These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Discouraging blobbing without affecting the blob itself.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robyn Aurilen
Sanctuary of Shadows
#1 - 2014-07-31 00:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Robyn Aurilen
I've seen a lot of discussion about blobbing and how to discourage it, ranging from diminishing returns on damage as numbers in fleet increases to making it more difficult to get higher numbers of friendly pilots in a system. My issue with these if that they directly affect the power of bring more people, which logically should be a viable tactic.

My apologies if there's already a thread like this or exactly the same idea already up but the advanced search function seems to be broken right now and I'll probably forget if I wait for it to start working again.

I propose reducing the loot drop chance as the number of people on a killmail increases. This wouldn't directly affect the power of blobbing, but would reduce the rewards (loot) from simply bringing an overwhelming force to guarantee victory. I'd suggest having it follow a similar curve to turret falloff so that there isn't a hard limit after a certain amount, while also not affecting smaller 'blobs' (20-man gang against 5 can be considered) as much.

The reason for this is that generally the victor of a fight will stick around to hold the field and loot, funding either SRP if it's donated or personal income.

There are several considerations that need to be taken into account to make this viable and I'll try to list all the ones I can think of.


  1. Ganking. The loot drop reduction would have to be low enough at smaller numbers to not severely impact ganking. A meta4 catalyst can do about 13k damage in a 0.5 system before CONCORD gets it. This means that it take about 20-25 catalysts to gank a cargo-expanded freighter and 30-35 to gank a bulkhead-ed one. Obviously less for gank cruisers and taloses.

  2. Large fleet fights. a 200-man fleet against a 200-man isn't a blog, it's a fight, so the drop chance shouldn't be completely nerfed at that point, but should instead be balanced so the the reducedd drop chance is counter-acted by the increased number of ships dying.

  3. Larger or more powerful ships. If you aren't blobbing a lone titan someone's either doing something very right or very wrong. The same goes for taking, say T1 cruisers against a small fleet of HACs or a similar situation. In his scenario it's obvious that bringing more numbers is the way to go to defeat a force of superior ships


Feel free to point out any other scenarios this would affect, I gotta say I'm rather tired atm so probably missed a few.

I'll now attempt to deal with each of these scenarios.


  1. I fully think that a cargo-expanded freighter should be able to be ganked my meta3 or T2 catalysts without suffering a loot drop penalty. However in my personal opinion (feel free to disagree) the drop rate should decrease enough to discourage catalysts for tanked freighters, encouraging the use of gankier, more expensive ships. I'm not a ganker myself so can't comment on exatly how much it should/could be affected without seriously nerfing ganking, but I think that it shouldn't be as simple "bring more catas" to be able to gank those who've consciously tanked their ship to avoid being ganked.

  2. The answer to this one is simple, set a minimum drop rate, such as that as the number on the KM tends to infinity to the drop rate tends to, say 10% or something. This would mean that although in large-scale fight the potential loot would definitely be reduced it doesn't get to the point where there's no point in bringing more than a set amount on a fleet if you intend looting it. I'm far too lazy to actually work out a good value for this.

  3. As I said, blobbing against superior ships should be a viable tactic, and one that shouldn't be punished. I suggest that ships with T2 resists or larger hulls/T3s should have their drop rate drop at a shallower rate. This should be at such a rate that a comparable T1 fleet against a T2 should overall have the same drop rate. This would also mean that things like supers and titans, which are usually only lost in ganks with a comparatively small force (would still be enough to nerf the drop rate for smaller ships) or large fleet battles. In which case it only makes sense that the drop rate shouldn't be reduced.


Let me know what you all thinK! :)

tl;dr the more stuff that shoots something the less it drops

EDIT: I forgot about a lore explanation for T2/bigger ships not being affected as mucj. T2/3 ships have stronger hulls so if a lot of ships shooting it and happen to hit the module there's less chance of it getting destroyed. Bigger ships just have a smaller chance of getting their modules hit.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#2 - 2014-07-31 03:50:04 UTC
Do you even play eve?
Freighter ganking isn't a simple thing, just because it happens every now and then it doesn't mean it's easy.
No to more nerfs to ganking.

