These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-12-29 12:19:55 UTC
Malphilos 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?
I believe the phrase is: "Nerf Local".


sshhh... you speak of the nerf which must not be named.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-12-29 12:24:35 UTC
dexington wrote:
Malphilos 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?
I believe the phrase is: "Nerf Local".


sshhh... you speak of the nerf which must not be named.


Yes yes, I know, I know.

There are quite a few players out there who are scared senseless by the thought of flying out there without being able to instantly see the boogeyman.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-12-29 12:29:23 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
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).


Please don't, i already spend more time then i like trying to find someone willing to blow up my ship. There is really no need to complicate the process even more, with endless amount of scanning.

Make it a null only feature, i have no problem with people wanting to play ninja in the backyard, but there is no reason everyone should be forced to do it.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Sukur
WhiteOps
#44 - 2012-12-29 12:29:24 UTC
Easy to fix.

Make more regions like Syndicate, and do them more desirable.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-12-29 12:42:12 UTC
dexington wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
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).


Please don't, i already spend more time then i like trying to find someone willing to blow up my ship. There is really no need to complicate the process even more, with endless amount of scanning.

Make it a null only feature, i have no problem with people wanting to play ninja in the backyard, but there is no reason everyone should be forced to do it.


You mean the same way that industrialists are forced to stay out of low/null because they can be instantly found and identified as industrial ships? The same way small groups are forced to ignore fights because they have no hope in utilizing the advantages that they should have in the first place?

And no, I am not after making the d-scanning more complex - in fact I want it to be able to lead to players more directly once you reach a point.

My only goal is make players work for the information that they are given for absolutely free right now and depending on situation make it either easier or harder for players to be found instead of having the current static constant of the worst kind.
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-12-29 12:47:41 UTC
The main problem isn't the efficiency of small gangs vs. large ones but the lack of any meaningful objectives for small gangs.

A smaller gang of comparable ships should always lose when engaged by a bigger gang (assuming the FCs and pilots being on par), but there's hardly a siutuation where a small gang would be the better tool for accomplishing a task than a blob.

In RL (yes - bad reference when it comes to internet spaceships), using a small task force offers huge advantages in terms of cost, logistics, flexibility and maneuverability. Eve mitigates these advantages to a large extent and even if there are things that may be accomplished with a small gang, there's no reason to not bring a blob and achieve the same thing faster and easier if you can muster it.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-12-29 12:56:10 UTC
Name Family Name wrote:
The main problem isn't the efficiency of small gangs vs. large ones but the lack of any meaningful objectives for small gangs.

A smaller gang of comparable ships should always lose when engaged by a bigger gang (assuming the FCs and pilots being on par), but there's hardly a siutuation where a small gang would be the better tool for accomplishing a task than a blob.

In RL (yes - bad reference when it comes to internet spaceships), using a small task force offers huge advantages in terms of cost, logistics, flexibility and maneuverability. Eve mitigates these advantages to a large extent and even if there are things that may be accomplished with a small gang, there's no reason to not bring a blob and achieve the same thing faster and easier if you can muster it.



This is not quite correct.

A small gang would be preferred if you for instance want to quickly go behind enemy lines, attack industrial ships and then fly off. A big blob would be quite more noticeable.

In direct fights then you are of course absolutely right that a smaller group should most likely lose against a bigger group, specially if both sides are of equal skill and all.

But what if a situation arose where a big group was detected, followed by a small group and the small group waited for an opportunity to attack, like say the big group briefly splits up for whatever reason. It may or may not happen, but if it did then yeah...all sorts of things could happen. Isn't this what we want to see?
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-12-29 13:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
If you want to play ninja fly stealth bomber, bubble the gate and drop some bombs, don't try and change the game because you 5 man battlecruiser gang is not useful in each and ever situation. If you want to do the small gang stuff, pick the right tool for the job, and pick the fights you can win.

I have no problem with ccp giving the small gangs an advantage, maybe even to the point where it motivates the larger fleets to split up into small independent fleets. Just don't change the game because some people are unable to adapt to the situation they put them self in, and are unwilling to accept their choice to roam in a small gang had consequences.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2012-12-29 13:05:53 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:

A small gang would be preferred if you for instance want to quickly go behind enemy lines, attack industrial ships and then fly off. A big blob would be quite more noticeable.


Well - and what would be the downside of just bridging in a blob on top of them? You kill them quicker, the likelihood of someone getting away is smaller and if the blob is big enough, you could care less if you're noticed or not because the defender can do jack about it.

Yes - you need to muster them, but if you have a bored blob and a titan at your disposal, there's no major reason to not bring it.

Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-12-29 13:14:35 UTC
Name Family Name wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:

A small gang would be preferred if you for instance want to quickly go behind enemy lines, attack industrial ships and then fly off. A big blob would be quite more noticeable.


Well - and what would be the downside of just bridging in a blob on top of them? You kill them quicker, the likelihood of someone getting away is smaller and if the blob is big enough, you could care less if you're noticed or not because the defender can do jack about it.

Yes - you need to muster them, but if you have a bored blob and a titan at your disposal, there's no major reason to not bring it.



Currently any awake industrialist in null would already be half-way to the nearest PoS by the time any non-blue enters the system.

Right or wrong?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#51 - 2012-12-29 13:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Gillia Winddancer wrote:


Currently any awake industrialist in null would already be half-way to the nearest PoS by the time any non-blue enters the system.

Right or wrong?



Just sit this in system for a few days and you'll do fine. (There are, of course, cheaper/better ways to do it.)

