Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:03:00 -
[1]
Attempts have been made to try and get rid of blob warfare, as it (by many) is considered "boring" compared to smaller (number of vessels) engagements. Even CCP has expressed the wish to make smaller gang warfare more effective, and even made some ingame adjustments to that effect. I'm not going to argue if getting rid of blob warfare is for the better of EVE or not, but simply present a way to do so.
==============================
The main idea behind my proposal, is to "disperse" the blob - Force it to spread out. That way only a limited amount of vessels will be in shooting range, and pouring more vessels into the area (that is in shooting range) will have little to no effect.
The most simple way of "forcing" a blob to spread out, is to hurt the damage potential of the vessels, if they dont. Ie. they can stay together (say at the jump in point of the fleet), but it would mean they would do not much more damage than a single vessel. This is naturally not in the best interest of the fleet, as they want to be able to deliver maximum damage (why else bring a fleet in the first place) As such they are "forced" to spread out (to achive maximum damage).
As the vessels spread out, theres a limit to just how many can be in effective shooting range, thus limiting the number of vessels it's worth bringing to the battle in the first place - Effectivly ending the blob warfare (given the right tuning of the variables involved)
This will also add an increased element of strategy and planning to combat - juggling for position - inserting cloacked warp-to scouts in advance to have multiple warp-in points, to spread out the fleet somewhat already on jump in. - it will give the attacker an initial disadvantage, until optimal positions are acquired - defenders can setup their fleet in optimal positions in advance of the attacker attacking (given enough time) - etc
===================== So that was alot of text... How about some examples (all numbers in the following are totally "random" and will need adjustment)
So from the above it should be clear that each vessel will have a "proximity damage adjuster (PDA)" - Basically a sphere around the vessel. If any two PDA's overlap, then each vessel will have their damage output penalized (this can be raw damage, RoF or any other number of things)
Spheres are a bit hard to visualize here, so I'll use circles, the effect will be the same.
Consider two battleships (having the same PDA size) that jump in at the same time. Each PDA will (nearly) completly overlap the other. (the red and green dot are the ships, and the circles their PDA)
Each ships damage output is halfed (or another number) - As their PDA is covered 100% (by the other ships PDA) Formula : Damage Adjustment(DA) = 1/(1 + coverage percentage(CP)) In this case DA equals 1/(1 + 1) = 0.5 (ie. half the original damage)
So the total damage the two ships can do (while staying right next to each other) is excactly the same, as if only one ship had jumped in in the first place.
So the ships start to move apart, to increase their damage output
They are still beeing penalized, but less so now The circles are overlapping by approx 40%
So the the DA becomes 1/(1 + 0.4) = 0.7
And so on, as the ships move apart.
BIG Lottery |
Vivitari
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:04:00 -
[2]
I like the idea, however removing the blob-enducing idea of POS warfare would help alot more. _ EVE: The Vivitari Story - A Blog by Nobody in EVE Online Patch Days |
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:04:00 -
[3]
How about more than just 2 vessels
The generalized formula then becomes : DA = 1/(1 + (sum of all CP))
(nearly impossibel to see - But it's 3 vessels red/green/blue right next to each other)
Approximatly all the PDA are overlapping 100% so the DA becomes 1/(1 + (1 + 1)) = 1/3 = 33% for each vessel. Again, the combined output is as if just one vessel was there.
Lets spread them apart a bit
Each PDA is now covering the other PDA's by (aprox) 40%
So the DA becomes 1 / (1 + (0.4 + 0.4) = 1/1.8 = 56% (compare this to the 70% above)
----------------
Large vessels would ofc have huge PDA's and small vessels small PDA's. No surprises there.
Some tweaks would be to give support ships decreased PDA's, based on the assumption they need to be "close" to the ships they want to support, and not wanting to penalize the ship beeing supported too much.
Lots of other stuff is possible as well
----------------
Overall, if tweaked correctly, I think this could single handedly end blob warfare - or at least the effectiveness of blob warfare. And if the effectiveness is gone, people will stop doing it (and even if they dont, it wont help them anything, as their damage potential will be hugely penalized)
---------------
To be able to work with this ingame at all, some UI additions would be needed.
a: An indicator of how much your current damage output is (ie. 45%) to gauge if you need to take action to increase it - Simple enough. b: A way to know which PDA's are interfering with your own PDA, and how much. So you can move out of the way (or tell them to move). This requires a bit more, but we already have something ingame that could be used, namely the tactical overview spheres (that shows your optimal etc) Have another button that would show the PDA tactical view. It could be used to show all PDA's, and perhaps have those that overlap with yours, be in a slightly different color (red hue or similar). It would also be nice, but not truly needed, to have a numerical display (next to each ship on the battlefield) showing how much that particular ship is intercecting your PDA. So you'd want to move away from the ship interfering the most with your own ship.
