| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
The Antikythera Mechanism
   |
Posted - 2009.01.27 20:43:00 -
[31]
indirect fire could solve the issue on its own.
you can't blob if by doing so, you risk hitting your own fleet-mates. |
Glenntwo
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 21:02:00 -
[32]
More ships > fewer ships
Line of fire would not change this formula. If you dont have line of sight just move your ship a bit or wait for the ship in front of you to die, then open up.
AOE attacks: Sweet now the bigger fleet can aoe down the smaller fleet even faster.
You need a different game mechanic that would give a reason to form smaller gangs and take the fight to the enemy that is viable. Currently small gangs cant attack posses so they cant effect sovereignty. Untill you adress this issue all these other ideas dont matter. |
Justice Starcatcher
H A V O C
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 21:28:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Glenntwo
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 canĘt 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
We need something like this. Having an attainable goal for small fleets would create an opportunity for small gangs. I would say blobing is not the problem, but having blobs as the only meaningful impact. CCP tried to do something like this with targetable outpost functions. Though this may indicate CCP has an odd idea of what is a small fleet.
What the... |
Glenntwo
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 22:25:00 -
[34]
Faction warfare is great in that you see people participating and making a difference in everything from a solo T1 frig, destroyer gangs, cruiser/bc's,Hacs, and Bs gangs.
Anyone can make a difference in any type of ship or gang size and they all have a role.
The thing that keeps it from being compeling is a reason to care. You dont gain or loose anything by conquering systems.
If this system was introduced or adapted to 0.0 its key missing ingrediant would be filled as people would be compelled to participate to defend their space or conquer others. Faction warfare would become a training ground for future 0.0 players and corps. The variety and pace of pvp in 0.0 would be increased greatly.
|
Cory II
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 22:57:00 -
[35]
Blobbing is only effective because of the choke point they can gather on top of. Jumping from a gate in another system to within 15Km of any destination normally warpable in the target system would split them up and put an end to the newly revived complaints about warp-to-zero.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar
Kernel of War
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 00:58:00 -
[36]
Idea #5 : ramming. |
Blastil
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 01:15:00 -
[37]
Let me clear up a common misconception:
When we say Blob, we counjure up an image of this huge pile of BSes all stacked on top of each other, and glitchy fire coming from this mass of ships. Its really not that way. Gang warp actually spaces your blob out quite nicely. Spacing, grouping and organization have nothing to do with eve warfare, or blob warfare. All weapon collision and ramming damage would do is create an annoyance or an exploitable mechanic. What WOULD be a great way to face down blobs, or at least break them up would be any of the following:
Off Grid Artillery: Would force blobs to break up to seek and destroy this artillery before it would rip them apart.
multiple simultanious objectives: Forces POS bashing gangs to break apart to engage multiple pos sites. Possibly a bigger encouragement to blob warfare because it would ask for 2 heavily defended spots to be simultaniously blobed by TWO 100 man gangs.
Deadspace Combat/Wormholes: Limits mass/ship numbers that can be pushed through that particular gate for that interval.
Better fleet command control: Enabling fleets to merge more effectively, organize better on the battlefield, and communicate better through the eve client than through TS or Vent would go a long way towards making small gang warfare better. As it stands, the most effective way to organize a gang in game is through balling everyone together like yarn, instead of spreading them out, or knitting something useful from the yarn that you have.
Battlefields: Areas in space that offer tangible bonuses to small and fast gangs only. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 14:26:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Blastil
multiple simultanious objectives: Forces POS bashing gangs to break apart to engage multiple pos sites. Possibly a bigger encouragement to blob warfare because it would ask for 2 heavily defended spots to be simultaniously blobed by TWO 100 man gangs.
They tried to do this with attackable station services and pos guns but this sort of failed. Attackable services just gave small ships a way to harass people living in stations and POS guns are still best attacked by capitals and BS. I think you hit the nail on the head there with making the multiple objectives simultaneous. For example, rather than a Cyno jammer being a POS module, it could be a standalone module anchored in space. But it would be unlockable until you'd disabled its stealth field generators by hacking them, up to four of which would be placed at different safespots in the system. All this would do is take a bit of extra time but if you made them simultaneous objectives, it would take co-ordination and a split fleet. For example, the generators could reboot after 60 seconds if any other generator is online, giving you a 60 second window in which to disable/hack the generators.
That's just an example but I really think multiple simultaneous objectives in PvP is something EVE would benefit from. We saw some of this kind of co-ordination and spreading out in early FW with plexing fleets forming wings of small ships to tackle different sized plexes and it was great. But I think we should be FORCED to do that kind of thing to succeed. I expecially like that hacking could serve a better role if you had to hack installations in multiple star systems at the same time to unlock a gate or something.
|
Gambuk
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 14:46:00 -
[39]
Has anyone read Ender's Game? Dr. Device!
I want that weapon :)
|
Greup
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 14:48:00 -
[40]
Heh. I also play Warhammer online. The discussion is the same there but with characters instead of ships. How do we awoid the Zerg? A bigger Zerg always beat the lesser one. We need more battles with skills dominant instead of just numbers of players deciding the outcome of the battle. :) They dont have a good answer either.
On the other hand RL is like that. The bigger force always beat the lesser one.
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:15:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Greup
Heh. I also play Warhammer online. The discussion is the same there but with characters instead of ships. How do we awoid the Zerg? A bigger Zerg always beat the lesser one. We need more battles with skills dominant instead of just numbers of players deciding the outcome of the battle. :) They dont have a good answer either.
On the other hand RL is like that. The bigger force always beat the lesser one.
high damage indirect fire weapons (machine guns) beat the zerg.
high damage AOE weapons (artillery) also beat the zerg.
implement those, both games won't have blobbyzergies anymore
|
Squably
Minmatar
Invenio Inceptum
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:20:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Greup
Heh. I also play Warhammer online. The discussion is the same there but with characters instead of ships. How do we awoid the Zerg? A bigger Zerg always beat the lesser one. We need more battles with skills dominant instead of just numbers of players deciding the outcome of the battle. :) They dont have a good answer either.
On the other hand RL is like that. The bigger force always beat the lesser one.
Not always correct those special task forces manage to do a lot o damage to big armies with just a few
Signature removed. Please do not imply profanity in your signature. Navigator
|
Greup
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:33:00 -
[43]
Warhammer online is a fantasy MMO. my use of the word zerg is local dialect of WAR. I know that it originated in another game but its used to describe the locust behaviour of large bands of player chars.
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:55:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 28/01/2009 15:56:04
Faife, you suffer from a severe case of wishfull thinking.
All your ideas don't aim to a reduction of the Blob. All it does is spread it a bit on the same grid.
IT's very simple, really:
XXX > XX
It's a natural law, you just can't fight it unless you start speaking about instances, and we won't have that.
------------------------------------------
|
Glenntwo
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:59:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Glenntwo on 28/01/2009 16:00:33
Originally by: Greup
Warhammer online is a fantasy MMO. my use of the word zerg is local dialect of WAR. I know that it originated in another game but its used to describe the locust behaviour of large bands of player chars.
Zerg is one of the races in starcraft that often tries to overrun its opponent with overwhelming numbers(zerglings).
Dark age of cammelot had an answer to the zerge. Multiple smaller objectives that if taken would weaken the larger ones to the point where a much smaller force could take the larger objectives. With good field commanders smaller groups of players could out maneuver a single larger force and end up victorious.
Battles would often escalate over hours or even days as a single small force started an offensive and a small force was sent out to counter. The 2 sides would snow ball and grow in size over time till you had 2 or 3 massive armies running around trying to out maneuver one another.
If there were small conquerable objectives, like plexes in fac war, but out in 0.0 that when taken would say increase pos fuel burn rate, weaken guns/force fields on pos's, or some other penalty to the defending force then small groups if left unchecked could cause a lot of damage. Docking up or sitting inside a pos forcefield should have a major penalty to the defending force if they dont at some point defend.
If done right forming a giant 300 man fleet would be an ineffective defence against a number of smaller roaming gangs.
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:36:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Shadowsword
Edited by: Shadowsword on 28/01/2009 15:56:04
Faife, you suffer from a severe case of wishfull thinking.
All your ideas don't aim to a reduction of the Blob. All it does is spread it a bit on the same grid.
IT's very simple, really:
XXX > XX
It's a natural law, you just can't fight it unless you start speaking about instances, and we won't have that.
i dont know about you, but having lots of small gangs working together on a giant grid sounds awesome to me, way more so than the current fleet battle mechanic
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:55:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Shadowsword
IT's very simple, really:
XXX > XX
It's a natural law, you just can't fight it unless you start speaking about instances, and we won't have that.
i dont know about you, but having lots of small gangs working together on a giant grid sounds awesome to me, way more so than the current fleet battle mechanic
And far too complex to manage to be workable. The KISS principle apply.
------------------------------------------
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 19:09:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Shadowsword
And far too complex to manage to be workable. The KISS principle apply.
only if KISS isn't suicide.
we already don't BS charge titans cause we know a triple DD is coming, even though a BS charge is by far the KISSiest idea. same idea.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 19:22:00 -
[49]
This really just sounds like someone who is unable to wrap his head around effective FCing. Now, that isn't something to be ashamed of, not everyone can be a great FC. However, anything more complex would in fact make it harder for those people.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Drenad
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 19:26:00 -
[50]
new bomb for stealth bombers that you could shoot from range with large enough aoe and enough damage to make a difference. illeagal in high sec, concord would pop you and low sec sentries would shoot you if you had one with you./ or launcher for current bombs so you could shoot them from range and same applications in high/low sec.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 17:30:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Nyphur on 29/01/2009 17:31:16
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
This really just sounds like someone who is unable to wrap his head around effective FCing. Now, that isn't something to be ashamed of, not everyone can be a great FC. However, anything more complex would in fact make it harder for those people.
I noticed about 30 minutes into the first big faction warfare fleet that if you introduce a complicated new mechanic to fleets, the commanders quickly learn to cope with it. Most of the tasks are described a few times and then just handed out. After a few weeks, it's second nature. Now I know that if you absolutely had to split a gang's focus up in every fleet, that would mean a lot more work for FCs and might necessitate sub-FCs etc. But would that be so bad for specialised fleets like ones assaulting a system? We already have squads/ships in a fleet with special purposes like scouts, snipers, tacklers, DPS and EW. Would it be so much harder if you had to bring a hacking squad that would independantly co-ordinate the shutdown of enemy cyno jammers or something? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |