These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Warfare & Tactics

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page

Sensor glare: an anti-blob idea

Aestivalis Saidrian
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#21 - 2011-12-08 07:23:22 UTC
With EVE's computational power on hand and the ability to network... No reason to EVER suffer from "sensor glare." I can't even think of how you would bench race your way to "acceptable." Its already bad enough that EVE suffers from some serious problems. (Take the BattleTech Universe, which is the Future of the 80s. A 19 ton fusion power plant puts out more energy/sec on a fighter then most Dreadnaughts have capacitor total. We don't talk about their capital ships.)

If we're going to have "Sci-Fi" battles, then things like taking module damage would happen as your armor and shields take damage. So that by the time you're in hull, your ship is literally moduleless.

Rebbecca Black
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2011-12-08 07:58:50 UTC
Ok so the problem: They alpha me too quickly.

Your solution: Change game mechanics so people lock slower, at which point once they all have me locked, I can still get alphad down.

My solution: I'm getting yellow boxed by 60 duders.. align out and broadcast for shields, possibly warp depending on what's firing at me. All of this happens before I'm even red boxed.

Your fix: lot of computing power, doesn't actually address alpha (even though that isn't really a problem,) and doesn't actually help small gang vs larger gang warfare, which is more about countering their fleet comp with what ships/tactics your fielding.

My fix: Works 9 out of 10 times, unless I'm tackled. And in any competent fleet you (a) clear light tackle off the field asap (b) warp the fleet off to reposition if a heavy dictor starts landing on you and (c) primary their lachesis/huginns (d) reposition out of light dictors bubbles. So the only times it doesn't work is if they are sorting by name and Im one of the first guys primaried.

In large fleet fights you also can ALREADY mitigate damage to your EWAR by having them setup in their own wing or fleet, and warp in well off of optimal range of the enemy, while still being able to apply their affects to opponents.
Eternal Requiem
#23 - 2011-12-08 17:14:05 UTC

CCP likes EVE to be the ultimate SF simulator. Everyone who has seen SF shows knows how space battles are portrayed (even in CCPs own video's): ships weaving in and out of enemy lines, and multiple small battles between individual ships going on amidst the greater carnage.

Basically this. CCP advertises huge fleet battles with trailers that depict people swinging in and out of enemy lines, in a tiny frigate, explosions going off all around it, while they have an interesting and dynamic battle with another ship type, chaos, smart thinking players using creative use of their dynamic fleets to counter each of the ship types of the other fleet, etc etc etc, and it just isn't that way at all. My last huge fleet battle (linked below) was 70 maelstroms, all you did was 'target this guy...ok target this guy...ok fire...' On top of that, all the ships clipped into each other, so instead of looking like a cool Sci Fi movie or firing line, it just looked like an orgy of rusty nails and broken solar panels. It didn't even look cool. When I tried to get my friends to watch my 'huge fleet battle' they literally laughed at me because of how boring it was.

What CCP claims/wants 'huge' fleet battles to be like:
What they are actually like:
Princess Nexxala
Quantum Cats Syndicate
#24 - 2011-12-08 17:17:26 UTC
I LOL'd Big smile

Omniwing wrote:

it just looked like an orgy of rusty nails and broken solar panels.

nom nom

Nikollai Tesla
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-12-08 18:53:24 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
People who can mobilise large numbers of pilots and have them fight in a well co-ordinated way should be punished because I don't like losing to people who can use their superior numbers effectively.

Did no one read my post? Currently with the mechanics:

1) Numbers is a square factor. Double the numbers means 4x the kills
2) While skill is a linear factor. Double the skill means 2x the kills.

So a 2x skilled fleet will lose to a fleet that is 2x as big.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#26 - 2011-12-08 20:10:59 UTC
Kaneda Hiroshi wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It sounds like your suggesting: If 10 ships target ship X, then the 11th ship has a longer lock time.

No! This is basically what roime suggested, see my comments above for reasons to not do this. I am proposing that all 11 ships would see an increased lock time when they targeted ship Y.

Hmmm... So your suggesting that if 50 people target ship X, then those 50 people receive some kind of sensor damp penalty to their targeting when they attempt to target their next ship. I see several issues with this, which I'll compare and contrast to a much simplier method B that just increases the lock time on Target X based on the number of ships, Z, currently targeting the target X:

1.) Your penalty is delayed. As leadership becomes more granular, Wing B doesn't know exactly what Wing A is doing, it becomes very easy for both leaders to call the same target. In doing so, the entire fleet will suffer your penalty. In method B, Wing Commander B will soon recognize an abnormal lock time, and can instruct the Wing B to target another target. This allows for realtime alterations of orders, while your suggestion will blindside fleets by suddenly imposing an enormous SG penalty to anything they target next.

