, do so, but don't cry that you cannot be a part of the larger POS warfare.
And it's a dumb idea. And I started a sentence with "and." And I did it again. And again... |
Kekzanid
Black Wolves Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 00:36:00 -
[36]
So you're going to have 100 pilots in each outpost system are you? I have no idea how many you have, say 10, you would need to simultaneously have 1000 players online, 100 in each one of the systems. Because if you put them all into ABC-DE then the enemy fleet would just go and attack CDE-FG because you can't follow them. That's the point of limiting free travel, you turtle up, enemy just says ok and attacks elsewhere.
Or we could carry on with 300 man fleets going across half of eve in an evening boring the crap out of everyone in the 1fps battle that happens afterwards.
If you want to to play a game of who can get the biggest number of members, I've got a great game for you. You'll really love it.
It's called Facebook.
|
Dr 0wnage
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 01:39:00 -
[37]
Shouldn't the defender have the advantage? Do any of you have ANY idea of how military tactics work? It takes a significantly more powerful attacking force to defeat a well entrenched defender.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that one force can roll into a defended area and within a week take out 50 billion worth of investments simply because the attacker outnumbers the defender.
If a force of 100 blockades themselves in a dead end system w/ a cyno inhibitor shouldn't they be able to hold that system to all but the most prolonged siege?
|
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 02:31:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Dr 0wnage It just doesn't make any sense to me that one force can roll into a defended area and within a week take out 50 billion worth of investments simply because the attacker outnumbers the defender.
Oh, you mean like... every war ever fought in the history of man-kind?
Yeah, I agree, totally nonsensical.
You guys wouldn't happen to have empire mining alts would you? If you do -- could I get their names? |
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 02:33:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Kekzanid It's called Facebook.
I LOVE Facebook! What's your email address, I'll friend you! |
Dr 0wnage
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 03:56:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Dr 0wnage on 04/03/2008 03:57:58
Originally by: Kekzanid Oh, you mean like... every war ever fought in the history of man-kind?
In fact most all the famous battles of history were won by forces who were outnumbered. Go rent the movie 300 (not that they won but still the general idea). Of course it would be a goon trying to shoot down an anti-blob idea...
|
|
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 05:31:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Cursive on 04/03/2008 05:32:24
Originally by: Dr 0wnage Edited by: Dr 0wnage on 04/03/2008 03:57:58
Originally by: Kekzanid Oh, you mean like... every war ever fought in the history of man-kind?
In fact most all the famous battles of history were won by forces who were outnumbered. Go rent the movie 300 (not that they won but still the general idea). Of course it would be a goon trying to shoot down an anti-blob idea...
"Fact" is a mighty big word to use there. Didn't you just debunk your own point?
Bravo.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 09:19:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 04/03/2008 09:19:41
Originally by: Dr 0wnage Edited by: Dr 0wnage on 04/03/2008 03:57:58
Originally by: Kekzanid Oh, you mean like... every war ever fought in the history of man-kind?
In fact most all the famous battles of history were won by forces who were outnumbered. Go rent the movie 300 (not that they won but still the general idea). Of course it would be a goon trying to shoot down an anti-blob idea...
Those battles are famous because its rare :)
Or even not - in real life, there is much tactics, much about training, equipment, morale. In general, stronger army wins, not nerceserily
And 300 is a movie based on a comic book :D. That comic book is based on an actual battle, yes, but historically the main reason why a small group managed to delay a great army by a few days was terrain tactical advantage and the fact that its alredays very difficult to move great army thru mountains.
This change is in fact creating the same - the terrain advantage. It brings many interesting possibilities for the defender and there are still ways to counter it for the attacker. The main advantage is the fact that its a good reason to split forces and splitted forces are key to more smaller battles with less lag, more tactics and more fun.
Tactical possibilities;
1.When facing a large enemy fleet, a small force may delay it and even take a few ships, they just need to be 1 jump ahead and deplete gates by jumping themselves. If the defending smaller gang makes a mistake or moves clumsily, those left behind are easy prey. The running fleet may become even more efficient with massive use of vampires and neutralisers, but if they're not precise they may harm their own ability to jump. This way a small force can play with a larger blob for long. The large blob may go 10 minutes per jump or may try to send a fast, forward attack force to eliminate the trouble makers. The defender gets more time to organize.
