EVE Search - prediction: end to mass-blob warfare next year

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

prediction: end to mass-blob warfare next year

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.27 04:38:00 - [1] we take blobbing for granted in EVE, but i have a feelng we'll look back at this period of time as an exception, rather than the rule. as CCP progresses in their fight against the lag beast, they can start implementing more cpu and bandwidth intensive weapon systems that will render the giant balls of battleships we love to hate, not only obsolete, but suicidal to clarify, since "blob" is relative, in this case "blob" means the 0.0 fleet setup of 100+ bses, with large number smaller support, and not really the 20 person or so low sec/syndicate gangs. predictions: area of effect weapons indirect fire weapons ship explosions better formation control area of effect weapons the most obvious anti-blob tool. the idea is to make it possible to wipe out multiple close packed ship, with the same effort that it would take out a single spread apart ship. we already have two such weapons, so we know it's possible: the SB bomb launcher and the smartomb. unfortunately they're pretty ineffective in real world applications, with both having too small a range to be at all useful in fleet combat. the potential is there nevertheless. torpedoes in particular used to be a semi-functional one, but got nerfed cause of lag. basically, this solution creates a new high slot weapon placed onto old ships that does smaller damage against single ships, but allows hitting multiple targets. incidentally, the doomsday device is a funny case here, btw. the range is so high that it's not much of a deterrent for blobbing BSes together, other than to give them enough space to align out without bumping. it's too effective an AOE weapon since to avoid blobs indirect fire weapons even more cpu intensive would be indirect fire weapons. currently if a gun misses, the colossal high velocity round just magically disappears. this could be tracked and have a chance to hit nearby ships. it would be a slight benefit for smaller and same class ships, but the low tracking dreadnoughts could now start just shootingn "into the ball" of battleships and hope they hit one. in other words, this solution wouldn't create a new weapon type, but would effectively give a new role to old ship that was formerly useless against smaller ships. ship explosions add a feature that causes damage to ships in range, based on what modules got blown up on the ship. make this strong enough and ranged enough that ships do not clump to concentrate fire and outweights benefits of remote repping. advanced fleet control finally, create better systems for controlling fleets. currently, the primary reason we blob is cause it's easy. you want to bring 300 people to a fight? even in "elite alliances" it's still a nightmare getting everyone aligned to the right place, at the right time, and warping at the same time at the right distance. the idea is allow that whole part of the fleet tree to work independently: fleet, wing, squad and all. let leaders plan out in-system waypoints that are seen, and can be interacted with, by fleet members. to let different wings and squads take different routes to target, set up for different roles. create an alternative to just 300 person ball with identical fittings that all desperately tries to shoot the same single target. oh, notably absent from this list is ship collisions for damage. while it would definitely be an incentive to not blob your ships together, the amount of griefing this could lead to would greatly outweigh any gameplay advantages it could provide so yeah, anyways, this is really an extended rant that amounts to the prediction: as servers and clients speed up, we'll see cool anti-blob stuff show up and blobs will become "lolnoob" mistakes.
Gallente Citizen4468833 Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.01.27 04:46:00 - [2] ..Ilikeem, only thing i need explained is what happens if a indirect shell from a gun hits a neutral? in high sec?
Ocih Amarr	Posted - 2009.01.27 04:49:00 - [3] Ganking is an MMO trademark. If your alliance has 300 people on when the fleet invite goes up, there will be blob x'ing. It's part of the social structure of the platform. Maybe if they move away from POS control and nerf out fleet caps so you have several fleets working on parts of an Ops but it will still mean one node is very busy. Maybe they need to try and milk the hardware for more performance because dumbing down each expansion to address lagg is counter productive.
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.27 04:52:00 - [4] Originally by: Ocih Ganking is an MMO trademark. If your alliance has 300 people on when the fleet invite goes up, there will be blob x'ing. It's part of the social structure of the platform. Maybe if they move away from POS control and nerf out fleet caps so you have several fleets working on parts of an Ops but it will still mean one node is very busy. Maybe they need to try and milk the hardware for more performance because dumbing down each expansion to address lagg is counter productive. the pos part is a problem in current mechanics. it takes 200+ battleships to offline a well resisted pos in a reasonable amount of time. however they already said they're redoing the sov system so not too worried there
Stab Wounds Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2009.01.27 05:00:00 - [5] Stop whining and get some friends loser.
Soporo Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.01.27 05:02:00 - [6] If AOE / SB bomb type weapons become commonplace and more effective then it could be the biggest drone nerf to date (unless they include incredibly lame expl velocity/radius similar to what most missiles now have). I somehow doubt all that you describe will take place within a year. What reason? Nothing other than watching the glacial slowness of game change/ballance over the years, interspersed with occasional and ludicrous wtfaretheythinking?? nerfs and boosts.
