These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#21 - 2011-10-16 08:27:19 UTC
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
#22 - 2011-10-16 09:48:26 UTC
bombs need to work in high lag (this is a big one!!)
introduce t2 bombs and launchers
sniping needs to be viable again
perhaps nerf artillery aka the subcap dd
I'd rather they added objectives for small fleets like being able to attack moon mining arrays before making changes to the way sov warfare works
Kern Hotha
#23 - 2011-10-16 10:24:20 UTC
1. Scan resolution penalties as numbers increase, eventually preventing locks or randomly dropping them.
2. Ship collisions. Blobs would kill themselves.
3. Significant AoE damage from destroyed/self-destructed ships.

We distinguish the excellent man from the common man by saying that the former is the one who makes great demands upon himself, and the latter who makes no demands on himself.

Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883 - 1955)
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#24 - 2011-10-16 10:57:10 UTC
Moved from "EVE General Discussion".

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#25 - 2011-10-16 17:17:36 UTC
spitfire best fire imo :)

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Sigras
Conglomo
#26 - 2011-10-16 20:13:02 UTC
Line of sight is the answer but it would make the server die with calculations... And making ships do AOE damage when they below up is a nerf to pods and to blaster ships...

You have to think of Eve on a macro scale as an RTS game, and what stops blobs in an RTS? AOE damage that's great against blobs but not good against anything else... My thoughts is a T2 tier 3 battleship. Example bonuses of the amarrian one:

5% bonus to armor resistance and smartbomb CPU usage per Amarr battleship skill level
10% bonus to smartbomb optimal range and cap usage per ship specific skill level
Role Bonus: 50% resistance to EM smartbomb damage

Thoughts?
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2011-10-17 00:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sebastian N Cain
You are all on the wrong track.Twisted


Just look at the reason why the currently popular tactic of concentrating everything on a single target (be it for attack or support) would be incredibly stupid in RL.

If in an encounter of, say, 50 tanks vs 50 tanks one side would concentrate their fire while the other side does not, what would be the result? Now 49 completely fine tanks would face 50 damaged ones. Just in case you don´t even know that much: if -in RL- you belong to the latter group this is the moment when you make a "oh shlt"-face. And after very few salvos the damage would be crippling enough to decide the fight, meaning you have still -for example- 45 undamaged tanks left while the opponent that was operating with eve-tactics has lost all 50, 9 to 1 kill-loss ratio what began as an even fight.

However, in eve a ship will perform 100% even if its just 1 EHP away from exploding, meaning damaging a ship won´t do you any good, only sure kills will give you an advantage in fleet or gang fights, which means concentrating everything on one target is actually the most intelligent option for winning the fights.

If you want something more sophisticated tactics, you need damage to affect ships before they are destroyed, so that the side that leaves all the opponents ships unharmed just to kill one single target will put itself at a serious disadvantage. Same with RR, repping only one ship and leaving all the others damaged... not good.

There are several ways to make damage affect ships (reducing general stats like speed, agility, sensor strength the more damage comes in, or modules taking damage and getting destroyed, or whatever), which is the most practical would need to be looked into, but without such a feature you will not be able to change the current situation.Roll

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Darkdood
Estrale Frontiers
#28 - 2011-10-17 01:58:25 UTC
The is just AWESOME. I wrote 2000+ character in reply hit preview and it deleted everything I wrote. Whatever.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#29 - 2011-10-17 05:31:22 UTC
I want to see more strike force objectives instead of blobs, you know take out the system defense cannon that is going to make the blob have a really bad day.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2011-10-17 07:35:33 UTC
Kern Hotha wrote:
2. Ship collisions. Blobs would kill themselves.
3. Significant AoE damage from destroyed/self-destructed ships.


Yes please. I'll never leave the Jita 4-4 undock and make BILLIONS.
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-10-17 20:06:45 UTC
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
You are all on the wrong track.Twisted


Just look at the reason why the currently popular tactic of concentrating everything on a single target (be it for attack or support) would be incredibly stupid in RL.

If in an encounter of, say, 50 tanks vs 50 tanks one side would concentrate their fire while the other side does not, what would be the result? Now 49 completely fine tanks would face 50 damaged ones. Just in case you don´t even know that much: if -in RL- you belong to the latter group this is the moment when you make a "oh shlt"-face. And after very few salvos the damage would be crippling enough to decide the fight, meaning you have still -for example- 45 undamaged tanks left while the opponent that was operating with eve-tactics has lost all 50, 9 to 1 kill-loss ratio what began as an even fight.

However, in eve a ship will perform 100% even if its just 1 EHP away from exploding, meaning damaging a ship won´t do you any good, only sure kills will give you an advantage in fleet or gang fights, which means concentrating everything on one target is actually the most intelligent option for winning the fights.

If you want something more sophisticated tactics, you need damage to affect ships before they are destroyed, so that the side that leaves all the opponents ships unharmed just to kill one single target will put itself at a serious disadvantage. Same with RR, repping only one ship and leaving all the others damaged... not good.

There are several ways to make damage affect ships (reducing general stats like speed, agility, sensor strength the more damage comes in, or modules taking damage and getting destroyed, or whatever), which is the most practical would need to be looked into, but without such a feature you will not be able to change the current situation.Roll


Just wanted to add this would be also quite useful for reducing blob warfare, since now the element of tactic comes into play, which means superior numbers can be raped by smaller fleets that have competent FCs.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2011-10-17 20:36:07 UTC
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
You are all on the wrong track.Twisted


Just look at the reason why the currently popular tactic of concentrating everything on a single target (be it for attack or support) would be incredibly stupid in RL.

If in an encounter of, say, 50 tanks vs 50 tanks one side would concentrate their fire while the other side does not, what would be the result? Now 49 completely fine tanks would face 50 damaged ones. Just in case you don´t even know that much: if -in RL- you belong to the latter group this is the moment when you make a "oh shlt"-face. And after very few salvos the damage would be crippling enough to decide the fight, meaning you have still -for example- 45 undamaged tanks left while the opponent that was operating with eve-tactics has lost all 50, 9 to 1 kill-loss ratio what began as an even fight.

However, in eve a ship will perform 100% even if its just 1 EHP away from exploding, meaning damaging a ship won´t do you any good, only sure kills will give you an advantage in fleet or gang fights, which means concentrating everything on one target is actually the most intelligent option for winning the fights.

If you want something more sophisticated tactics, you need damage to affect ships before they are destroyed, so that the side that leaves all the opponents ships unharmed just to kill one single target will put itself at a serious disadvantage. Same with RR, repping only one ship and leaving all the others damaged... not good.

There are several ways to make damage affect ships (reducing general stats like speed, agility, sensor strength the more damage comes in, or modules taking damage and getting destroyed, or whatever), which is the most practical would need to be looked into, but without such a feature you will not be able to change the current situation.Roll


The problem you have with this is such.. all damage can/does get repaired in the field. And how/when does this get calculated? Armor damage? Structure? Shields? Lag would certainly be increased with the added load of calculations made by the server every tick. Don't get me wrong, I like the realism of it, just seems impractical in a real-time game like EVE.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2011-10-17 22:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
in a word, yes. more ships = win, unless they fight stupid or neglect smart, tactical decisions, or simply use too many weak ships against strong ships, or neglect important things like points, RR, etc.. So all things equal, then yes, otherwise, no.

Edit: PS, read up on the development of Time Dilation to counter blob lag warfare.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2011-10-17 22:31:36 UTC
Feligast wrote:
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
You are all on the wrong track.Twisted


Just look at the reason why the currently popular tactic of concentrating everything on a single target (be it for attack or support) would be incredibly stupid in RL.

If in an encounter of, say, 50 tanks vs 50 tanks one side would concentrate their fire while the other side does not, what would be the result? Now 49 completely fine tanks would face 50 damaged ones. Just in case you don´t even know that much: if -in RL- you belong to the latter group this is the moment when you make a "oh shlt"-face. And after very few salvos the damage would be crippling enough to decide the fight, meaning you have still -for example- 45 undamaged tanks left while the opponent that was operating with eve-tactics has lost all 50, 9 to 1 kill-loss ratio what began as an even fight.

However, in eve a ship will perform 100% even if its just 1 EHP away from exploding, meaning damaging a ship won´t do you any good, only sure kills will give you an advantage in fleet or gang fights, which means concentrating everything on one target is actually the most intelligent option for winning the fights.

If you want something more sophisticated tactics, you need damage to affect ships before they are destroyed, so that the side that leaves all the opponents ships unharmed just to kill one single target will put itself at a serious disadvantage. Same with RR, repping only one ship and leaving all the others damaged... not good.

There are several ways to make damage affect ships (reducing general stats like speed, agility, sensor strength the more damage comes in, or modules taking damage and getting destroyed, or whatever), which is the most practical would need to be looked into, but without such a feature you will not be able to change the current situation.Roll


The problem you have with this is such.. all damage can/does get repaired in the field. And how/when does this get calculated? Armor damage? Structure? Shields? Lag would certainly be increased with the added load of calculations made by the server every tick. Don't get me wrong, I like the realism of it, just seems impractical in a real-time game like EVE.

Well. it´s more of a rough idea right now, but generally i would go for the module damage approach to prevent the simple cop-out of active tanking replacing the buffer tank as FOTM. Structure damage would always cause module damage, armor damage with a certain probability (maybe influenced by the amount of armor left) and shield damage... well, maybe shield modules... that could be logically justified and prevent shield-tanking become too advantageous in comparison to armor-tanking. Oh, and as long the structure damage isn´t repaired, every further hit will always cause module damage, since the damaged structure will still receive strain by the hits, even if the damage is absorbed by repaired armor or shields. A ship that became so heavily damaged should require some effort and hull repairers to get it up to 100% efficiency again.

It sure would be still possible to repair all damage -as it should be, but it would require a high degree of effort and coordination, especially when not only one, but ten or fifty ships need attention (and they will need attention, because unlike now they won´t do you nearly as good until they are serviced). And i haven´t even started yet what possible developments in a fleet fight just come into mind, actually -if both sides are competent- such a fight would become quite thrilling and interesting
instead of an exercise of "accountants online".

Lag... well this would certainly be the main problem of the idea, the other stuff can be adressed by proper balancing, but technical limitations aren´t so easy to overcome. But it´s certainly worth to look into whether it´s technically possible to do without creating the lag from hell or not. By now you can´t really say that it would inevitably make the game laggy (because you can´t know how much additional load can be avoided by modifying the existing calculations).

However, this all would certainly need a ton of detail work, balancing and so on to make it work, as i said, rather a rough idea by now.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Previous page12