2.Invading force may speed up their movement and drop more ships per second in system if they split their force and jump from 2 or 3 gates to target system at the same time. Naturally, they need to get there first. Defender may choose to concentrate forces on one gate to get OMGPWN effect but then, the invaders will just drop from the other gate.
3.Some gates will have more and some less cap and cap recharge time, some systems have more gates and are connectec in different ways. Choice of battleground, as well as strategic placing of station and cynojammer systems becomes really important.
4.Warping speed rigs or something like that may affect cap efficiency of gate jumping, making more difference between full-combat ships and high mobility ships.
5.Fleet that would like to drop 50 or 100 ships thru a gate in under a minute just needs to use cap transfers, with a handful of carriers or on many battleships and logistics. So invasion blob is still really possible, but needs more logistic support or sacrifice of firepower.
6.Carriers and Moms and their ship and pilot transporting abilities become more important when forcing thru gates can be slow and/or painful. Same for the blackops gate and covert gangs.
7.Invading force can send heavily plated battleships or small ships able to run from camp in the first way to make it easier for the rest of the force to survive system entry.
8.Lagfests with 800 ships in a system will likely change long constelation sieges, with invading side fighting for system by system, dozens of smaller battles and positional warfare with sides on 2 sides of a gate waiting for good oportunity to invade.
9.Combination of weak gates, cyno jammer and defender covering all timezones seems nearly unbreakable fortress, but in fact it can be invaded like it was, if You use big enough carrier fleet with energy transfers on the other side. If its really really nercesarry, it will be possible to move a huge blob thru a gate in a short time, but only with properly prepared force.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 15:05:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Cursive \ Then what? How do you take the system? Do you take the cyno-jammer out with 5 guys and then jump all your cap ships in to start the POS warfare fun?
It should noted that CCP already stated that perma-running cyno jammers need tweaking. Its true, this idea does not work at all without sov. mechanic changes and tweaks to POS warfare, which has to be the most boring aspect of Eve from all standpoints: running, defending and assaulting.
The greater issue of being able to blob defense is obviously a non-issue for Goonswarm or RA, considering they are the largest coalition running with many tenants as well. As well it shouldn't, since you are able to actually able to populate 0.0 with a decent number of people. The issue at hand becomes smaller (relative of course) alliances who are able to lock down far larger tracts of space than they can feasibly utilize to their greatest potential. In the end, more people in 0.0 = better pew-pew. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 16:11:00 -
[44]
But with this change, alliances of any size do not have easier time defending large piece of space. Just the opposite. Their giant blob will not be able to easily move quickly and intercept invading medium blob. And if they'd like to seal every exit, they'd have to be on every entry gate with a medium sized blob at least, thats hudreds of people 23/7, much more effort then simply having scouts and assembling defense fleet when needed. And that would still be splited forces, separated by large distances and long travel times, something that can be assaulted and harmed with a not-so-extreme force. Invader, if he wants space, once inside, can fortify and defend a system against a larger blob of traditional (gate-using) ships, making it easier to take space from big players then today.
|
Conrad Rock
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 18:00:00 -
[45]
Terrible, it would end up being the same as limiting player numbers in a system. If one gets in first throug a period of hours or even days, the other is still screwed.
With lag and node deaths, there' still a slight chance to get in and do something.
|
Verys
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 20:30:00 -
[46]
If it had a capacitor wouldnt i be possible to nos/neut them, locking down stargates with curses comes up to mind.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.03.06 07:55:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Verys If it had a capacitor wouldnt i be possible to nos/neut them, locking down stargates with curses comes up to mind.
Yes, but only from the entry side.
If there is a gate from ABCD-1 to EFGH-2, You can be preventing people jump from ABCD to EFGH only by sitting in ABCD and nossing with a large bunch of NOS ships. This makes Your nossing gang voulnerable to invaders who arrive in ABCD. So NOSers can be killed or can run to EFGH and no longer be able to lock the gate, slowing but not stopping the invaders.
In fact, it could rather lead to tactically intresting encounters rather then inbreakable gate locking tactics.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |