open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked So about blob warfare
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.09.07 22:47:00 - [1]
 

When CSM were asked about blob warfare 50% of the elected had it as a priority and 80% chose it as something that they would look into.

With Ankh gone the % only increased, this isnt the first year CSM have had this as a priority yet blob warfare only ever gets briefly spoken about when lag is mentioned and even then it is to promote blob warfare rather than change it.

I was just curious, when will the CSM actually talk about something they marked as a top priority that they would change, or really is the priority here changing what can and cant jam supercarriers :P

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.08 01:02:00 - [2]
 

There are several CSMs for whom this is an area of deep interest; Meissa and I had a wonderful argument about possible ways to break up the blobs over a dinner at the summit, for example.

In the short-term, however, CCP is currently focused on beating back the lag-monster and getting it locked back in its cage, but I think they realize that longer-term, game-design changes are the only way to prevent fleet sizes from ballooning (as I put it in my election manifesto, "fleets grow to fit the lag available").

When CCP starts feeling more comfortable with the progress they are making on technical lag-fighting, I hope they will be amenable to some serious discussions about game-design (especially sov) changes, and in particular that they will reconsider a suggestion I made at the summit - that they endorse the creation of a CSM-run focus group of experienced nullsec strategists and FCs charged with coming up with some serious game-design change proposals.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.06 19:06:00 - [3]
 

So any update on Blob Warfare ;) while I appreciated your reply 2 months ago it doesnt really change the fact that blob warfare has been one of the major problems with 0.0 and still is being ignored, yet blob masters such as Vuk Lau continue to be hypocritical saying they would love to get rid of blob warfare however not only does he ignore his own priorities he also promotes blobbing.

Stuff like this doesnt really help CCP with anything, how can CCP work with a team that arent even consistent with what they believe in, itís like the saying goes "practice what you preach" and this by far was one of the biggest priorities CSM agreed on yet once again least spoke about.

The assembly hall in the last 2 months has increased in anti-blobbing threads, people are getting fed up with how numbers are ruining eve, with recent battles increasing past 3200 people are losing faith in both CSM and CCP, especially since expansions such dominion were meant to promote encourage smaller alliances to enter 0.0. Heavy abuses of blobbing are NC who managed to have 2200 people within one system (which was less than 50% of their NAP list, since western NC was busy with Ev0ke) just to counter 1000 players, which resulted in the server lagging @ 3200.

All that has changed is CCP working on fixing lag which historically will return due to the mechanics of blob warfare, players are tired of blobbing, hypocrisy and ideas given to CCP that only helps a few players.

Mortimer Civeri
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.11.06 20:09:00 - [4]
 

Blob warfare was supposed to be addressed with the Dominion expansion. CCP has stated they wanted small gangs to affect sov with the Dominion expansion. What we got was another half finished expansion, with sov structures consisting of mega HP, so the only way to contest sov in a resonable time frame was to increase the blob, and blob with supercaps. Excelence, at its best. The half finished system now, so grossly favors the defenders, that they litterally have to "not want that space anyway" for the attackers to have a chance at capturing any space at all.

Every 0.0 sov holder applauded the Dominion expansion as CCP stated the goals, but when it went live every 0.0 sov holder was dissapointed, and the only comfort they could gather was,
"At least it's not POS bashing/POS spamming."

CCP, finish the Dominion expansion.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.06 21:30:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 06/11/2010 21:38:32
The lack of understanding here is shocking. As is the incoherent rage.

The very term "blobbing" has no meaning at all, it's a content-free snarl word most of the time simply used to describe someone who can field more numbers than you can. Let's not kid ourselves here, it's hardly an objective claim. (Is 2:1 blobbing? How about 3:2? 4:1?)

Claims that CCP somehow has to fix the fact that, all other things being equal, greater numbers will have an advantage over fewer numbers are, simply, ignorant. What can CCP possibly do to alter the dynamics of reality itself? And no, fixing Dominion won't get rid of it. You have a CSAA POS someone else wants to take out? Well, if they can raise twice the numbers you can, they have a much better chance of destroying it. You have a moon mining POS someone else wants to take down and tower up for themselves? Well, if they can raise twice your numbers they can take down your POS, put up their POS, and defend it so that you can't take it back. You have a station that someone else wants, well...

Complaining that, in an MMO of all places (~gasp, shock, horror!~) people are working together in groups to beat other people working in groups, but gosh darn some of those groups are larger than the other groups so it's just not fair! Well, let's say charitably that it simply misses the point.

If people cannot handle the fact that in an MMO, there may be a Mass of Mutiple-players Online who can oppose you, then MMO's aren't for them. Single player games can have a finely tuned degree of balance. Say, Mass Effect 2, even on Insanity mode, never overwhelmed you with more than you could possibly handle. There were no complaints that the husks were "blobbing" you, even when they outnumbered you, because the game devs specifically crafted a balance so that the individual player would always have a pretty decent shot to fight through and win.

But people seem not to understand that there is no such balance, and nor should there be, in a game that isn't a single-player game.

And for some reason we see this whine and don't simply laugh, yet if it was another game we all would. If someoneme wanted to play Modern Warfare 2 online without it being so 'unfair' while they were one guy against a squad of 8 players and how they wanted Infinity Ward to "fix" the game so that numbers weren't so decisive. If one guy was playing Team Fortress 2 against 16 other people and complaining that he should still have a fair chance to defend his flag as well as capturing the enemy flag, we'd laugh at him. But when it's the exact same thing in EVE, all of a sudden it's Serious Biznezz and CCP had better do something about the fact that mathamatics holds true in reality.

Math will always hold true in reality, there's nothing to be done about it. Demanding that CCP stop math from working is, to put it gently, Quixotic.

P.S. If you want an MMO which does its best to get the "fairness" thing that people seem to want, World of Warcraft has instanced areas with strictly limited groups that are able to enter. That seems to be what some people want, so rather than asking EVE to change to that model it makes much more sense to go to a game that already has it.

VCBee 2fast2furious
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.07 03:30:00 - [6]
 

Dear CCP: It isn't fair that people can choose a way of playing EVE which differs from my own. The NC are mean and have alot of people, its not fair teams. Also, allowing player-driven interaction is surely against the rules, CCP should introduce more railroading, and stop people from playing this open ended sandbox MMO in the wrong way.

Please nerf everyone who isn't me or I will sulk in the corner and stamp my feet.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.07 05:23:00 - [7]
 

Now that's not fair at all.
In addition to the sulking and the stamping we've seen a few quality temper tantrums, too.

VCBee 2fast2furious
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.07 10:00:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: VCBee 2fast2furious on 07/11/2010 10:01:48
Originally by: Lady Parity

You do realise this can be said for EVERY idea ever suggested? Also you do know NC being the minority now because EVERYONE else wants to end this awful game play.


Yes clearly everyone wants to end large scale coalitions, that's why most of 0.0 has .... joined large scale coalitions?

(or by 'everyone' did you mean 'me and a couple of other loud whiny forum babies')

CCP Navigator


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.07 12:11:00 - [9]
 

There is an increasing trend in Assembly Hall/Jita Park threads in which they are degrading into flame wars. This is not the purpose of this sub forum which is designed to bring ideas to the CSM for discussion.

I am clearing out these flames but please be aware that these are in violation of the forum rules. In future, we ask that you use the report post feature and we will take the necessary action. Do not get involved in tit-for-tat flame wars which ultimately mean your points get lost and ignored.

NereSky
Gallente
RETRIBUTIONS.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2010.11.07 16:02:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: CCP Navigator
There is an increasing trend in Assembly Hall/Jita Park threads in which they are degrading into flame wars. This is not the purpose of this sub forum which is designed to bring ideas to the CSM for discussion.

I am clearing out these flames but please be aware that these are in violation of the forum rules. In future, we ask that you use the report post feature and we will take the necessary action. Do not get involved in tit-for-tat flame wars which ultimately mean your points get lost and ignored.


As much as i applaud you intentions Navigator you know as well as i do and many others that flames and trolls occur everywhere on the forums which are only lightly moderated (some entities seem to have more of a carte blanche than others imo)

However as you seem to be speaking more about this particular sub forum i believe you maybe hitting your head against a brickwall mainly for 2 reasons;

1) Its political
2) the description of the forum seems to give a sort of free reign to the topics and discussion in comparison to the other forums;

'A less formal venue to discuss or debate whatever you wish regarding the Council of Stellar Management.'

but i wish you luck anyway

Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Posted - 2010.11.07 17:31:00 - [11]
 

Hm, don't forum rules state that moderation is not to be discussed? Time to grant the forums mods their wish and file a report... Laughing

CCP Navigator


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.07 17:40:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: NereSky
Originally by: CCP Navigator
There is an increasing trend in Assembly Hall/Jita Park threads in which they are degrading into flame wars. This is not the purpose of this sub forum which is designed to bring ideas to the CSM for discussion.

I am clearing out these flames but please be aware that these are in violation of the forum rules. In future, we ask that you use the report post feature and we will take the necessary action. Do not get involved in tit-for-tat flame wars which ultimately mean your points get lost and ignored.