As for fleet fights they were never about loot and in most fights people dont even loot what they kill, you are just nerfing the income of new people who come after fights to loot.

Why are we even discussing titan loot.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#3 - 2014-07-31 05:10:52 UTC
The idea is interesting, but I would not go for complicated parameters..

Simply put, the more damage a ship has taken in a short amount of time, the more vaporized its content (cargo content and modules, as well as salvage value) is.

This would also applies to disproportionate strength, so a battleship head shooting a frig in one shot would not see any loot from the frig either.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4 - 2014-07-31 07:53:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
If you really want to attack the "N+1" gameplay people decry so often, then it's really simple.

Nerf logi ships and repair modules. Into the ground. The ability to completely and easily recover damage with more efficiency than damage can be dealt is the core problem with such gameplay. It leads to "all or nothing" whereby a fleet either wins and mostly survives, or is wiped out. In such circumstances, it is easier to just not take the fight at all.

If logi were nerfed, then a smaller fleet would stand to inflict some damage upon the larger group before dying themselves, and being able to inflict actual damage instead of just whelping would go a long way to encouraging people to fight when things aren't lined up in their favor. (of course, CCP won't actually do this, because Incursions are balanced around the current level of logi, and if they nerfed logi, CCP would likely not take the time to rebalance Incursions. Which means the Incursion guys would howl so loud it would throw the planet off its axis)

But talking about loot tables, like that means anything? No, that will not discourage large fleets in any real way.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2014-07-31 08:42:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you really want to attack the "N+1" gameplay people decry so often, then it's really simple.

Nerf logi ships and repair modules. Into the ground. The ability to completely and easily recover damage with more efficiency than damage can be dealt is the core problem with such gameplay. It leads to "all or nothing" whereby a fleet either wins and mostly survives, or is wiped out. In such circumstances, it is easier to just not take the fight at all.

If logi were nerfed, then a smaller fleet would stand to inflict some damage upon the larger group before dying themselves, and being able to inflict actual damage instead of just whelping would go a long way to encouraging people to fight when things aren't lined up in their favor. (of course, CCP won't actually do this, because Incursions are balanced around the current level of logi, and if they nerfed logi, CCP would likely not take the time to rebalance Incursions. Which means the Incursion guys would howl so loud it would throw the planet off its axis)

But talking about loot tables, like that means anything? No, that will not discourage large fleets in any real way.


The meta would just turn back to Alpha Fleets and your smaller fleet gets blapped off the field.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Robyn Aurilen
Sanctuary of Shadows
#6 - 2014-07-31 09:04:29 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Do you even play eve?
Freighter ganking isn't a simple thing, just because it happens every now and then it doesn't mean it's easy.
No to more nerfs to ganking.

As for fleet fights they were never about loot and in most fights people dont even loot what they kill, you are just nerfing the income of new people who come after fights to loot.

Why are we even discussing titan loot.


No, I play World of Warcraft and accidentally posted on the wrong forum. If we're being condescending, did you even read my post? Specifically the "not severely impact ganking" bit? The only way this adversely affects ganking is if the gank is done with a large number of cheap ships, like 50 multiboxed velators or something. Although I do personally think that the profitability threshold for ganking is a bit low atm due to the extremely low cost and effectiveness of T1 catalysts in relation to other ganking platforms (such as T2 catalysts!). This wouldn't make ganking any more difficult, would simply mean that ganking for profit needs a bit more potential for profit than it currently does if the loot chance is lowered significantly at the 20-person mark.

As for fleet fights you're right, they're never about loot. However one perk of winning a fight is getting to clear the field afterwards. A reduced loot chance isn't going to make anyone say "Oh no, we wont get the lewts if we blob so let's not!" but it might influence the decision, even if only a little. IMO the way to discourage blobbing is gentle nudges rather than some people's ideas of flat-out nerfing. And yes, it will nerf the income of random looters, but to be honest I really don't care (sorry Captoo).

Titan loot's just an aside that naturally rises out of the idea that it makes sense to blob certain ships.


Saisin wrote:
*snip*


While I do really love your idea, in practice that would be a major, major nerf to alpha ganking for profit. The only way to reliably alpha an industrial is with a 'nado, for frigates it's a rupture so your idea would mean the only way to alpha gank would be to arty thrasher swarm.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#7 - 2014-07-31 11:37:56 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you really want to attack the "N+1" gameplay people decry so often, then it's really simple.

Nerf logi ships and repair modules. Into the ground. The ability to completely and easily recover damage with more efficiency than damage can be dealt is the core problem with such gameplay. It leads to "all or nothing" whereby a fleet either wins and mostly survives, or is wiped out. In such circumstances, it is easier to just not take the fight at all.

If logi were nerfed, then a smaller fleet would stand to inflict some damage upon the larger group before dying themselves, and being able to inflict actual damage instead of just whelping would go a long way to encouraging people to fight when things aren't lined up in their favor. (of course, CCP won't actually do this, because Incursions are balanced around the current level of logi, and if they nerfed logi, CCP would likely not take the time to rebalance Incursions. Which means the Incursion guys would howl so loud it would throw the planet off its axis)

But talking about loot tables, like that means anything? No, that will not discourage large fleets in any real way.


The meta would just turn back to Alpha Fleets and your smaller fleet gets blapped off the field.


That statement makes zero sense. Alpha is important precisely because ships can be repped up, to destroy them in one tick or they'll get repped back to full.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2014-07-31 11:48:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:

The meta would just turn back to Alpha Fleets and your smaller fleet gets blapped off the field.


That statement makes zero sense. Alpha is important precisely because ships can be repped up, to destroy them in one tick or they'll get repped back to full.


Alpha fleets almost disappeared simply because you can tank ships to withstand 1 or 2 volleys and then be repped back to full hit points. This is the case with a couple of carriers or enough Guardians or Basilisks. Instead of Alphaing ships, it's in my experience more common these days to wear them off with sustained DPS or constant , high frequency target switching. With the current repair capabilities gone, you can again just volley ships off the field and fights turn again into the more pronounced 1 or 0 fights: either you can win from the start or you don't take the fight, either you have a short blapfest or barely any fight. With the current repair capabilities, however, you have the chance for prolonged fights and to get more people and material involved.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#9 - 2014-07-31 12:17:17 UTC
Robyn Aurilen wrote:

No, I play World of Warcraft and accidentally posted on the wrong forum. If we're being condescending, did you even read my post? Specifically the "not severely impact ganking" bit? The only way this adversely affects ganking is if the gank is done with a large number of cheap ships, like 50 multiboxed velators or something. Although I do personally think that the profitability threshold for ganking is a bit low atm due to the extremely low cost and effectiveness of T1 catalysts in relation to other ganking platforms (such as T2 catalysts!). This wouldn't make ganking any more difficult, would simply mean that ganking for profit needs a bit more potential for profit than it currently does if the loot chance is lowered significantly at the 20-person mark.

20-person mark.

Okay, that would work if this was before freighter buff but now you can get some freighters to 540k ehp and JF can reach 1090k ehp meaning 20 man gang WILL NOT KILL IT.

Yeah I will be condescending because you clearly don't know this business but because you got ganked you are butthurt and want it nerfed so you can autopilot in your freighter and get away with it.

Loot changes will not make eve more fun, more balanced or more diverse game.

This proposition is stupid and I will not sugar coat it.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Robyn Aurilen
Sanctuary of Shadows
#10 - 2014-07-31 12:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Robyn Aurilen
Arya Regnar wrote:
Robyn Aurilen wrote:

No, I play World of Warcraft and accidentally posted on the wrong forum. If we're being condescending, did you even read my post? Specifically the "not severely impact ganking" bit? The only way this adversely affects ganking is if the gank is done with a large number of cheap ships, like 50 multiboxed velators or something. Although I do personally think that the profitability threshold for ganking is a bit low atm due to the extremely low cost and effectiveness of T1 catalysts in relation to other ganking platforms (such as T2 catalysts!). This wouldn't make ganking any more difficult, would simply mean that ganking for profit needs a bit more potential for profit than it currently does if the loot chance is lowered significantly at the 20-person mark.

20-person mark.

Okay, that would work if this was before freighter buff but now you can get some freighters to 540k ehp and JF can reach 1090k ehp meaning 20 man gang WILL NOT KILL IT.

Yeah I will be condescending because you clearly don't know this business but because you got ganked you are butthurt and want it nerfed so you can autopilot in your freighter and get away with it.

Loot changes will not make eve more fun, more balanced or more diverse game.

This proposition is stupid and I will not sugar coat it.


Yes, you're entirely right. I got ganked and want to nerf ganking because of it. Totally. I took my freighter that I can totally fly and didn't get shot by faction police and instead got shot by players and wahh wahh wahh.

In case you haven't noticed that was sarcasm. Since you apparently can't read I'll repeat myself again: I do not want ganking to be nerfed as a whole. The effect on ganking was actually an after-thought, when I realised the potential impact it could have. The 20-person mark is based on meta4 catalysts ganking a cargo-fit freighter. Admittedly that might be of a low threshold, maybe having it as however many meta3 catalysts to gank an unfit freighter or meta4 catas to hit a tanked one would be better. It'd simply mean that you get less of a reward for using a larger number of cheaper ships instead, like meta0 catalysts. Bear in mind that catalysts aren't the only ganking ship and taloses do a lot more damage so wouldn't be as affected (if at all). As for your comment about JFs having an even more ridiculous EHP, I'm guessing you missed the part where I said ships with T2 resists would be less affected?

I never claimed loot changes would do any of that, you're simply making straw-men now. If you think the idea's stupid would you mind saying why, instead of ignoring everything I say, substituting your own random nonsense and attacking that instead?

EDIT: to add to this, personally what I'd consider the sweet spot for the threshold would be enough meta4 catas to gank a cargo-fit or enough vexors to gank a tanked one or somewhere in-between, with a bit of leeway to account for not every ganker having perfect skills and damage application. I do think that using a mass swarm of less effective ships should yield less of a reward though, since literally anything's profitably gankable with enough free noobships ;)
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#11 - 2014-07-31 18:11:15 UTC
In the end this is pointless because CCP will never do it.
They are not that stupid.

Good riddance.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2014-07-31 18:27:39 UTC
How about a change where more than one rep on the same ship cancels out or creates destructive interference...stops instant full rep but still leaves value in the blob as a tactic.
Servian Scargotti
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-07-31 19:58:08 UTC
The OP's suggestion wins my nomination for Terrible Idea of the Year Award. For new players, blobs are the only way we can fight and win battles. New players need numbers to counteract the higher skill and fittings of more experienced players. Nullifying blob warfare will discourage noobs from ever undocking at all. If you want to discourage ganking, buff the defense, agility, warp speed, etc. of the primary target ships of gankers. Even still, ganking is a key source of entertainment value for some Eve players, so it really comes down to who you want CCP to make happier, and who to hurt.
Robyn Aurilen
Sanctuary of Shadows
#14 - 2014-08-01 01:37:41 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
How about a change where more than one rep on the same ship cancels out or creates destructive interference...stops instant full rep but still leaves value in the blob as a tactic.


I quite like the thought of that one, but imo there should always be a benefit to bringing more so not sure how I feel about directly nerfing the effectiveness of each extra logi. Thing is, I really can't think of any other ways to deal with it lol.

Servian Scargotti wrote:
The OP's suggestion wins my nomination for Terrible Idea of the Year Award. For new players, blobs are the only way we can fight and win battles. New players need numbers to counteract the higher skill and fittings of more experienced players. Nullifying blob warfare will discourage noobs from ever undocking at all. If you want to discourage ganking, buff the defense, agility, warp speed, etc. of the primary target ships of gankers. Even still, ganking is a key source of entertainment value for some Eve players, so it really comes down to who you want CCP to make happier, and who to hurt.


I think you might be talking about the wrong OP then, since as I stated several times, I don't want blob warfare to go away. As I said like 3 times it has its place in certain scenarios. I simply want it to be discouraged as the go-to strategy. The whole "Oh, 20-man fleet in our territory? Drop a 100-man fleet with a bajillion falcons on them!" line of thinking. Basically I'm trying to think of any way I can to promote teh gud fites. I'm not even gonna bother repeating myself about the ganking bit.