---------------
So what do you think - Could this be the blob killer?
And would you like to see it implemented?
What would it bring to the game - What would it take away?
BIG Lottery |
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:07:00 -
[4]
Updating 1 min
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:16:00 -
[5]
The idea is plausible, needs tweaking though. I think the shown penalty is too high.
------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:21:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Vito Parabellum The idea is plausible, needs tweaking though. I think the shown penalty is too high.
Simple matter of adding an adjustment factor(AF) to the (sum of all CP) bit
That way it can be tuned up/down at will
Like this : DA = 1 / (1 + (sum of CP's)*AF)
In the above the AF simply equals 1. To turn down the penalty, you could set it to 0.5 or whatever.
---
And I *did* state that the numbers used where "random" (aka pulled out my arse), and would need tweaking
So dont fester too much on the actual numbers, but rather the concept itself (which can be tweaked endlessly)
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:24:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lord WarATron There is NO problem with blobs.
Originally by: TornSoul I'm not going to argue if getting rid of blob warfare is for the better of EVE or not, but simply present a way to do so.
BIG Lottery |
Rod Blaine
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:24:00 -
[8]
What is it you are trying to achieve ?
I know, defeating the blob, smaller fleets. But what is the end goal ? Less lag ? More fun ? Less impact of superior numbers ?
Because the first and last you're not going to achieve this way, and the second is a matter of opinion.
I don't really see any reason to force people to not sit close together is space. I mean, what's the great advantage of not having people do that ?
Lastly, I've always opposed any notion of a 'stacking penalty' on gang size. Always will too. It's too artificial for my senses, and in practice it will be far too easy to circumvent.
More tactical play ? Fine, but remember that "fast-paced" and the need to set up at range, or warp in staggered, and other tactical things, do not go together well. [center] Old blog |
Gunstar Zero
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:25:00 -
[9]
I think all the proximity calculations would lag out the node...
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:26:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/03/2008 15:28:44
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Lord WarATron There is NO problem with blobs.
Originally by: TornSoul I'm not going to argue if getting rid of blob warfare is for the better of EVE or not, but simply present a way to do so.
Good or bad, your idea does not solve the problem because you assume blobs are the problem. Blobs are not the problem and never have been, and I speak as someone who spend the most of the last year being outblobbed!
You are simply transfering the issue rather than putting a solution for it. What exactly is the problem with blobs? Lag? Surely the solution to lag is better servers and less complex code. And your idea is to introduce more complex code via this "ship range stacking penelty" and hence more lag. --
Billion Isk Mission |
|
Rod Blaine
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:28:00 -
[11]
Btw, the best solution to get people to do what you describe is simply tinkering with bombs/bombers a bit.
Same result, far less complexity.
[center] Old blog |
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:35:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/03/2008 15:28:44
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Lord WarATron There is NO problem with blobs.
Originally by: TornSoul I'm not going to argue if getting rid of blob warfare is for the better of EVE or not, but simply present a way to do so.
Good or bad, your idea does not solve the problem because you assume blobs are the problem.
Err... In principle I dont give a rats arse if blobs are removed or not. You even quoted me saying so..... Ie. I'm assuming jack all.
I'm *only* presenting a way to get rid of them, should someone wish to do so.
And wish to discuss the merits of this particular approach.
Whats up with the hostility... jeez...
BIG Lottery |
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:39:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 23/03/2008 15:40:43 I don't see what use forcing people to spread out within the same grid will have.
It will not make people bring less ships to the battle. When numbers exist and are needed, they will be used regardless. It will just change the tactics used in battles a teeny bit.
It will not reduce lag. All the ships are together on the same grid and fighting. Nothing changes there.
It will not effect focused fire as ships in large fleet battles allready fit for extreme long range fire. Even if they spread out, they'd be able to focus on primary. And the ones that don't (like tacklers) allready move around on the grid during the battle as it is.
|
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:43:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Lastly, I've always opposed any notion of a 'stacking penalty' on gang size. Always will too. It's too artificial for my senses, and in practice it will be far too easy to circumvent.
I find the ability to fire 200 guns from 40 ships in a blob with 10kms diameter far more artificial than the damage being penalized lest you shoot your own.
Originally by: Rod Blaine
More tactical play ? Fine, but remember that "fast-paced" and the need to set up at range, or warp in staggered, and other tactical things, do not go together well.
Blob warfare is most definetly not fast paced. Its F1-F8. If you have to think instead of just following the gangwarp and following the target calling, would it not be better?
