EVE General Discussion

I keep seeing over and over Devs commenting on N+1 and how the only way to counter this is to do the same by bringing in more for you to win.

This is a bold faced lie, and while I am not sure who created it, I am sure the Devs have drank the kool-aide on this one.

How is it a lie you ask, as everyone in Eve knows this to be true.

First, we know for a fact that for every fleet comp, there is a hard counter. More often than not, the hard counter requires far less numbers to beat the first fleet do to its ability to counter that fleet in nearly every way.

Ex: 256 guys are running destroyers, Corms for this example. Which can be relatively easy to counter with 100-150 cerbs, no contest and there is a good chance of loosing next to no cerbs in the process.

Second, we hear that N+1 reps can make a fleet nearly invulnerable to attack. This is absolutely untrue, and one of the biggest false statements given to us for the changes coming in Citadel and the new FAX. This is simply because, there is a hard cap on reps. No matter how many reps you place on the grid, you can't stop an Alpha strike from killing the target. The hard cap is your max EHP, and nothing can save you.

Ex: B-R5, in which over 70 titans died. Both sides had massively more reps on grid than the 8 or so doomsdays could deal in damage, and yet each time a volley was fired, another titan fell swiftly and no amount of reps could prevent this.

Third, N+1 is something that only wins fights because we naturally believe the superior force should win. 90% of many losses come from pilots automatically reacting to the myth that the larger force will always win. This commonly is proven false daily in Eve. From a few elite pilots on an undock, using top end fits with boosts and high-grades, to the random fight where a smaller force happens in on a larger one and gets lucky with an FC head-shot or the smaller FC just out wits his counterpart.

Buying into this mythical N+1 being the be all, end all, is a complete farse. Open your eyes, do your own math, look at goops like Rooks and Kings and understand that many of these claims are those from small groups who can't compete with even equal numbers or big block groups who are desperate to break an enemy they haven't been able to beat.

As for the Devs, I would really think you should know better and understand the game you run with more insight. It is unbelievable that you don't know this to be true, and if you honestly don't realize this, than either get in the game and see the truth or do some research. The facts are what they are, no amount of finger pointing and false words can change them. Be responsible for what you say, understand it will be taken as truth, so make sure of it first.

I love this game, but I can't stand it when those with power, space fame or perceived space importance, try to use their soapbox to outright lie to those who might not understand the truth.

Reserved.

Destroyed.

Ummmm... I hate to break it to you... but your OP pretty much lends support to the N+1 dilemma.

To start off with:


When you boil these examples down, they basically say this:

It doesn't matter how many reps you bring to a fight. If the other guy brings enough people then reps become fairly pointless.

That is pretty much the essence of the "N+1"
Reps are the other big offender of N+1... but you see more complaints about this at the small to mid-level engagement scale (sub-10 to 50v50 man fights respectively).


I think you took a few things about of context.

Most of the arguments about "invincibility and reps" fall into 2 categories:
1. Small to mid-scale engagements: when you are in a 50v50 or smaller fight... reps matter. A LOT. And if you bring enough of them, you can't be killed... unless the other guy brings more people (N+1 issue again).
2. Citadels and Reps.

Now regarding the second point; unless I missed something (and feel free to correct me if this has changed)... the main issue is that there is a cap on how much DPS can be applied to a Citadel.
I believe 4,000 DPS was the magic number for Medium Citadels? Followed by 12,000 and 60,000 for Large and X-Large Citadels respectively.

This means that no matter how hard each person in a hostile fleet hits (they can all be doing 4,000 / 12,000 / 60,000 damage per strike) or how many people are hitting at the same time... only 4,000 / 12,000 / 60,000 damage is going to be applied each second.

Those numbers are not outside the realm of possibility for Capital Reps.


True and untrue at the same time.

In small scale of engagements, you can certainly tip the odds either way through better piloting / skills / boosters / weapons / etc.

But things get trickier as engagements become larger. Individual piloting carries less and less importance (beyond simply not screwing up in a noticeable way). Fleet maneuvering and fleet synergy (see: ships in fleet adding to each other's strengths while also mitigating each other's weaknesses) becomes more important.

And at the far end of massive ship warfare everything goes out the window. All that matters is being in range and having more damage than the other guy (which invariably means "have more bodies than the other guy").



Ah... but N+1 is the "be all, end all" when numbers are concerned.

And Rooks and Kings... while they do some pretty impressive stuff... even they have sometimes admitted that they will avoid a fight because "there are too outnumbered."

The simple fact of the matter is... counters cease to be a factor when there are enough bodies to ignore attrition and/or make the enemy run of ammo.

If you see a shitpost on GD, and bring more shitposts to counter it, does the original shitpost disappear?





Enquiring minds want to know!

Your lack of pupils is a definite shitpost.

N+1?

I believe in N-1. If you let some fleet mates die you have a higher chance of getting kill marks.

Then, as Malcanis pointed out earlier (see post #4), you do not understand "N+1" as a concept.


You just described "N+1."

One side had more reps which produced some nigh invulnerable ships. So the other side brought more bodies to compensate and make the reps pointless.
Quite basically... one side brought N+1 to render an entire tactic ineffective! The only counter to that at that level is to also bring more bodies into the fight.


While I agree that the DEVs will simply never be able to control the meta-game between players... I think you completely misread how B-R5 went down.

One side didn't play their cards right. The other side brought in overwhelming force to render a tactic ineffective. That is basically what happened.


Correct... when you bring enough people then any ship will die no matter what.

Again... that is the essence of "N+1."


Yeah... except... when the only true counter to a tactic is to perform the same tactic (just on a larger scale than the other)... then it needs to be looked at.