| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Qduhaf
   |
Posted - 2008.07.22 19:16:00 -
[1]
With pages and pages wasted on the symptoms its time to shift focus to the real issue: BLOBs.
Its pathetic that in a very dry spell of CCP generated news that we get articles highlighting BOB's blob anywhere anytime strategy.
CCP should introduce some areas where there are active measures to severly limit the effectiveness of blobs.
FW would be a good place to start - maybe cap plexs to FW players only, and limit number in at any one time, or introduce PVP missions that become something like a fight finder.
If you did this and made it something optional then you could introduce a system that made it fast to find a fight that was close to even, and doesn't have any incentive to get 20 man t2 nano gangs or 50 noobs together. Of course this wouldn't cahnge any of the plyer based content in 0.0 and low sec game play outside of the fight area, everyone that wants to play those games could continue to do so.
Introducing a fight finder (eg PVP missions) would also highlight those corps that really are good pvpers, from those that just have unlimited game play time to find ganks.
Citizens of EVE need to focus their direction to the real issues, and stop complaining about the Symptoms
|
Euriti
Gallente
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 19:21:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Qduhaf
With pages and pages wasted on the symptoms its time to shift focus to the real issue: BLOBs.
Its pathetic that in a very dry spell of CCP generated news that we get articles highlighting BOB's blob anywhere anytime strategy.
CCP should introduce some areas where there are active measures to severly limit the effectiveness of blobs.
FW would be a good place to start - maybe cap plexs to FW players only, and limit number in at any one time, or introduce PVP missions that become something like a fight finder.
If you did this and made it something optional then you could introduce a system that made it fast to find a fight that was close to even, and doesn't have any incentive to get 20 man t2 nano gangs or 50 noobs together. Of course this wouldn't cahnge any of the plyer based content in 0.0 and low sec game play outside of the fight area, everyone that wants to play those games could continue to do so.
Introducing a fight finder (eg PVP missions) would also highlight those corps that really are good pvpers, from those that just have unlimited game play time to find ganks.
Citizens of EVE need to focus their direction to the real issues, and stop complaining about the Symptoms
ITT: OP wants to make battlegrounds.
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 19:24:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Qduhaf
FW would be a good place to start - maybe cap plexs to FW players only, and limit number in at any one time, or introduce PVP missions that become something like a fight finder.
Neither of those would work - one of the fun things about EVE is that you can use numbers to fight a more powerful opponent. Limiting thing to X ships each side means that the less SP you have, the less likely you are to fight. Therefore, the top 10% has the most action, the next 20% has some action, and the bottom 70% gets left babysitting the dog.
Quote:
If you did this and made it something optional then you could introduce a system that made it fast to find a fight that was close to even, and doesn't have any incentive to get 20 man t2 nano gangs or 50 noobs together. Of course this wouldn't cahnge any of the plyer based content in 0.0 and low sec game play outside of the fight area, everyone that wants to play those games could continue to do so.
How could you possibly define "close to even?" Human FCs often have a hard time judging what is and isn't close to even despite very clear intel. There's simple no way you could write a program to do that effectively.
Quote:
Introducing a fight finder (eg PVP missions) would also highlight those corps that really are good pvpers, from those that just have unlimited game play time to find ganks.
FW missions come close to doing this, about as close as you can get in my opinion. You have:
1. Incentive for one side to complete the mission
2. Incentive for the other side to stop the mission
3. One or more players responsible for completing it
4. A highly-visible location where he must complete it
Quote:
Citizens of EVE need to focus their direction to the real issues, and stop complaining about the Symptoms
That much I can agree with, but sometimes the symptoms are their own disease. 
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Khlitouris RegusII
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 20:24:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Qduhaf
If you did this and made it something optional
Faction warfare is OPTIONAL, if you want to play a sharded and instanced game dload wow i hear its realy.....................Shite.
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente
Infinite Covenant
Lords of the Damned
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 20:29:00 -
[5]
No offense, and no offense intended.
But your statement is somewhat similiar to someone demanding the was in Iraq stops this instant and everyone lives happily side by side.
Maybe its a strange comparison if you look at it closely but it does prove my point.
Blobs are fueled by the players of eve, Nobody like lag, but the way they are playing eve causes the lag anyway. would you play the game any other way if you wanted to win... No, cause otherwise you wouldn't win, thus you bring a blob...
