These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#121 - 2013-01-01 04:01:14 UTC
Smaller groups should have the advantage of mobility. But because the restriction of gate travel for smaller groups while larger groups can employ jump travel the advantage is erased.

In the past I have suggested jump drives for all ships. This would make gate campers have to work for their food while returning the advantage of mobility to smaller groups. Like the MJD a jump drive for smaller ships would include a spool time to deploy and then a cooldown timer after.

The system would easily work by picking a destination in an adjoining system. To avoid collisions jumps could not end up closer than 150km to a jump gate (yes, they would remain)/asteroid belt/station/moon. In short it would allow for small groups to be effective in numerous scenarios in the full range of security systems.
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#122 - 2013-01-01 10:29:08 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

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.



  1. The super corporations/alliances/coalitions of today control more space than they really need to support their numbers.
  2. Smaller groups have an internal organization too. It's not just the "big boys" who have it. The members of smaller entities work together too. It's no nerf of "working together".
  3. The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.
  4. Giving smaller entities the ability to claim SOV and defend it successfully (even against larger entities) will create more PvP, more politics and so on. Space that is used to it's full potential. Space where someone lives not just to fly through.
  5. I'm not here to propose how to change the mechanics. I'm here to propose a different way than todays "numbers are everything".


SOV for the middle class of corporations/alliances in EVE will make the game and null more interesting again.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2013-01-01 11:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Miri Amatonur wrote:
The super corporations/alliances/coalitions of today control more space than they really need to support their numbers.

No, we don't. Nobody does. I'll let you figure out why.

Miri Amatonur wrote:
The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.

So how do you suppose we magically eliminate the basic tactical axiom that superior numbers generally mean a stronger force, other things being equal?

Miri Amatonur wrote:
I'm not here to propose how to change the mechanics. I'm here to propose a different way than todays "numbers are everything".

Of course you're not. You have no idea how, because you're trying to change basic common sense. If you can come up with some way to make small groups competitive without penalizing large groups just because they're large, then I'm all ears.

As it is, it's like asking to change the economy so your mom and pop store can pull the same profits as Walmart.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
terzho
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#124 - 2013-01-01 11:12:27 UTC
James pretty much has it spot on. If you can answer his question then you might have an argument OP.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#125 - 2013-01-01 11:13:03 UTC
terzho wrote:
James pretty much has it spot on. If you can answer his question then you might have an argument OP.

I AM the OP. Lol
Or are you referring to the person I quoted?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ame Sonoda
Perkone
Caldari State
#126 - 2013-01-01 11:14:28 UTC
The problem to me isn't about whether a small force can beat a larger one more that a small gang can't do anything to force the afk empires to have to respond quickly to their raids. It's curently easier to stay docked and say 'we'll rep it when they've gone' than risk ships.
I have no idea how or even if there's any real way to fix this but to me that's the real issue.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2013-01-01 11:16:54 UTC
Ame Sonoda wrote:
The problem to me isn't about whether a small force can beat a larger one more that a small gang can't do anything to force the afk empires to have to respond quickly to their raids. It's curently easier to stay docked and say 'we'll rep it when they've gone' than risk ships.
I have no idea how or even if there's any real way to fix this but to me that's the real issue.

I think that's really one of the main issues surrounding how sovereignty is handled, especially with the current reinforcement system. I have no idea how to fix it either, but I'm hopeful that a fix will be found as the problems with current nullsec mechanics are becoming more and more apparent.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
terzho
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#128 - 2013-01-01 11:23:28 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
terzho wrote:
James pretty much has it spot on. If you can answer his question then you might have an argument OP.

I AM the OP. Lol
Or are you referring to the person I quoted?


LOL My bad...........well yes I am referring to the person that believes that large fleets should be weaker than small fleets because they are large fleets......
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#129 - 2013-01-01 11:26:03 UTC
you people can't be serious (or at least have any real knowledge about the game) if you think that nerfing local will be a boost to smaller groups

if anything, it will make the deployment of capitals and supercapitals by smaller groups that are not PL impossibly risky and targets for casual roams (ratters, miners, etc.) would simply move to highsec, making nullsec even more of a desert

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#130 - 2013-01-01 11:28:23 UTC
Andski wrote:
you people can't be serious (or at least have any real knowledge about the game) if you think that nerfing local will be a boost to smaller groups

if anything, it will make the deployment of capitals and supercapitals by smaller groups that are not PL impossibly risky and targets for casual roams (ratters, miners, etc.) would simply move to highsec, making nullsec even more of a desert

