These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

should there be a counter to blobs? is the end game more ships = win?

First post
Author
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1 - 2011-10-15 19:17:29 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
this is my idea to counter blobs...

MeBiatch wrote:
off the top of my head if you want to counter the blob why not make stacking penitlies for attacking and RR?

that way its more then just shoot primary and so on its more tacktics to maximise your damage potential...

like two armies attack each other you dont have 500 tanks shooting just one tank you end up with a glory field of smaller combat and almost 1v1 on a massive level


edit make it sig radius based...
so you can still have an infinate amount of people shooting a titan... but it would not make sence to have an infinate amount of peole shooting a crusier...

something like the total amount of sig radius multiplied by 12 = the total amount of added up sig resolution before the damage gets deminished... same with rr...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#2 - 2011-10-15 19:20:07 UTC
Your idea is terrible, and increases the need for blobbing.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3 - 2011-10-15 19:21:03 UTC
Thomas Orca wrote:
Your idea is terrible, and increases the need for blobbing.


how so?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Alara IonStorm
#4 - 2011-10-15 19:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
My idea is to have a small fast special invisible ship that can fire a massive explosive canister that washes damage over their whole fleet then disappears. As a backup lets shove Battleship sized weapons on it.

To far fetched?
Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#5 - 2011-10-15 19:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Thomas Orca
MeBiatch wrote:
Thomas Orca wrote:
Your idea is terrible, and increases the need for blobbing.


how so?


The only mechanics that allow smaller gangs to beat larger ones are calling primaries and remote repping.

EDIT: and bombs, but they don't really count.
Thur Barbek
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-10-15 19:25:18 UTC
If you read the thread your quote came from youd see many reasons why not. Heres one:

in large battle, FC says, "quick, all frigates attack the titan... we need to increase its tank!"

how would you prevent me from firing on my own ships to increase their tank? This encourages more blobs of smaller ships to shoot your bigger ships for more tank.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#7 - 2011-10-15 19:30:04 UTC
i did not say how the stacking would work... i dont think it would be wise making it a set number then makes more damage obselete...

i am thinking more a sig radius mechanic...

so you can still ahve 1000 peeps shooting the titan but it wont make sence to shoot a frig with with more then 1-2 b's...

that way its way more open to tacktics then just primary and put a billion reps on that guy...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Alara IonStorm
#8 - 2011-10-15 19:42:30 UTC
Thur Barbek wrote:
If you read the thread your quote came from youd see many reasons why not. Heres one:

in large battle, FC says, "quick, all frigates attack the titan... we need to increase its tank!"

how would you prevent me from firing on my own ships to increase their tank? This encourages more blobs of smaller ships to shoot your bigger ships for more tank.


That's not how stacking penalties work.

X = your team, list in order of who attacked first.

Rifter X
Rifter X
Rifter X
Rifter X
Rifter X
Nighthawk
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Nighthawk
Drake

List in order of least dmg penalties to most.

Nighthawk
Nighthawk
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Drake
Rifter X
Rifter X
Rifter X
Rifter X
Rifter X

So you have a bunch of Rifters attacking your ship for no reason.


The real problem is Drones and Accuracy. If you do not count them as part of the combined ship DPS then Carriers and Domi's can do a ton of unstacked Dmg. If you do ships like Dreadnoughts that will soon be Droneless will miss Frigates while Warrior II's do from the ship they are attacking will do little Dmg. Does a Ship that looses half it's dmg in accuracy get lower penalties then a Ship that does 75% the Dmg and hits perfectly.

Those are the big issues.
T' Elk
Strategically Bad
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2011-10-15 19:50:53 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
My idea is to have a small fast special invisible ship that can fire a massive explosive canister that washes damage over their whole fleet then disappears. As a backup lets shove Battleship sized weapons on it.

To far fetched?

Sounds like a more useful stealth bomber.. :P

~Badposter since FOOOOREEEEEVAAAAAR~ I come back after 2 years to THIS? ~Now 4 years apparently

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#10 - 2011-10-15 19:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
There are already numerous "counters to blobs"; skills, equipment, fitting, fleet doctrines, teamwork, experience, preperation, spies, intel, scouts.

Usually though, when people ask for "counters to blobs" then what they actually mean is "I deserve an overpowered pwnmobile".

While I'm generally OK with there being an element of equipment and skill progression, there needs to be a limit to the ability to counter numbers with them. At some point, numbers do deserve to count. You're not entitled to win against numbers past that point just because you're prepared to spend more money.

EDIT: specifically your idea fails because it means that it's only worth bringing a certain number of people to a fight. So the best 20 guys (or however many) get to join fleet, and the less good guys always get left out. Basically you're killing off the "Even a 2 week player in a rifter can be useful" factor.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
#11 - 2011-10-15 20:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: the plague
In my opinion you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle because blobs are only a symptom of a much larger problem. Of course it ought to be very, very difficult for a small force to defeat a larger, better equipped force. Common sense dictates that. And aside from some very convoluted work-arounds, there isn't very much the developers can realistically do to alter that equation.

The problem isn't so much with the inability of small fleets to defeat larger ones, it's one of there not being relevant tasks suitable for small fleets to accomplish. Which is why I've written numerous times in the past that the current sovereignty system needs to be thrown out in its entirety. In its current form, sovereignty is nothing more than a glorified game of capture the flag with some convoluted timers thrown in just to add to the confusion. Sovereignty needs to be re-designed from the ground up as much more than a "go here and capture/destroy this" system. Taking and holding sovereignty ought to be a multifaceted undertaking that involves small fleets as well as large ones, and it ought to be designed to engage alliance members in interesting and challenging ways. Really, it's terrible game design the way it is now. It's boring, time consuming, and generally an unrewarding experience for the majority of gamers. People only do it as an means to an end, not because it's fun. Without even mentioning all its other flaws, that alone makes the current system a bad one.

Small fleet warfare ought not to be something that's artificially engineered, it ought to be something that occurs as a natural byproduct of the basic design of nullsec and the player-run organizations that operate there.

CCP needs to have the courage to follow its convictions and return EVE to its roots as an experience driven by player vs. player conflict. To do that, we need to flush the current system down the toilet and replace it with something deep, fun, and richly rewarding over time. A good start would be to take a look at how empires and superpowers exist in the real world and then extrapolate a few key gameplay mechanics. This ought to be a top priority for CCP as a truly excellent sovereignty system would do wonders for EVE as a game and attract players of ALL TYPES to nullsec.
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#12 - 2011-10-15 20:20:10 UTC
More and more powerful AoE weapons will be a useful weapon against blobs without being unrealistic or overpowered.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#13 - 2011-10-16 07:27:56 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
More and more powerful AoE weapons will be a useful weapon against blobs without being unrealistic or overpowered.



Awesome, let's wipe out all ships under a certain size class from the battlefield!

Can't bring a double DD-tanked BS? GTFO back to empire, noob!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Dalloway Jones
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2011-10-16 07:30:22 UTC
I loved the idea someone had a few months ago of ships doing AOE damage when they are destroyed.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#15 - 2011-10-16 07:33:54 UTC
Line of Sight is the answer you seak
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#16 - 2011-10-16 07:35:49 UTC
Dalloway Jones wrote:
I loved the idea someone had a few months ago of ships doing AOE damage when they are destroyed.


As a blaster pilot I find this idea horrid.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-16 07:57:02 UTC
The real issue with blobs is how hundreds of targets can attack a single one, insta-popping it.
If important internet spaceships were real, this would be terribly inefficient.
Stacking the damage or limiting the number of ships firing at once is a bit brute-force, and other changes should be made.

On land, if 50 musketeers had to inexplicably attack a tank they would surround it rather than grouping together and potentially all dying to a single shot. However, by surrounding it there's no way there can be 50 places of adequate cover where they can be protected by snipers/other tanks/orbital strikes from Russian Moon lasers/etc. Their cover choice is limited by musket range.
So, maybe only 25 musketeers could attack the tank efficiently. The rest will need to find another tank, which will be somewhere else on the battlefield. Or, well, they could all attack the tank and suffer greater causalities than necessary.

Somehow integrate that stupid analogy into EVE and there'll be improvement.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2011-10-16 08:16:14 UTC
what about,, hmm what about ..

ship which get destroyed doing some AoE dmg to all ships in certain radius .. You know reactor explosion and such ..

Wouldnt stop blobing but will add some needed maneuverability so there is not 5k ships at 10 square meters. Chain reaction at that point would be inevitable .. you shoot 60 ships and rest will just blow up cause of the increase heat in the area Big smile
Adunh Slavy
#19 - 2011-10-16 08:17:27 UTC
Need to change the way space works, the need to assault multiple things at once would help too.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-10-16 08:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Need to change the way space works, the need to assault multiple things at once would help too.


in other words fundamental change for sovereignty mechanics

But i know just little about that, so i leave it to those who knows. Probably Goons Big smile
12Next page