------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:47:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Vito Parabellum I find the ability to fire 200 guns from 40 ships in a blob with 10kms diameter ... artificial
Why?
|
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:48:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
It will not reduce lag. All the ships are together on the same grid and fighting. Nothing changes there.
The base idea is to make it "a waste" to bring more ships to the same grid, as they will make zero difference damage wise.
Why bring more ships if they are not going to make any difference?
Amassing a fleet of 500 ppl would accomplish nothing more than having 50 people there (or whatevever the numbers could be)
Instead I could imagine a "reserve fleet" sitting at a safespot somewhere, waiting to warp in reinforcements as needed, when an attacker gets blown up, or is about to get blown up ("warp to me now, im going down/warping out in 5 secs" - or similar. Sure it's a bit far fetched - But I could see it happening with good enough FC's)
BIG Lottery |
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Vito Parabellum I find the ability to fire 200 guns from 40 ships in a blob with 10kms diameter ... artificial
Why?
Because you are shooting through your fleet?
------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
It will not reduce lag. All the ships are together on the same grid and fighting. Nothing changes there.
The base idea is to make it "a waste" to bring more ships to the same grid, as they will make zero difference damage wise.
Why bring more ships if they are not going to make any difference?
Amassing a fleet of 500 ppl would accomplish nothing more than having 50 people there (or whatevever the numbers could be)
Instead I could imagine a "reserve fleet" sitting at a safespot somewhere, waiting to warp in reinforcements as needed, when an attacker gets blown up, or is about to get blown up ("warp to me now, im going down/warping out in 5 secs" - or similar. Sure it's a bit far fetched - But I could see it happening with good enough FC's)
Well, you seemed to be saying that you wanted them to disperse within the grid. Maybe I misunderstood.
Anyway, in that case, I think that this will make Eve combat even more a thing exclusively for the players with the oldest characters, biggest ships, and deepest (internet space ship) pockets. I much prefer the debilitating lag to that.
|
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Anyway, in that case, I think that this will make Eve combat even more a thing exclusively for the players with the oldest characters, biggest ships, and deepest (internet space ship) pockets. I much prefer the debilitating lag to that.
Why? ------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Vito Parabellum
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Vito Parabellum I find the ability to fire 200 guns from 40 ships in a blob with 10kms diameter ... artificial
Why?
Because you are shooting through your fleet?
Unless you have a bunch of Titans in front of you or something, not really. The distances we have are too big compared to the size of our ships for line of sight to be a real issue.
|
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 15:58:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 23/03/2008 15:59:23
Originally by: Vito Parabellum
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Anyway, in that case, I think that this will make Eve combat even more a thing exclusively for the players with the oldest characters, biggest ships, and deepest (internet space ship) pockets. I much prefer the debilitating lag to that.
Why?
If you can only bring 50, instead of the 200 willing to come, which 50 of those 200 are you going to bring?
|
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Vito Parabellum
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Vito Parabellum I find the ability to fire 200 guns from 40 ships in a blob with 10kms diameter ... artificial
Why?
Because you are shooting through your fleet?
Unless you have a bunch of Titans in front of you or something, not really. The distances we have are too big compared to the size of our ships for line of sight to be a real issue.
Hi! This is eve online where the battleships are several hundred meters long. When you are looking at a huge blob of ships, that huge blob of ships is actually a huge blob of ships. The ships in the middle and on the far edge of this huge blob will not be able to fire on the hostile blob without hitting a friend, if it was for real and not a simplified game ofc.
------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:04:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 23/03/2008 15:59:23
Originally by: Vito Parabellum
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Anyway, in that case, I think that this will make Eve combat even more a thing exclusively for the players with the oldest characters, biggest ships, and deepest (internet space ship) pockets. I much prefer the debilitating lag to that.
Why?
If you can only bring 50, instead of the 200 willing to come, which 50 of those 200 are you going to bring?
I'd say make moar gangs! Or is there only one good fc in this hypothetical setup?
------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:25:00 -
[24]
"Blobbing" has nothing to do with the area the ships are in, but the number of ships brought.
You already do better by being spread out because it makes it harder for enemies to focus fire.
All this does is further make the jump in/warp in harder, which is not necessary.
You cannot fix "blobbing" by these types of mechanics, its still better to bring more ships.
There is a place for large scale warfare with huge numbers of ships, the trick is to make an incentive for players to fly around in smaller gangs.
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:27:00 -
[25]
Dispersing gangs is the right idea, but your solution is disturbingly inefficient for someone whose played so long. Arbitrary reasons to force people to spread out don't add anything to the game. They simply force groups to maximize their potential.