As much as i applaud you intentions Navigator you know as well as i do and many others that flames and trolls occur everywhere on the forums which are only lightly moderated (some entities seem to have more of a carte blanche than others imo)

However as you seem to be speaking more about this particular sub forum i believe you maybe hitting your head against a brickwall mainly for 2 reasons;

1) Its political
2) the description of the forum seems to give a sort of free reign to the topics and discussion in comparison to the other forums;

'A less formal venue to discuss or debate whatever you wish regarding the Council of Stellar Management.'

but i wish you luck anyway


Neresky,

Although technically you are discussing moderation I would like to point out that because it is a less formal venue to discuss whatever you wish, this does not mean that the regular forum rules do not apply. The point of these sub forums are to have spirited discussions regarding issues that you would like the CSM to raise directly with us at CCP. If that thread is nothing more than two or three players holding a grudge at each other and posting flames or trolls then important messaging can get lost in that crossfire.

I can tell you that the CSM work hard to bring forward solid player ideas and we would rather see good ideas having a solid discussion so that the CSM can get a broad feel of what players want.


NereSky
Gallente
RETRIBUTIONS.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2010.11.07 18:16:00 - [13]
 

Didnt mean to cause offence, was just making a statement and technically i wasnt discussing moderation but wishing you luck in your endeavours.

Apologies offered if offence was caused

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.07 23:17:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: CCP Navigator

I can tell you that the CSM work hard to bring forward solid player ideas and we would rather see good ideas having a solid discussion so that the CSM can get a broad feel of what players want



The problem is, some players really do want to find ways out of game (e.g. through the forums) to beat opponents who they cannot beat in game. It's corporation-alliance-and-organization discussion masquerading as non-CAOD discussion.

It's like if we saw dozens of threads from NC pilots complaining about the effectiveness of Drone Regions' Drake fleets, and a dozen variations on "nerf Drake tank!" "no, nerf Drake's ability to get remote reps!" "no, nerf Drake pilots and anybody who flies a Drake loses 1 mil skillpoints on destruction!" We're seeing the same sort of thing now "remove pilots abilities to tell who's blue and who isn't!", "don't let fleets use allied jump bridges, titans, or black ops!"

And so on and so on and so on. It's CAOD masquerading as game mechanics fixes.

More importantly, the whole concept of "blob" this or "blob" that is 100% meaningless, other than to indicate that it's being used as a snarl word by someone. Honestly, there is simply no objective definition of the word "blob" that doesn't rely, exclusively, on a whine that someone is able to bring more forces than you are.

Is a 100 man gang a blob? Well, not if the defenders have 200 pilots. But what if that 100 man gang is fighting 2 people, is it a blob then? If the 100 man fleet jumps out from a system where it can't fight 200 people and then fights 2 people, is it suddenly not a blob in one system and a blob in the next, even though the actual fleet hasn't changed, at all? Is a 50:50 fight fair? What if one side brings all supercarriers and the other has battlecruisers, is it a supercarrier "blob" then? Obviously, it's not about how many people you bring, but what the opposition has. And that means that the only real definition of the snarl word is a subjective complaint that someone else can have more people in the game than you do and/or that they have better ships.

Which is, of course, game mechanics functioning exactly as intended.

And it does miss the fundamental dynamic behind EVE, which is that in lawless space players are the ones who decide how the game plays out because it's player-driven interactions that set up the market, determine the resources available, determine what empires exist where, etc... The desire for a game with artificial "fairness" (i.e. a game where nobody can bring more people or have better equipment than you can) is simply not EVE. But it is, essentially, what games like World of Warcraft have built in.

Not only should EVE not try to emulate the softest aspects of WoW, but arguments about how people shouldn't be allowed to bring more/better ships than others, or how only one playstyle should be boosted (e.g. small gang) at the expense of tens of thousands of other players because some small-gang advocates can't adapt and/or they want to be able to refrain from adapting and still be able to challenge those who can offer superior force/numbers... well, it's an attempt to sneak in-game conflicts through the back door as if they were some sort of necessary game-mechanics fix.

"I can't figure out a way to counter significantly greater force/numbers and I refuse to find a niche where that isn't necessary." is not a valid topic of discussion, it's a blog post.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.07 23:49:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Lady Parity on 08/11/2010 11:37:18
You are doing it again Finn, dont you get it your argument can be used for EVERY change in progress, completed or suggested, things change for a reason, as far as your replies have gone you have gone and truly in short said "CCP except for bugs I dont wish for ANY change in this game ever" and because you are so vague, yet you brand yourself as sincere and whatever you say you believe to be accurate without listening to anyone.