On the subject of solving the problem.
I think we'll have to be patient.
Everytime CCP introduced a new technology or method to releave us of some lag, people clutter together even further in even bigger fleets and end up still causing lag.
The only way CCP will every be able to catch up to this fundamental problem is if they can scale the supply of networking POWER far beyond the demand.
And doing such a thing will require structural, network related and server related changes on a massive scale. they are working on it, but it will take time.
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
GallenteCitizen20080615
Gallente
Federation War News
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 20:31:00 -
[6]
bombs 
as i have said once and many time before... this is not my sig |
Rhanna Khurin
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 20:37:00 -
[7]
A fight finder you say? Hmm, i could have sworn when you assault a plex it lights up like an xamas tree for all to see.
|
McDonALTs
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:07:00 -
[8]
Fight Finder...
Wait - What the OP means is sensible PvP missions.
E.G Amarr have to defend a Mothership. Minmatar need to kill the mothership. Since Amarr FW is a handful of people and Minmatar side has thousands, once you enter teh gate, NPC's spawn on both sides to balance firepower.
Yeah this would work and be fantastic!
|
Faife
Minmatar
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:25:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Faife on 22/07/2008 21:25:42
oh, like i'm the only who fantasized about kamikaziing a hauler filled with ammo into a remote repping ball of BSes
not to say this has anything to do with the OP, but it'd be awesome
- -
|
Faife
Minmatar
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:25:00 -
[10]
Originally by: McDonALTs
Fight Finder...
Wait - What the OP means is sensible PvP missions.
E.G Amarr have to defend a Mothership. Minmatar need to kill the mothership. Since Amarr FW is a handful of people and Minmatar side has thousands, once you enter teh gate, NPC's spawn on both sides to balance firepower.
Yeah this would work and be fantastic!
right to up to where the minmatar gate camp the amarr and pop them before their support spawns.
- -
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: GallenteCitizen20080615
bombs
This. Unfortunately bombs in practice don't work very well vs blobs. Tweaking bombs could be a great solution.
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Tarminic
one of the fun things about EVE is that you can use numbers to fight a more powerful opponent. Limiting thing to X ships each side means that the less SP you have, the less likely you are to fight. Therefore, the top 10% has the most action, the next 20% has some action, and the bottom 70% gets left babysitting the dog.
PVP missions would have levels, Level 1 could be frigs, Level 2 Cruisers and T2 frigs, Level 3 HACs and BCs. That way even a relative new player could play in a meaningful way.
Quote:
How could you possibly define "close to even?" Human FCs often have a hard time judging what is and isn't close to even despite very clear intel. There's simple no way you could write a program to do that effectively.
Point system like the alliance tournaments. Different missions would have different point systems ( and even random variations within the same missions) to keep variety and prevent an ôidealö fleet composition
Quote:
FW missions come close to doing this, about as close as you can get in my opinion. You have:
1. Incentive for one side to complete the mission
2. Incentive for the other side to stop the mission
3. One or more players responsible for completing it
4. A highly-visible location where he must complete it
FW missions are a small step forward, but they donÆt provide any incentive for the opposing side to stop the mission, and while they have some limits on the numbers for the side completing the mission they donÆt prevent blobs from defending. A PVP mission would need both sides to sign up, one would be attacker and the other the defender.
Missions might be to capture/defend point x in Old Man Star, or defend NPC BS ôEndeavorö in tama, or hunt down/defend rogue spy in a faction fitted crow, etc.
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: McDonALTs
Fight Finder...
Wait - What the OP means is sensible PvP missions.
E.G Amarr have to defend a Mothership. Minmatar need to kill the mothership. Since Amarr FW is a handful of people and Minmatar side has thousands, once you enter teh gate, NPC's spawn on both sides to balance firepower.
Yeah this would work and be fantastic!
I'd rather keep the NPCs out of the equation. Instead make the mission limited to a certain number of players/ships using point systems like the alliance tournaments, and have you earn more LPs/ISK if you go under.