This old chestnut again but the CSM summit has just been Lol

It would make it more fun for us paranoid bas***ds from Wormholes.

like fish in a barrel.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2013-01-01 11:38:19 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Andski wrote:
you people can't be serious (or at least have any real knowledge about the game) if you think that nerfing local will be a boost to smaller groups

if anything, it will make the deployment of capitals and supercapitals by smaller groups that are not PL impossibly risky and targets for casual roams (ratters, miners, etc.) would simply move to highsec, making nullsec even more of a desert

This old chestnut again but the CSM summit has just been Lol

It would make it more fun for us paranoid bas***ds from Wormholes.

like fish in a barrel.

For a week, maybe. In the long term the only people you'll be catching doing PVE in nullsec will be people whose functional IQ is about half that of those who get caught now (so roughly 25).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2013-01-01 11:41:49 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.


You are misunderstanding some parts here. The idea is not to make small groups equally strong as big groups and make numbers pointless. Numbers should always matter! But numbers should also lack certain advantages that you sacrifice for more fire power basically.

In your case where you have 100 or so players versus 1000 or so players, yes in a direct battle the advantage would definitely be in the large group's favour. The 100 player group would have to use a different strategy.

Can smaller groups that are less than 100 do anything EFFECTIVELY? Say 5-10 players?

Another thing that you are missing is that there are tons of small group corps out there, most in high-sec. If we put methods/game mechanics aside, what do you think would happen if they realized that they now have at least ONE way of fighting the mega-alliances in null without getting swatted in 2 seconds, if they play a bit smart? Sure, they would not be able to do massive economic damage or leave a path of burned PoS's behind them or grab systems and claim it as their own because they have no firepower for that, but they would still be able to cause low-scale constant economic damage via harassment.

Yeah, a puny, tiny corp doing that would be no real issue for these huge mega-alliances, right? Well, it would be a different story if you had hundreds of these small groups attempting harassment strategies. And I bet you anything that a large percentage of these small corps want to get into null by themselves, by their own strength, with their own identity and name.

So let's speculate a bit and assume that we have a scenario where the biggest alliances are constantly harassed by small corps. Mining/ratting in null is somewhat risky because you never know when a surprise attack may come and it all comes down to who can detect who first.

What would EVE look like? How would these alliances deal with this environment?

Or do I dare to go as far and suggest that the only kind of PvP the null-dwellers want to see are the big fleet battles? It would be an explanation as to why there seem to be a certain resistance to suggestions which would let small groups participate effectively.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#133 - 2013-01-01 11:41:52 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
For a week, maybe. In the long term the only people you'll be catching doing PVE in nullsec will be people whose functional IQ is about half that of those who get caught now (so roughly 25).


Well, not quite. However, the only viable PvE in nullsec will be missions and exploration since both require you to be probed out. But missions are limited to NPC nullsec, and don't pay much better in 0.0 than they do in highsec, and solo exploration in 0.0 is such a gigantic pain unless you have others doing the probing for you for a cut of the profits.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2013-01-01 11:43:01 UTC
Andski wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
For a week, maybe. In the long term the only people you'll be catching doing PVE in nullsec will be people whose functional IQ is about half that of those who get caught now (so roughly 25).


Well, not quite. However, the only viable PvE in nullsec will be missions and exploration since both require you to be probed out. But missions are limited to NPC nullsec, and don't pay much better in 0.0 than they do in highsec, and solo exploration in 0.0 is such a gigantic pain unless you have others doing the probing for you for a cut of the profits.

Right. Forgot about that.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#135 - 2013-01-01 14:02:48 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Miri Amatonur wrote:
The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.

So how do you suppose we magically eliminate the basic tactical axiom that superior numbers generally mean a stronger force, other things being equal?

Ah yes, numbers always win? That isn't true. Persian Wars, Battle of Agincourt and so on
Superior numbers can be circumvented in the real world. In EVE that is extremly hard to impossible, especially with SOV warfare.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Miri Amatonur wrote:
I'm not here to propose how to change the mechanics. I'm here to propose a different way than todays "numbers are everything".

Of course you're not. You have no idea how, because you're trying to change basic common sense. If you can come up with some way to make small groups competitive without penalizing large groups just because they're large, then I'm all ears.

As it is, it's like asking to change the economy so your mom and pop store can pull the same profits as Walmart.


Basic common sense? Is EVE a real world simulation with all physical, economical, social and so on laws? No it isn't.
It's a sandbox game with certain rules, which were made by CCP. It was CCP who created these mechanics. It's common sense to modify these game mechanics so CCP can make more profit.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#136 - 2013-01-01 14:12:54 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

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.



  1. The super corporations/alliances/coalitions of today control more space than they really need to support their numbers.
  2. Smaller groups have an internal organization too. It's not just the "big boys" who have it. The members of smaller entities work together too. It's no nerf of "working together".
  3. The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.
  4. Giving smaller entities the ability to claim SOV and defend it successfully (even against larger entities) will create more PvP, more politics and so on. Space that is used to it's full potential. Space where someone lives not just to fly through.
  5. I'm not here to propose how to change the mechanics. I'm here to propose a different way than todays "numbers are everything".


SOV for the middle class of corporations/alliances in EVE will make the game and null more interesting again.



1. So you should be able to take one of their "extra" systems without any trouble, huh?
2. It's a nerf to "people working together" that you're suggesting. As in "lots of them."
3. Everything in the world ever favors larger groups working together over smaller groups. That's because 2 > 1. It's how numbers work.
4. Why should 5 guys be able to push 10 guys out of their home when they don't have any special advantage besides "having fewer people" and the 10 guys are willing and able to defend their home? It takes 4-5 guys in Dreads to take Sov in a system in a reasonable amount of time. You're complaining that you and your "couple hundred" guys can't defeat a "couple thousand guys" who are actively defending it. It's not a mechanics issue you're complaining about.
5. Yet what you're proposing would require contrived, nonsensical, and easily exploitable mechanical changes.


You're complaining that 2 > 1. I suggest you take your complaint up with some Mathematicians, not the EVE-O forums.

"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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#137 - 2013-01-01 14:15:33 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:

Ah yes, numbers always win? That isn't true. Persian Wars, Battle of Agincourt and so on
Superior numbers can be circumvented in the real world. In EVE that is extremly hard to impossible, especially with SOV warfare.


Its not impossible, my corp has been doing it for years.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#138 - 2013-01-01 14:27:25 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
You are misunderstanding some parts here. The idea is not to make small groups equally strong as big groups and make numbers pointless. Numbers should always matter! But numbers should also lack certain advantages that you sacrifice for more fire power basically.


Miri was suggesting that a 100 man organization should be able to take (and hold) Sov from a 1000 man organization. That's like saying that Canada should be able to take (and hold) Maine from the US. Sov requires a stand up battle because you can't choose where to fight for it, just when.


Quote:
In your case where you have 100 or so players versus 1000 or so players, yes in a direct battle the advantage would definitely be in the large group's favour. The 100 player group would have to use a different strategy.

Can smaller groups that are less than 100 do anything EFFECTIVELY? Say 5-10 players?


Yep. I listed a bunch of suggestions earlier in this thread. You just can't beat 1000 people in a stand up fight (duh).

Quote:
Another thing that you are missing is that there are tons of small group corps out there, most in high-sec. If we put methods/game mechanics aside, what do you think would happen if they realized that they now have at least ONE way of fighting the mega-alliances in null without getting swatted in 2 seconds, if they play a bit smart? Sure, they would not be able to do massive economic damage or leave a path of burned PoS's behind them or grab systems and claim it as their own because they have no firepower for that, but they would still be able to cause low-scale constant economic damage via harassment.


They have many ways. They choose not to get the experience and know-how to use them. Again, I listed a bunch of ways to harass a larger entity that don't take more than 10 people to do effectively.

Quote:
Yeah, a puny, tiny corp doing that would be no real issue for these huge mega-alliances, right? Well, it would be a different story if you had hundreds of these small groups attempting harassment strategies. And I bet you anything that a large percentage of these small corps want to get into null by themselves, by their own strength, with their own identity and name.

So let's speculate a bit and assume that we have a scenario where the biggest alliances are constantly harassed by small corps. Mining/ratting in null is somewhat risky because you never know when a surprise attack may come and it all comes down to who can detect who first.

What would EVE look like? How would these alliances deal with this environment?

Or do I dare to go as far and suggest that the only kind of PvP the null-dwellers want to see are the big fleet battles? It would be an explanation as to why there seem to be a certain resistance to suggestions which would let small groups participate effectively.


No, they don't. You're talking about HS PvE corps. The same type of people who are whining that their drones are getting shot and about the fact that Suicide ganking is possible. They're not going to drop everything and go harass big alliances, or they already would be.

Harassing a big group is goddamn easy, but you have to get over the "killmails don't matter" bullshit. Go run an AWOXing fleet. Not only will you have fun, but you'll get corps kicked from alliances (if you're lucky, the attendant drama will show up on EVESkunk or you'll have another toon in to listen for it). You need maybe 5 guys in Bombers or Nullified T3s.

When Waffles was deployed in Delve we were successfully harassing SOCO. Mostly with gangs of around 10 dudes. In Stain, we were harassing SOLAR and -A-. The biggest Waffles only fleet I've been in was maybe 20 dudes. It's not hard to fight above your weight class, you just have to know what targets you can aim for.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#139 - 2013-01-01 14:35:43 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Miri Amatonur wrote:
The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.

So how do you suppose we magically eliminate the basic tactical axiom that superior numbers generally mean a stronger force, other things being equal?

Ah yes, numbers always win? That isn't true. Persian Wars, Battle of Agincourt and so on
Superior numbers can be circumvented in the real world. In EVE that is extremly hard to impossible, especially with SOV warfare.


Bolded and underlined the important thing you missed, for your reading convenience.

The difference is that, in EVE, the guys with superior numbers actually know what they're doing. The battle of Agincourt represented a fundamental shift in the way battles were fought, and the French didn't figure it out until after they lost. (I mean, who would have guessed that charging straight into entrenched bowmen would be a bad idea? Right?). Had the French picked tactics more suited to their terrain, or terrain more suited to their tactics, it would have been yet another victory for the guy with the bigger army.

Miri Amatonur wrote:
Basic common sense? Is EVE a real world simulation with all physical, economical, social and so on laws? No it isn't.
It's a sandbox game with certain rules, which were made by CCP. It was CCP who created these mechanics. It's common sense to modify these game mechanics so CCP can make more profit.


So how do you propose to change the mechanics so that 2 !> 1? Keep in mind that your proposal should not be contrived, nonsensical, or easily exploitable.

"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
#140 - 2013-01-01 14:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Miri Amatonur
RubyPorto wrote:

1. So you should be able to take one of their "extra" systems without any trouble, huh?
2. It's a nerf to "people working together" that you're suggesting. As in "lots of them."
3. Everything in the world ever favors larger groups working together over smaller groups. That's because 2 > 1. It's how numbers work.
4. Why should 5 guys be able to push 10 guys out of their home when they don't have any special advantage besides "having fewer people" and the 10 guys are willing and able to defend their home? It takes 4-5 guys in Dreads to take Sov in a system in a reasonable amount of time. You're complaining that you and your "couple hundred" guys can't defeat a "couple thousand guys" who are actively defending it. It's not a mechanics issue you're complaining about.
5. Yet what you're proposing would require contrived, nonsensical, and easily exploitable mechanical changes.


You're complaining that 2 > 1. I suggest you take your complaint up with some Mathematicians, not the EVE-O forums.


Yes we should be able to take systems from them easily. But it wouldn't take long to be blobed out, outnumbered with 10:1 or more. Unless you do it while they are sleeping in rl. Even then you have no chance to take it or keep it, since they have to defend it else they would look weak. And wasn't there a lag of PvP in Null?
The only way to get this runing would be an attack of thousands of smaller alliances/corps at the same time and everywhere. But what would that be? Super Coalition!
We already have enough leviathan corporations/alliances/coalitions. We want no more of them!

It is a game mechanic issue i "complain" about. Current game mechanics favours numbers. EVE is no real world simulation. it's a sandbox game made by CCP. The game mechanics were contrived by CCP. Some mechanics are nonsensical, just have a look at the SOV system.

baltec1 wrote:


Its not impossible, my corp has been doing it for years.


If you don't mean another Corp than Bat Country it's no surprise because they are part of Goonswarm since 2010.

RubyPorto wrote:

So how do you propose to change the mechanics so that 2 !> 1? Keep in mind that your proposal should not be contrived, nonsensical, or easily exploitable.


As i said before: I'm not a game designer. I pay subscription. Let the experts (CCP) figure it out.