I cant be doing with your inconsistence or ignorance anymore, say what you like, I will continue as I am but refuse to even acknowledge your existence even in game and considering how many arguments you get into daily I would be surprised if I am the first one to say this

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.11.08 00:27:00 - [16]
 

The CSM have been discussing blobs and Sov again recently and will be requesting a couple of sessions with CCP during the December summit. Feel free to take part in the upcoming CSM roundtable if you have ideas about this. As usual nailing down what the problem is becomes the primary requirement for coming up with potential solutions. For example, is 100 battleships a blob? If so, how about 10 super carriers? It isn't as simple as counting ships on each side Wink


From personal experience the term "blob" is thrown around so much it seems to mean anything from 2 vs 1 (seriously, we've been accused of "blobbing" people in a 2 vs 1 fight with similar ship types Wink) all the way through to the recent 2000 vs 1000 fights.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 01:04:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
As usual nailing down what the problem is becomes the primary requirement for coming up with potential solutions. For example, is 100 battleships a blob? If so, how about 10 super carriers? It isn't as simple as counting ships on each side


That's the issue and the reason that there is no actual problem. The term is 100% meaningless except as a snarl word. Hayakawa referred to these as "presymbolic noises" that were pretending to be actual fully formed language.

Or as he put it: "Such statements have less to do with reporting the outside world than they do with our inadvertently reporting the state of our internal world; they are the human equivalents of snarling and purring. . . . To take sides on such issues phrased in such judgmental ways is to reduce communication to a level of stubborn imbecility."

Nobody has or can define "blob" because it has absolutely no definition beyond "something I don't like" or "more forces than the defenders have" or "better ships than the defenders have". All of which are game mechanics functioning exactly as designed.

There is absolutely no problem with "blob" anything, there is a problem with people complaining about types of combat that they're unable to adapt to and niches that they're unwilling to vacate once they're unable to compete.

Even a semi-decent metric such as "enough ships to induce lag on a node" is jabberwockian; I've lagged out systems to near unplayability by leading fleets of a dozen pilots. Is a dozen pilots now a game breaking "blob" fleet? If the defenders of a CSAA that's building a titan field 500 people, and the attackers field 500 people, and their ships are exactly the same but the node lags out, then even though neither has the slightest advantage, all of a sudden both are "blobs".

The word is meaningless except as a snarl word. At least in Through the looking glass style nonsense language we at least have context to give us semantic clues (we know what a frumious bandersnatch is even if we've never seen one). Even in Joyce's Wake we can figure out how nonsense words are used in context (we know what Joyce means when he says "Comeday morm and, O, you're vine! Sendday's eve and, ah, you're vinegar! Hahahaha, Mister Funn, you're going to be fined again")

But with "blob" the only actual semantic value it conveys is "grrrr!"

We'd laugh if it was an industrialist complaining that he was being "blobbed" because his lone operation was in competition against an industrialist corp with 100 members and a huge mining wing. But involve guns, and all of a sudden it's Serious Business and Something Must Be Done!

Originally by: TeaDaze
From personal experience the term "blob" is thrown around so much it seems to mean anything from 2 vs 1 (seriously, we've been accused of "blobbing" people in a 2 vs 1 fight with similar ship types [)

) all the way through to the recent 2000 vs 1000 fights.


And it will continue to be used in exactly that manner, because "grr, blob!" is the EVE equivalent of "I dropped the ball because the sun was in my eyes and, also, you suck!"

Short of WoW style arena combat, if all other things are equal there will always be an advantage to being able to defend with more people/better ships than the attackers and attack with more people/better ships. It doesn't matter if you change sov, people will always have assets that they want to defend or attack. People will always have fleets that are larger than their opponents' fleets, and most folks are hardly going to start telling people "Leave fleet, we have seven more pilots than the enemy, and make sure that the ships that are left are a fair balance!"

Because "blob" has the semantic value of the null-set is really just a snarl word about people who can bring more/better ships than you, any discussions on how to "fix" blobs will really just be about using the CSM to prosecute in-game grudges.
A very, very bad policy to start.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 02:26:00 - [18]
 

Blob isn't entirely semantic. Considering CCP ought to know approximately how much their grids can handle, a "blob" in technical terms would mean a group of ships large enough to destabalize the node. Ofcourse, with re-enforced nodes (or lack there of in some cases) this becomes variable.

SXYGeeK
Gallente
do you
Posted - 2010.11.08 02:40:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Blob isn't entirely semantic. Considering CCP ought to know approximately how much their grids can handle, a "blob" in technical terms would mean a group of ships large enough to destabalize the node. Ofcourse, with re-enforced nodes (or lack there of in some cases) this becomes variable.


limiting the number of people that can enter a system (node) will never work.
if it's a hard limit then whoever shows up first wins.
if it is a per side limit then one side may just split into two neutral forces , take the system to its limit and no one can enter.
if it is per ally limit then one side will again use two or more neutral forces and do manual target screening or some other form of NIP.

the tendency of people to form up into a group will always be there.
we can only offer some possible alternatives for smaller entities to have some effect.
to spread the fighting out a little from the server crushing battles we have now due to SOV focusing on a couple high EHP structures.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 03:04:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 03:11:00
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Blob isn't entirely semantic.


Semantic, literally, means "meaning". So something that is semantic has meaning.
My point is that "blob" has zero semantic value. Zero meaning. it is a snarl word. It only means "grrr!"

And the metric of node stability is one I addressed. Is a 12 man fleet a "blob", because I've lagged empty systems out with 5+ minutes of jump/module lag and only a dozen people in my fleet.

It also presents an absurdity if we're talking about reinforced nodes and both sides have equal forces. If the defenders bring, say, 600 and the attackers also bring 600, and both sides have the exact same ships down to their fittings, then the node can still be significantly lagged out. What does it mean, then if both sides are "blobs"? The term effectively loses all meaning if two sides have 100% identical composition and are 100% fairly matched, but we've still got "blobbing".

Nor are calls that either side should reduce its force particularly persuasive. If the defenders have something that they wish to preserve (let's say, just for argument, a dozen CSAA POS's with titans in the oven, anchored in one system that are coming out of their reinforced timers at the same time). Should we expect them to defend with even a single pilot less than they could? If they bring 300 players because they think that's a 'non-blob' and their opponents bring 500 and win, does that mean that they weren't "blobbing"? If they bring 300 players because they think that's a "non-blob" and their opponents bring 150 and lose, does that mean that the defenders really were "blobbing"?
What if the node's stability sucks and it lags out pretty heavy in both situations, even when it's reinforced?

And, more importantly, if the attacks aren't able to eliminate those POS's and baby titans, or the defenders aren't able to defend those POS's and baby titans, who compensates them for the opportunity cost of that lost ability? You? Someone else? Anybody, at all?

Of course not. It is, therefore, a demand that, in accord with a snarl word that's got the semantic value of the null-set, either attackers or defenders voluntarily sacrifice victory on the altar of appeasing a demand that can never possibly be met. There will always be someone who'll claim that two rifters versus one merlin is a "blob".

Quote:

Considering CCP ought to know approximately how much their grids can handle, a "blob" in technical terms would mean a group of ships large enough to destabalize the node. Ofcourse, with re-enforced nodes (or lack there of in some cases) this becomes variable.


I'd like to point something else out about this, as well. Fleet A jumps into System 1 and fights Fleet B, which has equal numbers, and it's reinforced and everything goes well. Then Fleet A jumps into System 2 and fights Fleet C which is 1/2 its strength and/or System 2 is not reinforced, the system lags out.

By some strange alchemy, Fleet A is both a blob and not a blob.

Likewise, if Fleet A has, say, 100 ships that have drones and Fleet B has 100 ships that don't have drones, if fleet A deploys drones it will lag the system out a hell of a lot more than fleet B. Fleet A, then, is not a blob as long as they don't deploy drones, but a blob if they do.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 03:18:00 - [21]
 

You're right, I should have said that refering to "blobs," is not a game of "semantics." Excuse me.

But you have to admit, given the fact there are very quantifiable (if not somewhat complex) variables to mathematically decide how much the average node can withstand there is no reason not to assign relative values with a title, be it "blob," or "more than capacity."

I agree, there's absolutely nothing behind trying to enforce static limitations per node, but I disagree that is the only approach to discouraging node-crashing numbers of ships becoming a part of a single fleet. I believe the process to reform soverign warfare has to deliniate away from blobbing and look at the root causes of blobbing outside of creating ineffectual objectives. The root of blobbing directly related to how easily one can muster that number of pilots under a single banner. Something I believe doesn't get a lot of attention (at least not the good kind).

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 03:41:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 03:43:30
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

But you have to admit, given the fact there are very quantifiable (if not somewhat complex) variables to mathematically decide how much the average node can withstand there is no reason not to assign relative values with a title, be it "blob," or "more than capacity."


Well yes, but it can vary from fight to fight and hour to hour, even in the same reinforced node. So even that metric becomes relative and somewhat subjective. Let's say, additionally, that Fleet A is heading to System 1 which is reinforced and in which it can fight an evenly matched opponent without undue lag. But on the way to System 1 it meets another enemy fleet in System 5, in which it lags the system out while taking no casualties. By this metric, Fleet A is not a blob once it gets to System 1, but in System 5 it is a blob even though it has the exact same numbers in systems 1 and 5.

This is my point, coming up with an actual definition that's workable is impossible. We can indeed talk about situational circumstances that leave specific nodes unable to handle certain fleets. But the issues presented haven't been "make the nodes be able to deal with the fleets." but "Try to find a way to stop people from using those horrible "blob" fleets!"

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

I agree, there's absolutely nothing behind trying to enforce static limitations per node, but I disagree that is the only approach to discouraging node-crashing numbers of ships becoming a part of a single fleet.


Outside of WoW style arena battles, this will never happen in EVE. So folks should accept the reality of the situation if they're going to keep on playing EVE. All other variables being equal, numbers will be decisive. It's basic to reality/logic/human nature/mathatmatics/what-have-you that 3>2>1, and again all other variable being equal, 3:1 is better than 1:1 if you want to win.

We've even had one person suggest that what we should do is remove standings themselves... which would simply lead to the same exact groups we see now, but they'd just have to add an additional column to their overviews. Hardly a decisive change.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

The root of blobbing directly related to how easily one can muster that number of pilots under a single banner.


It's just a function of emergent behavior in an evolving system with a population over a certain threshold. You cannot stop it except by gutting EVE.

"Hey, you like losing?"
"No"
"What a coincidence, I don't either."
"Hey, do you like winning."
"Yep."
"What a coincidence, I do too."
"Hey, let's work together."
"Okay."

This holds true for two people who play together and form a corp, two corps that play together and form an alliance, two alliances that play together and form a coalition...

Sure, there will always be some people who prefer small gang PvP, solo mission running, or what have you. And that's fine. Different play styles should be allowed, of course. But what we see most now are people who are suited (by their numbers/skills/ships/whatever) to a certain style of play who object and want CCP to alter the game so that they can compete in a different niche. If someone doesn't want to compete with a group that can potentially bring thousands of players to bear, nobody is forcing them to. They can do many, many other things in EVE. But once they do get to that level, they lose the ability to coherently complain.

After all, a 3000 man alliance is "blobbing" a 1000 man alliance, but that 1000 man alliance is "blobbing" a 100 man alliance that wants to fight it, too. (which is, of course, "blobbing" a 10 man alliance that wants to fight it, which is in turn "blobbing" a guy who's playing solo).

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 04:00:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 08/11/2010 04:04:55
I think you've got a very defeatist viewpoint on the subject matter. I find "impossible," to be a meaningless term when dealing with finite numbers. Realistically, there isn't an exponential growth factor to the number of ships that are going to try and load a single grid. I think it's perfectly reasonable to try and quantify a mean figure for stability and worth with that information in-hand. There cannot be a complete disconnect between "stop blob fleets," and "make nodes be able to deal with fleets," when there are hardware or software limitations to be dealt with (be they short-term or long-term hurdles).

Once again, I dislike the WoW tangent. I certainly hope nobody ultimately suggests instanced fleets of a very WoW number of ships (what is their paradigm now, 20 players?). My argument is that the primary reason a "blob" materializes is very much supported by the strait-forward way in which an extremely large number of un-related players can tell one another apart from the enemy. Even if there were work-arounds, the phsyical limitations of filling one's screen with overview columns seems to bear a reason itself. Some players might not think that working with a group of thousands is worth it anymore. Is that a static limitation? Not really, but it is a step in the correct direction. This doesn't "gut" EVE in any way shape or form. It merely creates a necessary level of confusion to discourage a player-driven need to condense into groups larger than the server can handle. The term "blob," shouldn't be as relative as you make it out to be. Blobs ought to be referred to (in this line of conversation) by their only meaningful value: numbers sufficient to crash a re-enforced node.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2010.11.08 04:09:00 - [24]
 

I think blobs are fine for null sec. Huge fleet fights are a good selling point for the game. However it would be nice if CCP designed some game mechanics which didn't lend itself to blobbing.

As far as reality: Its not like in order to fight world war 2 the Americans English Chinese and russians all formed one big blob of troops and roamed around the world chasing after a great big blob of Japanese German and Italian soldiers. There are typically several smaller battles going on in different places.

Eve allows people to move into position before sov systems are taken. And this is for good reason, because people did things in game to get those assets. They should have an opportunity to defend them without having to be logged in all their lives.

However more casual players should have a means to faster quality pvp. In fw there arenít really big consequences to occupancy. Accordingly it should be set up so that itís just allot of fun.

There should be many different places to defend with different types of ships. The FW complex idea is brilliant in that it restricts the size of ships that go in and makes it so you canít warp directly on top of your target. Both of these mechanics are major accomplishments to prevent blobbing in plex warfare. However CCP also did some things with complexes that werenít really that smart. If they make a few changes to the system it would be the best pvp in or out of eve. I have outlined some changes here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 04:33:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 04:48:15

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

I think you've got a very defeatist viewpoint on the subject matter. I find "impossible," to be a meaningless term when dealing with finite numbers.


First, no, nothing defeatist at all. Some things will work, some won't. And it's not a question of "defeat" either since I don't believe that open ended cooperation in an MMO is a bad thing. My saying that you can't make it so that people won't want to work together for strategic and tactical ends is a bit like me saying that you can't make it so that people don't like beer and/or sex. It's not defeatism.

Also, discussing the impossible is only invalid in an non-finite set (that is, an infinite one). In a finite set it is quite possible to define its nature and bounds, and be certain as to what lies within them.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
I think it's perfectly reasonable to try and quantify a mean figure for stability and worth with that information in-hand.


That's fine, but it also doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. Let's just say, for example, that we find out that N is the ideal number of ships to have in a system in order to run properly. In order to actually act on that, however, we run into the problems that SYX clearly described (as well as the simple counters that would invariably be used).

And as I've pointed out numerous times, the 'sliding scale' nature of different systems, or even the same reinforced systems at different takes, makes this a meaningless metric. A 500 man fleet is not a "blob" if it meets another 500 man fleet at 1200 in a reinforced system that can handle the load. But by 1400 the system is littered with wrecks and abandoned drones, and now two new 500 man fleets lag the system out heavily, and suddenly they're both "blobs". To say nothing of the fact that, again, a 100 man fleet isn't a blob in the reinforced system, but if it moves to another system then suddenly it's a "blob".

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

Once again, I dislike the WoW tangent. I certainly hope nobody ultimately suggests instanced fleets of a very WoW number of ships (what is their paradigm now, 20 players?).


Be that as it may, the WoW comparison is apt and on-target. Some people really do object to the basic dynamic whereby people can group together and put forward more numbers than fewer people. And we're not so far off from that exact proposal, either.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

Even if there were work-arounds, the phsyical limitations of filling one's screen with overview columns seems to bear a reason itself.


You are altering game mechanics that are working exactly as intended in order to stop natural cooperation, and it won't do anything more than provide a bit of annoyance in terms of allowing groups to cooperate.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

This doesn't "gut" EVE in any way shape or form.


You remove the ability for players to easily see who they're friendly and who they're hostile with, for people to decide who can and can not dock at their stations, for people to decide who their POS's will and will not fire on, etc...
Yes, it's gutting the game. Just not as thoroughly as some more extreme suggestions.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Blobs ought to be referred to (in this line of conversation) by their only meaningful value: numbers sufficient to crash a re-enforced node.


But as pointed out and elaborated on, even that metric changes can change rapidly in the same system, to say nothing of a fleet not being a blob in one system and the same exact fleet being a blob in the next system over.

And as pointed out, using that as any sort of a limit is doomed to failure due to the factors that SXY has already addressed in detail.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 05:56:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 08/11/2010 05:58:28
I think there is much more to eve than you suggest. You're making it a good point to pump WoW and alarmist rhetoric into your argument and i'm merely stating what I think is quite feasible for the design team to discuss in terms of making the quality of EVE fleet combat go up without resorting to creating a grandios set of decentralized sov. objectives (in the vain hope players won't just re-group on one of them).

I don't think I need to re-iterate what I posted above. It was fairly clear cut and I can sense that you understood my conclusion that the simplest possible solution was to stop trying to change how people deal with soverignty itself and instead change how they have to approach one another to build these soverign blocks that are creating fleets larger than node strength. That is not to say people are disallowed or discouraged to take the 'natrual' progression of gaining more friends and allies to fight with, BUT grabbing a random assortment of all-but-strangers togther is quite a simple task and I think that is the progenitor of most sov problems.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 06:35:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
WoW and alarmist rhetoric


Nothing alarmist and I've already described why WoW is an apt comparison: the fundamental objection to "blobbing" is that people can cooperate past a certain small scale. WoW obviates the necessity for that complaint in a way that EVE never can, as player-driven content and cooperation is and always will be its central feature.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
It was fairly clear cut and I can sense that you understood my conclusion that the simplest possible solution was to stop trying to change how people deal with soverignty itself and instead change how they have to approach one another to build these soverign blocks that are creating fleets larger than node strength.


Of course I understood it, that's why I responded to it in detail and explained why it wouldn't work to effect change on the main issue and would have secondary, unintended consequences that would gut significant portions of the game that have absolutely nothing to do with fleet sizes (deciding who can and can not dock at your stations, for example).

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

That is not to say people are disallowed or discouraged to take the 'natrual' progression of gaining more friends and allies to fight with, BUT grabbing a random assortment of all-but-strangers togther is quite a simple task and I think that is the progenitor of most sov problems.



You can, artificially, claim that certain types of cooperation are okay, good, natural, what-have-you, but that doesn't put any logical force behind it. The reason for cooperation is a mutually desired outcome, not necessarily playing with your buddies. Attempting to form sort sort of subjective cut off to enforce results based on a view of what 'good' cooperation is and what 'bad' cooperation is misses the basic point, especially of a sandbox game. The point isn't that there is player-created content but it has to be created by a group of players who might conceivably meet up for beers some day.

I'd be happy to have a squadron of awesome Sabre pilots who all have bad breath and listen exclusively to Country Music.

Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Posted - 2010.11.08 06:36:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
[...]
From personal experience the term "blob" is thrown around so much it seems to mean anything from 2 vs 1 (seriously, we've been accused of "blobbing" people in a 2 vs 1 fight with similar ship types Wink) all the way through to the recent 2000 vs 1000 fights.


Absolutely agreed. It makes actually for some fun moments when a roam of less than a single squad is accused of "blobbing" just because some clueless muppet got caught by them on a gate. Laughing OTOH, for the sake of serious discussion on this matter it isn't helpful at all. Apart from a rather fruitless discussion about mere semantics (see above in thread) and an official "sizing" of the "blob" by CCP (not gonna happen IMHO), some common base has to be found. Even if it is a merely theorethical number and leaves much to be desired for most involved parties, you sort of need that common ground to make a discussion work. Otherwise you'd just get talking people at each other about pears and apples. ugh

The only real indicator we got to deal with this, finding a "common ground" for discussion, is the limit to fleet size provided by game mechanics/CCP. If you do want to find a compromise to have a common denominator referring to what makes a "blob", "anything above max. fleet size" would offer itself. Agreed, 256 players/ships is still a huge number for many, but it is the only "hard" limit imposed by game mechanics at all. And yes, I am aware you can form/coordinate multiple fleets. Rolling Eyes This would only be a theorethical ad hoc definition to enable discussion in any case.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 06:43:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Attempting to form sort sort of subjective cut off to enforce results based on a view of what 'good' cooperation is and what 'bad' cooperation is misses the basic point, especially of a sandbox game. The point isn't that there is player-created content but it has to be created by a group of players who might conceivably meet up for beers some day.


There is no cut-off, you can make as many friends as you like. The only diffirence would be that you'll have to be aware of who they are rather than just the fact they have a given icon tint. There is nothing to detract from player-driven content in my proposal (hence why I used the term alarmist). You can meet up for beers with anyone you want, blue or not.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 06:58:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 07:21:42
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

There is no cut-off, you can make as many friends as you like.


Except, as pointed out, your proposal would simply lead to an additional overview column and significant unintended negative consequences like a total lack of control over docking rights in stations or POS's targeting profiles.

And of course your proposal simply would not make you "be aware of who they are rather than just the fact they have a given icon tint." Not even close. The only thing that changes is that FC's now have to keep a cheat-sheet next to them while they play or memorize a bunch of alliance tickers and instead of shooting reds, they shoot anybody without tickers X, Y and Z. Or with tickers A, B and C.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

There is nothing to detract from player-driven content in my proposal (hence why I used the term alarmist).


You're using the term "alarmist" as a smear.
Unless you're really arguing that not being able to prohibit your enemies from staging out of your own stations is doing "nothing to detract from player-driven content", or forcing your POS's to either fire on everybody not in your alliance or allow everybody, including your enemies, to camp out right in front of them.

And so on.

This is the fundamental problem; the law of unintended consequences guarantees that not only will your proposal not actually accomplish its main goals, but it will have serious negative ramifications for player-created content. To say nothing of the fact that if CCP actually takes the step of artificially trying to limit the degree of cooperation and brings EVE closer in line with WoW, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Especially since your proposal would be wholly ineffective and would, undoubtedly, be followed by more calls that we Must Do Something. In that manner each failed, damaging idea would be cause to iterate yet another one, because after all, it has to work sooner or later and/or it just wasn't implemented properly and/or people just didn't act properly and/or...

Do you really think that people would stop complaining about "blobs" and stop demanding change if your propsal went through, prohibited alliances from determining who docked in their stations or sat outside their POS's, but otherwise business as usual went on?
Or would they use that as a justification for an even more extreme solution? If your proposal was coded into an update tomorrow morning, do you think that IT's allies, RA's allies, RAWR's allies would all just pack up and go home? Do you really think enough would to change the political landscape of EVE?

Edit: unless of course your proposal isn't to get rid of standings themselves, and instead just the blue/red icon that goes next with 'em... in which case your proposal would have zero impact at all, as you've already got an option to sort your overview based on standings, blues still wouldn't even show up on your overview, but now they'd just be "blues" in name only. And instead of not seeing them and knowing that they had a blue icon next to their name, you'd not see them and know that they were blue but didn't have the blue icon next to their names.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only