Cyprus Black Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.01.27 05:28:00 - [7] Maybe there's an easier solution. Perhaps a new type of ship with all new combat mechanics. A ship that overwhelmingly excels against large blobs, yet sucks on its own. I dunno. Maybe allow the use of a DD on a smaller ship. ______________ Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.27 05:28:00 - [8] Originally by: Stab Wounds Stop whining and get some friends loser. do pets count?
Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.01.27 05:32:00 - [9] Originally by: Faife Originally by: Stab Wounds Stop whining and get some friends loser. do pets count? They count as 3/5 of a friend. ------ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
Farret	Posted - 2009.01.27 11:58:00 - [10] Originally by: Khemul Zula Originally by: Faife Originally by: Stab Wounds Stop whining and get some friends loser. do pets count? They count as 3/5 of a friend. So get 5 pets and you have 3 friends. AWESOME! Bugs count as pets right?
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.27 15:30:00 - [11] Originally by: Farret So get 5 pets and you have 3 friends. AWESOME! Bugs count as pets right? only if they pay rent for their POSes
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.01.27 15:49:00 - [12] I dont care how unlaggy and how many area of effect weapons they come out with etc... 300 v 300 battles and such are ******ed and I never want any part in them in eve ever again, as such I loath ever being in a nullsec alliance again. If we can maybe find some way to keep the average fleet wars down to around 20 v 20 that'd be nice. "OH NO SHUTTUP 5PIN NOOB, I WANT 1000 v 1000 EPIC FESTS!" NO U! GO PLAY STARCRAFT 2 IF YOU WANT TO ZAP EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE WITH BIG BLOB OF BATTLESHIPS. I see even some of the oldest veterans completely lose some of their touch and skill over time because all they've done for years is FC giant blobs and point and click.
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.01.27 15:53:00 - [13] Me swaps the words around on an old joke Decent PvP is like air, it's not important unless you aren't getting any.
NSSQUAD	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:04:00 - [14] I always wanted to see a ship like battle star gallactica that just shoots so much gun fire one way anything including other missiles ordinance are smashed to pieces. I think that would stop your blob's
Rhaegor Stormborn R.U.S.T. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:11:00 - [15] I hope you are right OP! I hope you are right.
Buga Buga Sajuuk Fleet	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:14:00 - [16] I so like the kamika..errr.. ship explosion thingie :D
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:15:00 - [17] Some nice ideas by the OP there. I particularly like the indirect fire and ship explosion ideas. The former does have issues with neutrality and whether Concord would allow such 'accidental' fire. The latter does allow for the 'fireships' principle, where suicide ships can cause damage to the oppostion. The only trouble with that is that those individuals who are swimming in ISK could use them like missiles, and those without ISK would be annihilated.
Zitus	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:18:00 - [18] Originally by: Farret Originally by: Khemul Zula Originally by: Faife Originally by: Stab Wounds Stop whining and get some friends loser. do pets count? They count as 3/5 of a friend. So get 5 pets and you have 3 friends. AWESOME! Bugs count as pets right? No. Sorry. =( (I too have a lot of bugs...)
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:24:00 - [19] You do realise that all attempts at area effect weapons have failed to counter blobbing, right? A blob is NOT when you get a bunch of ships in a physically small space, it's just a fleet of hundreds of ships. They don't necessarily have to be physically proximal so area effects aren't effective at counteracting them. The reason people blob is that it's always, absolutely more effective to bring more pilots than fewer. Short of a nerf to concentrated fire, that isn't going to change any time soon no matter what indirect fire weapons, area effects or formation controls are implemented. The biggest changes on the horizon for EVE to help with this are actually wormhole systems, where the wormholes will have a limit to the total mass of ships they can allow in. This will make it best to bring a small number of specialised ships. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:28:00 - [20] Originally by: Nyphur You do realise that all attempts at area effect weapons have failed to counter blobbing, right? A blob is NOT when you get a bunch of ships in a physically small space, it's just a fleet of hundreds of ships. They don't necessarily have to be physically proximal so area effects aren't effective at counteracting them. The reason people blob is that it's always, absolutely more effective to bring more pilots than fewer. Short of a nerf to concentrated fire, that isn't going to change any time soon no matter what indirect fire weapons, area effects or formation controls are implemented. The biggest changes on the horizon for EVE to help with this are actually wormhole systems, where the wormholes will have a limit to the total mass of ships they can allow in. This will make it best to bring a small number of specialised ships. numbers are always an advantage. the idea is to force the teams to go from a 300 person sphere, into many small gangs fighting semi-independently, dig?
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2009.01.27 16:37:00 - [21] Originally by: Faife numbers are always an advantage. the idea is to force the teams to go from a 300 person sphere, into many small gangs fighting semi-independently, dig? I perfectly understand that, but area effect weaponry won't achieve this. That sphere idea was the thrust of the devblogs on blobbing when bombs were released. They called it a "powerball" and at the time I explained the misconception and said bombs wouldn't make a difference. And true enough, bombs didn't make a damn difference to blobs. Unless the AOE weapon has a massive MASSIVE range, you're not guaranteed to hit an entire fleet. Ships in a blob are simply not guaranteed to be close enough to each other to be vulnerable to AOE weapons. In fact, if a fleet's set up at a gate they're more effective if they're spread out than if they're all on the same spot. If you want a fleet to split into squadrons, it'll have to be more effective for it to do so than to just concentrate fire from the whole fleet. Currently, the only reason to split a fleet into squadrons that pick separate targets is when most of the targets will be unable to lock the primary target before he's destroyed. I've been a long-time advocate of a properly balanced nerf to concentrated fire or concentrated lock times which would make splitting into squadrons more effective than concentrating all pilots on one target at a time. In fact, I first suggested that in 2005. But you have to see
WarlockX Amarr Free Trade Corp	Posted - 2009.01.27 18:09:00 - [22] Blobing is a mathematical LAW. It will never change because 2>1. When blobing is "fixed" then gravity will also be "fixed" ----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page "Nothing about Eve should be easy. Not even ganking." -Rhohan
Random Elite Caldari R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.27 18:46:00 - [23] I have been an advocate of exploding ships damaging neighboring ships for a while. I think this is an added effect that would be very realistic. If you think about how large a battleship is compared to anything we know in these times, one of those exploding would be enormous. But, as pointed out by someone else, it would not stop blobs. It would only force them to make sure no one is too close to each other. Now, you could elaborate this a bit more and have proximity effects. One thing I would like to see is not necessarily physical damage when a ship blows up, but maybe the explosion breaking the locks of its neighboring gang mates, as sort of an electromagnetic effect. This could have a decent range that could (theoretically) affect most of a gang. You could even go as far as saying that since this exploding ship's sensor array is tied into this entire fleet, all the ships in that fleet on the same grid will be affected. And it doesn't have to be lock, it could be range, cap recharge, or anything else. Granted, this would be complicated, and would probably require there to be at least some sort of counter, whether it be skill or module based. The idea of shells or missiles that miss their target hurting other ships is also a good idea. People have already mentioned Epire space and CONCORD's reaction. I think that in Empire, if someone misses and it hits a neutral, then that's simple collateral damage and CONCORD should not interfere. It would give a good reason for neuts to run when they see a fight happening outside of a station. The other thing not mentioned that I think should happen is a sort of stacking penalty for the amount of ships that have locked a single target. Everyone knows (well, 0.0 residents) what it's like to be called primary by a blob. Even if you think you've got a solid ass tank, all of a sudden you're in you clone bay. If you make it so that (somehow) the more ships that have locked a single ship, it is more likely that those that are firing will do less damage, and significantly less damage when there is a ton of ships. You'd be able to limit it down to ten ships or so locking a battleship. More than that, and the firing ships will do hardly any damage. This is not really make blobs go away, but it will really force the formation of squads, and hopefully prolong fight times, rather than having them last a long time due to constantly warping out, repping, warping in, locking, firing, warping out, repping and so on and so on. Then, of course, you'd also have to look at changing POS warfare, because as stated above, it can take 200 battleships to take out a well made deathstar.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.01.27 19:21:00 - [24] Originally by: Nyphur I've been a long-time advocate of a properly balanced nerf to concentrated fire or concentrated lock times which would make splitting into squadrons more effective than concentrating all pilots on one target at a time. In fact, I first suggested that in 2005. But surely you can see that area effect weapons won't have the same effect. I've seen some of those and I too have occasionally argued for a nerf along these lines. I have given up though since my experience has always been people positively freaking out at the notion and shouting me (and some few others) down. Frankly I could never get a sense of what, exactly, it was that bothered them so much beyond them hating the idea that their 300 battleships should own all. Ah well...keep trying. :)
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2009.01.27 19:39:00 - [25] Originally by: WarlockX Blobing is a mathematical LAW. It will never change because 2>1. When blobing is "fixed" then gravity will also be "fixed" Of course. The main issue associated with blobbing is that a larger fleet is ALWAYS more effective than a smaller one no matter the task, leaving almost no avenue of gameplay that can be dominated better by small gangs than large. The secondary issue to consider is whether or not the most effective form of gameplay in large fleets is altogether fun. I'd say the first issue is being turned on its head with wormholes, where due to the difficulty of getting a large number of people into a wormhole system, a group of highly specialised ships will be better than a large gang. The problem will still persist in normal fleet warfare but this may very well succeed in creating an alternative avenue of play where small gang warfare is king. Regarding that first issue in normal fleet play, a 200 man fleet with good co-ordination is almost twice as effective as a 100 man fleet and it's that linear scalability that causes a lot of complaints. It means whoever has the most pilots and the best FC usually wins, lag permitting, and tactics don't usually play a large part in the battle once it has begun. A large fleet is a scaled up version of a small fleet and has very few drawbacks. What I'd like to see is a few more drawbacks applied to large fleets that would disappear if they split up and spread out. For example, if somehow the warp speed of a large gang were slower than that of a small gang, it would encourage them to split up and would make small gangs more mobile than large fleets. However, in practice this is practically impossible to implement as you need to know which fleet a pilot belongs to without encouraging them to de-fleet to avoid the restriction. Realistically, I don't think blobbing is going anywhere. But I DO think CCP are working very hard to give solo and small gang warfare a place in EVE. Take Faction Warfare as an example. Solo play, small gang skirmishes and fleets of 20-80 are all viable and happen all the time. Granted, FW needs a lot of work done on it but it's done a lot for small gang warfare. Wormholes may be the best thing to ever happen to gang warfare and corporation-sized ownership of space.
BruisedMoon Amarr VICTIS-HONOR	Posted - 2009.01.27 19:57:00 - [26] <insert epic sigh here please k thanks> Ok first off, lets think about what a lot of us are saying... everyone wants modules or ships that are best for anti blob... yeah thats good... so they can blob up using anti blob weapons and ships.... mmmmmm... so now instead of one or two of your ships getting primaried... 5 or 10 of them are getting primaried... yeah CCP can I have a big tall glass of insta death to the max please? Look eletronic warfare more so caldari and gallente are whats met to be "anti blob" These ships efficently remove ships from the fight (on a 3:1 or 5:1 trade off. Thus in essence making the blob a bit more squishy. The problem comes with balance... how do you balance something like the falcon that was met to be taken in large 0.0 based fleet fights... and make it not totally lock down small 5-20 man gangs. Simply put, if some people would man up and decide to fly things like logistical ships and other serious "support" type ships, then it would be so bad and by support I mean things that have bonuses to support, not 20 hacs to help kill the little stuff... The trick is to improve your fleet efficiency and decrease the opposing forces. The problem is that the only way a lot of players know how to do this is by just bringing a lot of combat ships, another reason is cause thats all anyone flys. Blobbing isnt going anywhere...
Glenntwo	Posted - 2009.01.27 20:12:00 - [27] In faction war the sovereignty system largly involves a bunch of small gangs running around doing guerrilla warfare style fights and taking plexes. If they are successful this eventually unlocks a bunker to be attacked that normally gets (relatively) blobbed by battleships. When the bunker is destroyed the system is captured. Small fights the eventually lead to one large fight. If this system could somehow be adapted to 0.0 combat it would give small gangs a role in 0.0 warfare as it would be a key aspect of both offence and defense. Currently small fleets canÆt really accomplish a lot or force any fights. This could also diversify the types of engagements you see as many plexes have ship type restrictions. I think if more depth was added to the sovereignty system and it was done right you would see a far wider variety of combat in 0.0
permion	Posted - 2009.01.27 20:34:00 - [28] WarpInterferance. The more people that warp into a single area, the less accurate warp destinations are. End result: you could end up right on top of where you're supposed to in a small group, but when you start geting too many people warping to the same spot you'll have them coming in way off the field and in worse cases directly in the middle of the enemy lines. if you want to bring in a large number of people very fast you need to take the risk of them not coming in where you want them to. Or if you only fight over one area you'll have people warping in rather slowly so that they end up where they're supposed to (very interesting game math of: is it ok to warp now, if I wait too long an enemy will do so before me). give the cov-ops ships and science ships a nice module that let them dectect the amount of interferance in the area as well. that way they can guess how far off people warping into that area might end up. __________________ blobs are a sympton of predictability.
Shea Klant	Posted - 2009.01.27 20:40:00 - [29] The only way to get rid of blob warfare, or at least to marginalize it to the point of near uselessness will be to finally put line of sight in the game. No line of sight = no hit. Groups up to a certain size are an advantage, after that not so much. You don't have to have shots go off and blast some unsupecting neutral, just simply miss or skip a firing cycle if the locked target is blocked by another target. It would be nice if we could have true line of sight, but between the griefers and those that unable/refuse to update to modern hardware and a true broad band connection, it just isn't going to happen.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.01.27 20:40:00 - [30] Since I can't really put it much better than Nyphur already has (not without expending more effort than I care to right now), I'm just going to say to the OP : "prediction ? nah, more like wishful thinking..."

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

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