[Arazu, The Solution to your Mining Fleet]

Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
Republic Fleet Warp Disruptor
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier

Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[Empty High slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-12-29 13:49:43 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:


Currently any awake industrialist in null would already be half-way to the nearest PoS by the time any non-blue enters the system.

Right or wrong?



Just sit this in system for a few days and you'll do fine. (There are, of course, cheaper/better ways to do it.)

[Arazu, The Solution to your Mining Fleet]

Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
Republic Fleet Warp Disruptor
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier

Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[Empty High slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II


Are you telling me that cyno is the one and only means of catching industrial ships in null?

Is this the part where I am supposed to start laughing out loud or something cause unless I misunderstand you it sure seems like an appropriate time to do so.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#53 - 2012-12-29 13:53:33 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


Just sit this in system for a few days and you'll do fine. (There are, of course, cheaper/better ways to do it.)


Are you telling me that cyno is the one and only means of catching industrial ships in null?

Is this the part where I am supposed to start laughing out loud or something cause unless I misunderstand you it sure seems like an appropriate time to do so.




Bolded and underlined for your convenience.

A covert cyno drop is One way to do it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#54 - 2012-12-29 13:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Karrl Tian
VDNKH wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:
Why does CCP even need to get involved?

I've seen plenty of small groups and even solo'ers do fine in null without needing CCP to step in (UK campaign in CVA space, 'nuff said). They fit these things called cloaks and actually avoid fighting the mega-blobs/camps sent after them and occassionally get kills on unwary lone or small grouped targets.


That's called "Being annoying in an enemy territory". There is no way a small group can get sov that way.

Sov structures are some sort of barriers that you have to break through in order to get sov. It adds a hard cap to how many dudes you need to bring in order to grind those amounts of EHPs.


I wasn't talking about taking sov, I was talking about living in null without having to kow-tow to somebody who has sov which is what causes the majority of "my 5-man corp can't go to 0.0 without being someone's ***** " whines.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-12-29 13:56:47 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Are you telling me that cyno is the one and only means of catching industrial ships in null?


How else would the entire coalition get on the kill mail?

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#56 - 2012-12-29 14:40:47 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.

Would not large blobs just divide up into several small fleets, each with their own booster? How can the game tell that a bunch of small fleets are acting as a big blob, being coordinated via Team Speak?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#57 - 2012-12-29 14:48:09 UTC
You can't easily, nor should you, make a mechanic that directly makes less people better than more people. Suggestions for such mechanics are always contrived and against the spirit of the game.

If you wanted to make nullsec more friendly to small gangs then you need to create objectives which can be accomplished by small groups, and can also be done simultaneously with other small groups. If there's only one objective to do, and the time to do it decreases linearly with fleet size, people will blob. If, on the other hand, you can do more of these objectives faster by splitting your 100 guys into 5 20-man fleets, and enough faster to make up for the vulnerability to a single large enemy fleet, you might see more smaller gangs.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#58 - 2012-12-29 15:19:41 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
You can't easily, nor should you, make a mechanic that directly makes less people better than more people. Suggestions for such mechanics are always contrived and against the spirit of the game.

If you wanted to make nullsec more friendly to small gangs then you need to create objectives which can be accomplished by small groups, and can also be done simultaneously with other small groups. If there's only one objective to do, and the time to do it decreases linearly with fleet size, people will blob. If, on the other hand, you can do more of these objectives faster by splitting your 100 guys into 5 20-man fleets, and enough faster to make up for the vulnerability to a single large enemy fleet, you might see more smaller gangs.



Yep. The problem with that is that, of course, the small group can field N gangs, while the Larger group can field 2N gangs, meaning that, even if the small group wins every battle they fight, the larger group will win the war in smashing style, having N unattended targets for every round of fighting.

Creating important targets that can only be efficiently fought over by small gangs actually magnifies the power of a larger group.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-12-29 16:42:59 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Kahega Amielden wrote:
You can't easily, nor should you, make a mechanic that directly makes less people better than more people. Suggestions for such mechanics are always contrived and against the spirit of the game.

If you wanted to make nullsec more friendly to small gangs then you need to create objectives which can be accomplished by small groups, and can also be done simultaneously with other small groups. If there's only one objective to do, and the time to do it decreases linearly with fleet size, people will blob. If, on the other hand, you can do more of these objectives faster by splitting your 100 guys into 5 20-man fleets, and enough faster to make up for the vulnerability to a single large enemy fleet, you might see more smaller gangs.



Yep. The problem with that is that, of course, the small group can field N gangs, while the Larger group can field 2N gangs, meaning that, even if the small group wins every battle they fight, the larger group will win the war in smashing style, having N unattended targets for every round of fighting.

Creating important targets that can only be efficiently fought over by small gangs actually magnifies the power of a larger group.


Pretty much this. I'm all for a variety of economic/industrial targets you can hit with smaller gangs, that's part of the point of the farms & fields concept. Industrial POS could have crunchy bits you can break off in short order (relatively speaking compared to now). POCO's could be made a little more vulnerable, ratters and miners could be encouraged to take greater risk for similarly greater rewards, etc. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't be attacked or defended equally well by a large group, or that your fleet of 5 20 man gangs can't or won't be opposed by 5 40 man gangs.

At the same time, some targets should remain big. Sovereignty targets, especially hardened military POS, etc. Raiders burning the fields is one thing - you need an army to siege a defended castle.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#60 - 2012-12-29 17:00:58 UTC
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.