This is similar to how we juggle gang hierarchies for ship and bonus types. Doing it is not fun, but it has to be done. And the end result isn't fun either, simply more effective. You could even say that gangs, squads, wings and commanders add a bit to the immersion value, this offers nothing.
Let me repeat myself; I hate arbitrary rules.
I once discussed blobs and fleet battles with people from CCP that would bother to listen, and it was almost identical to what you're trying to accomplish here. But instead I tweaked the existing rules of tracking and range to spread the battle out.
And my goal wasn't to reduce the power of numbers, it was to create more balanced fleet compositions. If someone brought 200 ships today you'd need over a hundred to think about smashing them today. Under revision, you could do it with half that, provided your fleet was custom tailored to what the enemy fleet is weak to. _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Lord WarATron But ships really need 10X the structure for that to mean anything
So long as the penalties were severe enough you wouldn't. E.G. if you lost high slots as straight percentage of your structure damage then spreading fire could lower incoming DPS faster than focusing fire.
However, focus fire itself isn't a problem, and if you nerf focus fire in this manner you nerf all ships in the game, which moves the game towards the ships that do good in 1v1 encounters.
Then the only valuable ships are the ships that are good in 1v1 encounters.
And that is bad.
|
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Dispersing gangs is the right idea, but your solution is disturbingly inefficient for someone whose played so long.
In what way inefficient? Not sure I follow.
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
And my goal wasn't to reduce the power of numbers, it was to create more balanced fleet compositions.
I could see that happen, to an extend, with this as well.
Instead of having all snipers at 180-200km, you would have some fit (and deployed) for 100 and 50 (not really snipers any longer then but hey )
Etc.
BIG Lottery |
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 16:48:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 23/03/2008 16:51:10
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Lord WarATron But ships really need 10X the structure for that to mean anything
So long as the penalties were severe enough you wouldn't. E.G. if you lost high slots as straight percentage of your structure damage then spreading fire could lower incoming DPS faster than focusing fire.
However, focus fire itself isn't a problem, and if you nerf focus fire in this manner you nerf all ships in the game, which moves the game towards the ships that do good in 1v1 encounters.
Then the only valuable ships are the ships that are good in 1v1 encounters.
And that is bad.
I know, thats why I said after that sentence (the bit you snipped out afterwards) which was "that kind of radical chance as that would mess up pvp in a lot of area's."
For any change there must be a reason. The OP has not given the reason, and every change in eve so far has been with a certain reason (right or wrong). If the reason is valid, then yes, I welcome it. Is the objective to deal with lag? Spread a existing fleet out through a grid or whatever? Without the objective (right or wrong) you cannot really discuss or brainstorm. If the objective is to hang a picture by making a hole in the wall, then adding stacking penelty to a drill is not going to solve the end situation.
Is the objective to reduce lag? to make smaller gangs more valuble? force people to spread about a grid? make high SP & Rich players more powerful vs low sp poor players?
Unless the OP tells us how he wants a end battle to look, I doubt anyone can say if this solution is valid or not
--
Billion Isk Mission |
TornSoul
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 17:13:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Unless the OP tells us how he wants a end battle to look, I doubt anyone can say if this solution is valid or not
Alright I'll say it again : I don't care
*Some* people have expressed a wish to end and/or curb blob warfare. Why they wish this..? Again, I don't care.
It's purely "academical" to me.
I had an idea, which I belive could solve a given problem (why this problem needs to be solved? : I don't care)
Furthermore the idea I struck on, is even flexible enough to be "scaled", so that the blob "nullifying effect" can be adjusted at will (allowing for 20 or 200 in a battle)
I felt like sharing.
I wanted to discuss the merits of the idea. Could improvements be made, could things be added, what would the effects be on tactics, would it improve on warfare - or not.
Etc.
That's all.
Whether or not blob warfare should be removed/discouraged or whatever : I don't care
------------------------------- (*) All my "I don't care"'s refer to the case at hand only. I *do* have an opinion about blob warfare. But it's utterly irrelevant for objectivly discussing the merits (or lack of) of the suggested idea. If you can't see past that, or disagree with it.. Well.. Have fun.
BIG Lottery |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 17:15:00 -
[30]
I am writing something that is quite long and deals a bit about this problem for the whole CSM thing. So i wont say much Torn.
You cannot stop blobbing by changing mechanics about how ships interact with each other.
Gangs are a cooperative game, and in a cooperative game the sum of any two entities must be at least as much as the individual parts.
I.E.
x + x => 2x
x+x can never be less than 2x
Or, to put it in more simple terms.
two thoraxes on the same side can never be worth less than two thoraxes not on the same side.
There are ways to stop this, but its not perfect, and it has to do with splitting benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |