These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Luanda Heartbreaker
#101 - 2012-12-30 05:17:40 UTC
mynnna wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.


Given that the AI switches instantly to newcomers in anomalies, even if those newcomers haven't taken any hostile action towards the rats whatsoever, most any sort of solo PvP in null is kind of a pain these days. Supposedly it's a bug, but I haven't heard anything about fixing it.


it seems to be "working as intended" http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=18318073
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#102 - 2012-12-30 08:14:26 UTC
Luanda Heartbreaker wrote:
mynnna wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.


Given that the AI switches instantly to newcomers in anomalies, even if those newcomers haven't taken any hostile action towards the rats whatsoever, most any sort of solo PvP in null is kind of a pain these days. Supposedly it's a bug, but I haven't heard anything about fixing it.


it seems to be "working as intended" http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=18318073


I'm not sure what this killmail is supposed to show. I see a Machariel that was ganked by two Cynabals and a Manticore, and figure he probably went down extremely quickly under fire from what was likely either EMP or Barrage ammo. I don't, however, see anything that refutes what I said.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Yatama Kautsuo
Tencus
#103 - 2012-12-30 11:45:23 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?


probably the 10 needed booster alts...
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#104 - 2012-12-30 12:14:36 UTC
Anyone who chooses to fly solo or in a small group must accept the risks that come with it. There are of course many advantages of being small compared to a large group.

I am saying this with the experience and enthusiasm of a small-gang advocate.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-12-30 12:53:21 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"?


It's about fights in a away yes. But the scope is wider than just fights.

Alot of people and small enitities are interested in owning and working a SOV system in Null but they aren't interested to be a drone in large alliance or the super coalitions of today. The current system favours numbers. It hasn't to stay that way.
PvP and fleets are just one aspect. There is production, ratting, moon mining, PI and so on you didn't even mentioned which is possible in Null. Many if not most small entities are interested in all that actions not just the narrow field you offered here.

Since most of us are no game designers it's not my task to find a way how it could work. We all pay subscriptions in one way or another for our accounts to pay for the content and it's development. Let them come up with something usefull.

WH isn't really claimable. You can say it's yours but it doesn't show anywhere and you can't do everything you can do in SOV Null.

As someone mentioned before. We can read tons of posts in General Discussions from Null that they would like to see more players there and less in highsec but you'll never achive that by nerfing highsec to death.
You'll have to offer something. You'll need every aspect of the game workable in Null as or better than in highsec and you need to give small entities a way to raise their flag.

The SOV system has to become strong enough to weather some attacks for a time to keep their investment but it also has to be smart and smooth enough to leave it conquerable.

The risk to move to Null to own SOV is to high for small entities vs it's rewards. They can't compete with the large organisations there but also don't want to join them. So most of them just stay where they can have all aspects of the game everything. Highsec.
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-12-30 13:06:17 UTC
mynnna wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.


Given that the AI switches instantly to newcomers in anomalies, even if those newcomers haven't taken any hostile action towards the rats whatsoever, most any sort of solo PvP in null is kind of a pain these days. Supposedly it's a bug, but I haven't heard anything about fixing it.


*Obi-Wan Kenobi voice*

That's no bug....that's a feature.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2012-12-30 13:13:12 UTC
Miri Amatonur 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"?


It's about fights in a away yes. But the scope is wider than just fights.

Alot of people and small enitities are interested in owning and working a SOV system in Null but they aren't interested to be a drone in large alliance or the super coalitions of today. The current system favours numbers. It hasn't to stay that way.
PvP and fleets are just one aspect. There is production, ratting, moon mining, PI and so on you didn't even mentioned which is possible in Null. Many if not most small entities are interested in all that actions not just the narrow field you offered here.

Since most of us are no game designers it's not my task to find a way how it could work. We all pay subscriptions in one way or another for our accounts to pay for the content and it's development. Let them come up with something usefull.

WH isn't really claimable. You can say it's yours but it doesn't show anywhere and you can't do everything you can do in SOV Null.

As someone mentioned before. We can read tons of posts in General Discussions from Null that they would like to see more players there and less in highsec but you'll never achive that by nerfing highsec to death.
You'll have to offer something. You'll need every aspect of the game workable in Null as or better than in highsec and you need to give small entities a way to raise their flag.

The SOV system has to become strong enough to weather some attacks for a time to keep their investment but it also has to be smart and smooth enough to leave it conquerable.

The risk to move to Null to own SOV is to high for small entities vs it's rewards. They can't compete with the large organisations there but also don't want to join them. So most of them just stay where they can have all aspects of the game everything. Highsec.


This in a nutshell. Just too bad that so many ignore these facts. On purpose too no doubt.
cheese monkey
NuKeDD
NuKeDD.
#108 - 2012-12-31 07:44:56 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.

Last I checked you don't fight against NPCs when you PVP.


Check again

--

http://eveboard.com/ub/627817229-39.png
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2012-12-31 08:13:54 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
" Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?


If your group is bigger than their group, you're evil and CCP should change everything about the game to stop you.

Pretty simple, really.
Frying Doom
#110 - 2012-12-31 08:21:03 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Anyone who chooses to fly solo or in a small group must accept the risks that come with it. There are of course many advantages of being small compared to a large group.

I am saying this with the experience and enthusiasm of a small-gang advocate.

Bloody Noir.

But always fun to kill Twisted

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#111 - 2012-12-31 08:25:21 UTC
Miri Amatonur 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"?


It's about fights in a away yes. But the scope is wider than just fights.

Alot of people and small enitities are interested in owning and working a SOV system in Null but they aren't interested to be a drone in large alliance or the super coalitions of today. The current system favours numbers. It hasn't to stay that way.
PvP and fleets are just one aspect. There is production, ratting, moon mining, PI and so on you didn't even mentioned which is possible in Null. Many if not most small entities are interested in all that actions not just the narrow field you offered here.

Since most of us are no game designers it's not my task to find a way how it could work. We all pay subscriptions in one way or another for our accounts to pay for the content and it's development. Let them come up with something usefull.

WH isn't really claimable. You can say it's yours but it doesn't show anywhere and you can't do everything you can do in SOV Null.

As someone mentioned before. We can read tons of posts in General Discussions from Null that they would like to see more players there and less in highsec but you'll never achive that by nerfing highsec to death.
You'll have to offer something. You'll need every aspect of the game workable in Null as or better than in highsec and you need to give small entities a way to raise their flag.

The SOV system has to become strong enough to weather some attacks for a time to keep their investment but it also has to be smart and smooth enough to leave it conquerable.

The risk to move to Null to own SOV is to high for small entities vs it's rewards. They can't compete with the large organisations there but also don't want to join them. So most of them just stay where they can have all aspects of the game everything. Highsec.

Should the changes in the other thread or something similar ever see the light of day, Null will need more industrial types and not just Alliances like Goonswarm and TEST, they all will. Now while it may not be possible for an alliance of 10 Indy guys to claim SOV it will allow more INDY corps to make good money while under the protection of PvPers.

The whole objective really needs to be to not kill Hi-sec but to make Null a place where more than just PvP scum want to go.

Were alliances rely on the abilities of not just the PvPers to protect them but the Indy guys to support their efforts and help fund their alliances.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#112 - 2012-12-31 13:05:03 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
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.



Small gangs already have the capacity to effectively harass the "big guys." Bombers, BLOPs Drops, AWOXing fleets, Suicide Ganking Freighters/JFs, Cloaky Camping, AFK Cloaking. If the "big guys" are able to effectively keep their morale up in the face of all of this on the grandest scale you can provide, well, too bad, their organization is too strong for you to hurt. But you'll generate a fair amount of Drama in most alliances using these tactics, and that's the goal of harassment. In EVE, the small gang is PsyOps.

"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
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#113 - 2012-12-31 15:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Miri Amatonur
Gillia Winddancer wrote:

(...) Just too bad that so many ignore these facts. On purpose too no doubt.


It doesn't matter if members of super cooperations/alliances/coalitions ignore the facts. It's an idea with potential.

The ones who matter are the developer within CCP. Some read this forums. Let's hope they find the idea interesting.

Frying Doom wrote:
(...)
Were alliances rely on the abilities of not just the PvPers to protect them but the Indy guys to support their efforts and help fund their alliances.


Exactly. Null has to offer all aspects EVE offers. PvP is just one facet. To make Null really successful it needs all facets. Null has to attract all types of players, cooperations and alliances. Not only to be under the "protection" of a super cooperation/alliance.
But also on there own.

You are right that 10 player organisations will ever be to small to achive something in Null. But it shouldn't take thousands of characters to raise the flag and keep it there. A few hundred should be enough.

Some basic ideas like upgrading SOV are great. But there should be other defensible features than EHP of SOV moduls.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#114 - 2012-12-31 15:57:25 UTC
cheese monkey wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.

Last I checked you don't fight against NPCs when you PVP.

Check again

"Ganking ratters isn't pvp"

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 ?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#115 - 2013-01-01 00:27:49 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
You are right that 10 player organisations will ever be to small to achive something in Null. But it shouldn't take thousands of characters to raise the flag and keep it there. A few hundred should be enough.

Some basic ideas like upgrading SOV are great. But there should be other defensible features than EHP of SOV moduls.


So, why should a few hundred people be able to take a and hold a system from a few thousand who are actively defending it? If your few hundred people can get the few thousand to not actively defend the system you want, you'll have no problem taking it (iHubs and TCUs don't take that many people to take down in a reasonable amount of time).

Basically, you're complaining that "people working together" is OP and suggesting that it should be nerfed.

"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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2013-01-01 00:46:51 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
cheese monkey wrote:
Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.

Last I checked you don't fight against NPCs when you PVP.

Check again

"Ganking ratters isn't pvp"

My point was how he's complaining about small frigate gangs being impossible due to NPCs. They're not, they're just significantly more limited in where they can go.
I'm not denying there's a problem with that, I'm just saying small gangs aren't dead.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dani Lizardov
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#117 - 2013-01-01 00:47:23 UTC
Luanda Heartbreaker 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"?


you take the wrong side of the question...

we live in null and quite successful in small numbers, my ceptor alt was active for like 2 days in delve and killed 20 goon test razor pilot while lost an empty travel frig only, nothing in combat. the problem is, they still won the war. nobody will ever be able to compete with those, so there are 2 choices, lick an ass or leave. i can go there alone and live and get plenty of kills, but i cant build a stable background to start my roams from and earn my isk to buy and fit my ships, you can just live there, while they want you to live there, cos if that fleet start to move, you have no any chance to stop it... especially if they have unlimited range to hotdrop anywhere in the universe


The problem that you are talking about it's not related to bigger = better.
The problem here is that kills does not matter. You will never be able to do enoght dmg, just by killing few ships.

The value of a kill is so low as the value of the individual in the group.
Therefor, goons and test are unbeatable :)

They also have silly money to create a risk free pvp env. This is why i don't like then, I liked the risk vs reward that existed back in the days...
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#118 - 2013-01-01 02:22:21 UTC
Dani Lizardov wrote:
The problem that you are talking about it's not related to bigger = better.
The problem here is that kills does not matter. You will never be able to do enoght dmg, just by killing few ships.

The value of a kill is so low as the value of the individual in the group.
Therefor, goons and test are unbeatable :)

They also have silly money to create a risk free pvp env. This is why i don't like then, I liked the risk vs reward that existed back in the days...

I see the risks you took didn't pay off. Since, you know, our blues are sitting on your moons. I thought moons were passive and riskless?

It's ok, though, EVE is harsh and cold. And blobby.

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#119 - 2013-01-01 02:23:07 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Miri Amatonur wrote:
You are right that 10 player organisations will ever be to small to achive something in Null. But it shouldn't take thousands of characters to raise the flag and keep it there. A few hundred should be enough.

Some basic ideas like upgrading SOV are great. But there should be other defensible features than EHP of SOV moduls.


So, why should a few hundred people be able to take a and hold a system from a few thousand who are actively defending it? If your few hundred people can get the few thousand to not actively defend the system you want, you'll have no problem taking it (iHubs and TCUs don't take that many people to take down in a reasonable amount of time).

Basically, you're complaining that "people working together" is OP and suggesting that it should be nerfed.

"make smaller much better"

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 ?
Frying Doom
#120 - 2013-01-01 02:36:00 UTC
As I have said in other threads Sov needs to be tied to usage so smaller groups can take sov under the radar as it were by using a system more than the owners so reducing its sov level over time and then capturing it.

Having the ability to ignore a system you hold sov in and then just titan bridging over to it if someone attacks it does not further the game.

Having to use a system to upgrade it or take it does.

It also means more abilities for PvP rather than just blob.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!