These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

"Make smaller better"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#61 - 2012-12-29 17:16:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size. Now ignoring the fact that there are ways to mitigate this, I'm curious about a few things.

You say that larger groups should not have an advantage over smaller groups by virtue of their size. First of all, this is not something you can just change because it's basic tactics that larger groups generally overpower smaller ones. This is not some variable CCP developers can go into the code and set "smallerFleetsHaveAdvantage=1;".

Furthermore, even if they could somehow force a mechanic to nullify the advantage that larger groups have over smaller ones in combat, why SHOULD they? That's basically sending a message that "we don't want you to cooperate in large groups, smaller groups are better." Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?


I often have a chuckle at the people who scream "omg blobs". They woulda been the poor extra on TV or in a movie like Battlestar Galactica/Star Trek/Babylon 5/Star Wars battle screaming "Effing Blobbers" right before they got their dumb ass vaporized.

The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.

EVE: friendship is harsh and cold

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2012-12-29 17:28:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.


No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements.

- When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win.
- When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out).

Noone would seriously want to change that.

I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change.

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-12-29 17:31:44 UTC
Op, only guys have size frustration issues. Size doesn't matter, all it matters it's what you do with. Learn to use it Cool

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#64 - 2012-12-29 17:31:49 UTC
Name Family Name wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.


No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements.

- When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win.
- When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out).

Noone would seriously want to change that.

I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change.

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).

Shooting structures isn't a great purpose for small gang either.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#65 - 2012-12-29 18:02:43 UTC
dexington wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.


What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?


You mean squads and wings? Nothing.
CraftyCroc
Fraternity Alliance Please Ignore
#66 - 2012-12-29 18:04:50 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.



This is epic idea
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#67 - 2012-12-29 18:05:15 UTC
Skydell wrote:
dexington wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.


What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?

You mean squads and wings? Nothing.

Needs a nerf then.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#68 - 2012-12-29 18:10:29 UTC
This is just another symptom of the 1985+ parenting strategy of telling kids they are special, and better than everyone else.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#69 - 2012-12-29 18:27:49 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
This is just another symptom of the 1985+ parenting strategy of telling kids they are special, and better than everyone else.

Your wreck is indeed special if you had deadspace modules.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#70 - 2012-12-29 18:50:12 UTC
Name Family Name wrote:

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).


What about gudfites?
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#71 - 2012-12-29 18:50:58 UTC
Thomas Orca wrote:
Name Family Name wrote:

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).


What about gudfites?


I thought ~gudfites~ involved hotdropping some moms onto a solo pvp drake.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#72 - 2012-12-29 18:52:59 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Thomas Orca wrote:
Name Family Name wrote:

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).


What about gudfites?


I thought ~gudfites~ involved hotdropping some moms onto a solo pvp drake.


If it's less than 10 supercarriers it's still small gang.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2012-12-29 19:09:40 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.

What might that be?


Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range.

I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE.

Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings).

Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly.

In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships.

And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option.

To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp.

If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure.
Otherwise no.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-12-29 19:57:43 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Name Family Name wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.


No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements.

- When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win.
- When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out).

Noone would seriously want to change that.

I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change.

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).

Shooting structures isn't a great purpose for small gang either.


You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2012-12-29 20:02:20 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right?

Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-12-29 20:02:27 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.

What might that be?


Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range.

I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE.

Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings).

Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly.

In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships.

And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option.

To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp.

If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure.
Otherwise no.


I certainly don't see why not considering there'd be no local. It'd almost be insane not to have it detect cloaked ships as the cloak is just a means of visually conceal your ship. Whether it should be easier or harder to find a cloaked ship in this kind of environment however would be a pure balancing issue.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-12-29 20:05:30 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
I certainly don't see why not considering there'd be no local. It'd almost be insane not to have it detect cloaked ships as the cloak is just a means of visually conceal your ship. Whether it should be easier or harder to find a cloaked ship in this kind of environment however would be a pure balancing issue.

Well in that case I don't see anything glaringly wrong with your proposal, however I've only really skimmed through it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-12-29 20:06:13 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.

What might that be?


Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range.

I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE.

Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings).

Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly.

In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships.

And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option.

To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp.

If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure.
Otherwise no.

Why are you so afraid of the unknown?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-12-29 20:07:11 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Why are you so afraid of the unknown?

Why do you only ever post rhetoric?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-12-29 20:07:12 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right?

Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories?


I am not saying that small gangs should be able to fly around and leave scrapheaps of former PoS's behind them. I am saying that small gangs should have the ability to harass as a means of fighting the "big guys" or anyone else. The economic damages would hardly be massive in any kind of way, but enough harassment overtime would still have an effect.

The manner at which these small gangs handle the "response" of their enemies is up to them. Either they get harassed back or get a full blob on them...or attempted blob anyway.

Here is my counter question: do you want to see more people in low/null? Cause you know, I believe we are in the agreement that not everyone wants to join a blob super-power or some such yet at the same time have absolutely no way of doing anything against them that would cause any kind of damage over time.