2.) The Mechanics of Implementation. Imagine 100 ships target X and receive a serious SG dampening penalty. How long does this penalty last? Is it on all ships they attempt to target next? Since the penalty lasts beyond the phenomena that cause the penalty (i.e. the penalty last long after 100 ships targeting X), the mechanics of implementation become much more difficult. A more state-oriented approach based, will be much easier to implement.

3.) I just don't understand the reason for associating the penalty with the a new target Y rather than target X. This essentially hurts/annoys support ships. For example, I've been in Munnin/Lachesis squads whose purpose was to kill stealth bomber threats to the fleet. When no SB's are pressent, you shoot the primary target. Now, if suddenly a few SB's show up to drop Lockbreaker & Void bombs on your logi-train, I'm severely gimped by the SG penalty. If the penalty is associated with target X only, then these ships are still able to fullfill their specialized role, and participate in the general fleet action when that role is not needed.
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#27 - 2011-12-08 20:34:28 UTC
Ulstan wrote:
I suppose you are trying to make space fights a little more like 18th century naval warfare. You might have fleets of a hundred ships of the line, but by and large each ship would target a different enemy ship. You would never have a case where all 100 ships of the line targetted the same enemy ship, vaporized him with a volley, then moved on to the next ship.

If they COULD have focused fire like that they WOULD have. And indeed, every time they had a chance to 'double up' and put 2 of their ships vs one of the enemies ships, they did.

However, to get rid fo blob warfare you'll have to implement a much better physics engine that accurately models two important real life concepts:

Friendly fire is possible: if you fire a laser/missile at an enemy but a friendly gets in the way, the friendly takes the hit.
Intercepting fire for a friendly is possible: if an enemy fires a laser/missile at friendly but you get in the way, you take the hit instead.

As long as the weapons being shot are not physical objects that can interact with all the friendly/enemy actors on the field who are also physical objects, I don't think you'll ever be able to solve the completely unrealistic perfectly efficient blob focus fire technique.

That said, there is no way the current engine can support something like what would be needed, so don't get your hopes up. Additionally I have no idea how to make the friendly fire issue work with CONCORD in high sec space, but without it, people can just blob up and fire the hulls of their own ships. There's no need to spread out and form wings, etc, to maximize firepower. So EVE remains, at it's core, a very tactically uninteresting representation of fleet fights that everyone KNOWS is completely unrealistic.

In real life you simply have to disperse or adopt formations so you don't shoot your own friendlies in front of you. Until EVE addsd something like this, I think the focus fire blob will always remain the dominant method of fleet combat.

So 18th century naval ships didn't focus fire because they didn't all have line of fire on one enemy, and what makes blobbing effective here is that we DO all have line of fire on every enemy, and you're against anything short of a system that will accurately render the physics to represent this.

The OP offered a creative way to make focused fire less efficient in a way that can be made consistent with the current game lore, and your only response is "nope, not realistic enough, even if Eve isn't at all realistic"?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2011-12-08 21:50:16 UTC
Do you have any idea how many times this has been suggested before? Devs please move this to F&I where it can die the death it deserves with all the other threads.
#29 - 2011-12-08 23:12:03 UTC
The only good way to deal with blobbing is for CCP to remove heads from asses and change the things that require blobs so that they can be delt with without blobs. For those less familiar with pvp (particularly null), this means making infrastructure weaker. But CCP considers a small gang to be anything from 5-50 people. While 50 may be small in context to 1k man fleets, anything larger than 5 tends to cause escalation. We bring a 50man gang, you respond with 150man gang and this process repeats till one of us runs out of online people. Remember how the TCUs were supposed to make it possible for small gangs to effect infrastructure and reduce the grind of sov warfare?

Anything other than this type of change will only result in a new game mechanic that further restricts players or annoying game mechanics like that mentioned by the OP.
Myrdraeus Keaunt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2011-12-08 23:22:21 UTC
Kaneda Hiroshi wrote:
Blobs firing at one target then switching to the next one is no fun. Not only is the primary guaranteed to die (unless they have five hundred guardians, also not fun), it's boring for the shooters and it's pretty easy to tell at any point who is going to win the fight. It's like watching a status bar. Blob warfare also leads to boring fleet fits, stifling individual creativity and piloting skill.

I would like to see large battles that are more skirmish-like, more fluid, less predictable, more dependent on individual ingenuity--like small gang fights but with higher stakes, way more chaos and a correspondingly larger opportunity to gain the upper hand through effective communication and leadership. A well-organized fleet with five guardians should be able to defeat a badly organized fleet with twenty.

Fly support then. If it's a BS gang, fly a BC or smaller. If it's a BC gang, fly a Rifter. Fly ewar or logistics. Primary call is for main DPS boats, if you're flying support you're responsible for your targets.
Sphit Ker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2011-12-09 16:24:18 UTC
I'll support your thing once you successfully justify why having greater manpower is good enough of a reason to justify a nerf in capabilities.

It knows what you think.

Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
#32 - 2011-12-09 16:59:55 UTC
Actually this is counter to anything logical.

If you have something targetted and know its location, you'd share that information with your fleet, allowing for FASTER target acquisition, not slower.

Also to the comparison of flashlights, thats not how it works, you dont point and light in space and hope to find your target, you bounce a signal off it that your sensors pickup and fine tune. Thus with multiple ships all using the same frequency you would find targets FASTER not slower.

Everything about this smells of ******.

Yes I get your point that it is meant to create better fleet dynamics, however your examples and comparisons to reality are so ignorant its appauling.

Your concept is fine, its just your reasoning for why it would be this way is something the shallow end of the gene pool would produce.
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-12-09 17:47:57 UTC
So, do bomber squadrons do nothing to mitigate massed fleets?

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.

Ral Darkmoon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2011-12-09 18:30:39 UTC
All I see here is someone crying about the fact that he gets primaried often and doesnt like "blobs" because he is in a terrible alliance that cant get people to pvp.

Or something like that
Aestivalis Saidrian
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#35 - 2011-12-09 21:35:05 UTC
Pinaculus wrote:
So, do bomber squadrons do nothing to mitigate massed fleets?

Not really, no. Most fleets scatter so that you can only hit 2-3 targets with a bomb.

Some fleet learned that the hard way when a Bomber wing wtfraped a 100+ man fleet on a gate.
Recidivists Incorporated
#36 - 2011-12-09 23:07:01 UTC
I'm not sure if I agree with this proposal, but do all you leet PVPers calling him out as a whiner REALLY enjoy blob warfare that much? I mean, the results are effective, but is it really fun to go around with 50 of the exact same ship fighting 50 other of the exact same ship?
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-12-11 06:27:27 UTC
Personally, I like the feelings behind this idea. Anti-blobbing is, in my opinion, a good thing. Still, I can't claim that this would be completely healthy for the game, as I'm not a game developer. Again, though, I think it's a good idea, from my untrained point of view.
Aestivalis Saidrian
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#38 - 2011-12-11 20:50:28 UTC
OllieNorth wrote:
I'm not sure if I agree with this proposal, but do all you leet PVPers calling him out as a whiner REALLY enjoy blob warfare that much? I mean, the results are effective, but is it really fun to go around with 50 of the exact same ship fighting 50 other of the exact same ship?

Problem is, results are far more important then 'Fun.' when it comes to Sov warfare. If I had a personal stake in some territory, you better believe I will use the most effective set up in a completely identical fleet to defend it.
Hyrath Rotineque
#39 - 2011-12-12 18:48:14 UTC
Nikollai Tesla wrote:

This is an important read. Currently we have in blob warfare, you call primary and everyone shoots at it. This counts as aimed fire, and is covered under Lanchester's square law.

Where the square of the ration of the forces determines the inverse casualty ratio.
example (A)100 vs (B) 50. Ratio is 2:1, So casualty is 1:4. A looses 12 ships, B looses 50

Whats important here is that the skill ratio is linear based while #s is square based. Note that Lanchester's Square Law does not apply to technological force, only numerical force; so it takes an N-squared-fold increase in quality to make up for an N-fold increase in quantity.

So if you are out number 2:1 you need to be 4 times as skilled to take down your opponent.

By limiting the Number of Combatants, were you can only engage and be engaged by X, similar to your 18th century warfare. This follows the linear laws.
In this case the same battle of 100(A) vs 50(B), you'd have a 1:1 ration. Where A looses 50 ships and B looses 50 ships.

It's really unfortunate that your post hasn't gotten all that much attention. Things might work better overall if things were a lot closer to this.
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
#40 - 2011-12-12 23:35:02 UTC
Hyrath Rotineque wrote:

It's really unfortunate that your post hasn't gotten all that much attention. Things might work better overall if things were a lot closer to this.

Perhaps its overlooked because everyone else saw what a gimmick it was.
Previous page123Next page