And to prevent camping of the accel gates, have each side have there own gate.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 21:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Faife
Edited by: Faife on 22/07/2008 21:25:42
oh, like i'm the only who fantasized about kamikaziing a hauler filled with ammo into a remote repping ball of BSes
not to say this has anything to do with the OP, but it'd be awesome
hehheheheh 
yes 
|
Wannabehero
Caldari
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 22:01:00 -
[15]
To get rid of blobs you are going to need to provide players with either an incentive or a penalty.
In any situation where players can freely bring more ships, they will. It is just common sense to outnumber your enemy.
Many ways to reduce blobbing have been discussed over the years on these forums. Some more common ideas include placing a hard limit on the number of ships players can bring into an area (difficult in broad game mechanics, typically a bad idea), placing attribute penalties on ships in overly large fleets on the same grid (most associated with ships sensors or guns), and area-of-effect weaponry.
Of these, I believe area-of-effect weaponry has the most promise to help disperse large blobs, but CCP has shown that it is difficult to introduce systems like these.
CCP introduced the bomb launcher for stealth bombers as an anti-blob measure, hoping it would discourage overly large fleets. Unfortunately the SB and their bombs have suffered horrible implementation and excessive pre-nerfing.
CCP introduced the projected ECM module for Motherships to disrupt large enemy fleets. Unfortunately this too has suffered excessively bad implementation and is largely ineffective.
CCP introduced the doomsday weapon for Titans. This module, while extremely powerful, has yet to discourage large fleet blobbing. Even back in the day when you didn't have to expose the Titan to danger and could remote detonate a doomsday, it failed to prevent blobs. Fleets learned how to survive the doomsdays, and the delay in being able to refire prevents a Titan from truly wiping out enemy fleets. In addition, the presence of the doomsday means that any force without one at its disposal can be freely blobbed, but bringing a blob of their own will mean having to face the enemy doomsday. Lets face it, even though they are more numerous today than ever, Titans are still none-to-common.
Personally, I believe the solution in preventing blobbing lies in stealth-bombers and the bomb launcher. If the range, power, and capability of bombs was increased to a level where they were a credible threat to a large fleet (read: can become the equivalent to a mini-doomsday device when used in numbers) then the incentive to not blob would be omnipresent. Doing this however would require an entire reworking of how stealthbombers function.
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
Elvis Freeman
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 22:14:00 -
[16]
wayout idea: Instead of gang bonii, what about gang penalties? With FW this is easy to implement, it could work like a stacking penalty on modules ---> the more pilots of the same faction in proximity of eachother (say 100k radius) the higher the penalties to speed and dps or whatnot.
This might encourage smaller gangs and even solo roaming.
???
profit 
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 23:12:00 -
[17]
I don't see what's wrong with bringing as many people into the fight as you can. In 0.0, part of the problem causing blobbing is the fact that everything can be moved anywhere quickly due to jump bridges, jump freighters and the like.
Besides, having penalties for numerical superiority is just stupid. Then the lower SP players wont get to fight.
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 23:14:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Elvis Freeman
wayout idea: Instead of gang bonii, what about gang penalties? With FW this is easy to implement, it could work like a stacking penalty on modules ---> the more pilots of the same faction in proximity of eachother (say 100k radius) the higher the penalties to speed and dps or whatnot.
This might encourage smaller gangs and even solo roaming.
???
profit
Even if it was a good idea, lag would make it impossible to pull off well. Think about it...100 pilots, all checking to see if 100 other pilots are within a certain distance every couple of seconds.
----------------
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 23:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Qduhaf
With pages and pages wasted on the symptoms its time to shift focus to the real issue: BLOBs.
Its pathetic that in a very dry spell of CCP generated news that we get articles highlighting BOB's blob anywhere anytime strategy.
CCP should introduce some areas where there are active measures to severly limit the effectiveness of blobs.
FW would be a good place to start - maybe cap plexs to FW players only, and limit number in at any one time, or introduce PVP missions that become something like a fight finder.
If you did this and made it something optional then you could introduce a system that made it fast to find a fight that was close to even, and doesn't have any incentive to get 20 man t2 nano gangs or 50 noobs together. Of course this wouldn't cahnge any of the plyer based content in 0.0 and low sec game play outside of the fight area, everyone that wants to play those games could continue to do so.
Introducing a fight finder (eg PVP missions) would also highlight those corps that really are good pvpers, from those that just have unlimited game play time to find ganks.
Citizens of EVE need to focus their direction to the real issues, and stop complaining about the Symptoms
Eve is too complex of a game to have even fights. The skillpoint system eliminates that from being possible at all.
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 23:59:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Qduhaf on 23/07/2008 00:00:25
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
I don't see what's wrong with bringing as many people into the fight as you can.
There are several problems with this (very natural) response. First is that lag will never be "fixed" if people just keep increasing fleet sizes. Last night had a very good 70 v 70 encounter, no lag. A year ago that would have been impossible, but its now not uncommon for 0.0 fights to now be several hundred per side with the results being totally unplayable.
Second problem is that there ends up being no fights at all outside of lopsided ganks. No matter what size your gang is, its hard to find something similar so you have lots of groups running from and after each other. And IÆd say that at least + of people are only looking for PVP engagements where they have 90% chance of success, often expecting no losses. Spending hours looking for fights is starting to be a drag.
As an example couple weeks ago was in a random FW gang, cruisers, hacs and recons. I was scouting in cloaky recon, and suggested that we should engage enemy fleet, FC didnÆt agree and we ended up cross jumping each other and both sides ran! Afterwards several guys on voice were chiding the opposing side for running when seconds earlier they were advocating that decision.
I wouldnÆt advocate any changes to 0.0 warfare, that should be the total sandbox environment for people that are hard core committed to EVE as an alternative reality. But FW offers opportunity to make bridge the gap between completely controlled PVE and total sandbox PVP.
|
Orogaldeo
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 00:00:00 -
[21]
EVE can be spelled without the final N
_________________________________
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 00:05:00 -
[22]
No we dont need battlegrounds crap in EVE.
|
Vasili vonHolst
Minmatar
Gargamel's Lair
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 00:53:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Vasili vonHolst on 23/07/2008 00:53:07
Originally by: Esmenet
No we dont need battlegrounds crap in EVE.
Your Avatar looks like a pecker. Edit: With a nose.
--->Movie: + Trillion damage to CareBear community--->LOL Pic: Mitnal R4pes! |
Aramova
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 05:41:00 -
[24]
CCP has such a thing to prevent blobing...
We like to call them Titans. 
________________________________
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 05:47:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Eve is too complex of a game to have even fights. The skillpoint system eliminates that from being possible at all.
Frigate only missions would mean that a 2 month old toon, would be at 90% of a all level 5 toon. Same for a 6-9 month toon in cruisers. At that point ship selection and modules is as important as skill points.
|
Artemis Rose
Eleckrostatik
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 05:49:00 -
[26]
Fight finder? 
Let me guess, we should assign a point system to account for the ship, ship fitting, pilot skills so each side has it fair. Lets make it pre-arranged so I can get my dose of perfectly portioned PvP before dinner!
The OP should either play some Counter Strike or maybe some Guild Wars?
__________________________________________________
Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space
Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat. |
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 06:22:00 -
[27]
The only solution that will actually bend people's will is to use a system cap, period.
This might result in people finding other ways to engage (several systems at once) or it might not, but every other "reasonable" artificial obstacle to blobbing is not likely to have an effect.
I'd rather have them fix lag TBH and yes, it can be done.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Novemb3r
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 07:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
The only solution that will actually bend people's will is to use a system cap, period.
This might result in people finding other ways to engage (several systems at once) or it might not, but every other "reasonable" artificial obstacle to blobbing is not likely to have an effect.
I'd rather have them fix lag TBH and yes, it can be done.
Hard caps will destroy the ability of smaller entities in 0.0 from ever achieving anything as the bigger alliances will just fill the system. No fight would ever happen because it would be stupidly lopsided odds unless you metagamed to a ridiculous level. You need to give people a reason to not clump. Trying to force it with caps just makes people exploit the caps to win.
-
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 18:56:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Artemis Rose
Fight finder?
Let me guess, we should assign a point system to account for the ship, ship fitting, pilot skills so each side has it fair. Lets make it pre-arranged so I can get my dose of perfectly portioned PvP before dinner!
The OP should either play some Counter Strike or maybe some Guild Wars?
I really don't see why more games don't appeal to the more casual gamers that want to play against other people not machines. Currently EVE mechanics make it really hard to get engagements unless they are lopsided ganks.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |