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

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.08 09:19:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Kabaal S''sylistha on 08/11/2010 09:23:33
To me, the 'blob' was never specifically numbers. It's the fact that there is little to no tactical value in most situations to moving your fleet in anything but said blob save for your 'scouts' which just jump to the next system and check local and your cyno droppers. With terrain being a nonfactor, line of sight not mattering, and friendly fire nonexistent save for a handful of AoE attacks it's one 'blob' of ships getting into range of another 'blob' of ships. In smaller numbers there's more room for the tactical maneuvering and usage of strategy that makes your group of 12 that lagged the system not a 'blob', but it could still very well be one if you just moved as a mass and focus fired.

So, I'd say the call for reducing the blob isn't a call for reducing numbers, but for increasing the amount of thought and strategy fleet warfare takes beyond the fitting room and CTA. Hopefully that explains why people aren't so keen on agreeing with you that the blob is a natural part of the game, Finn.

Edit - And of course the ones who *are* calling on number reduction and teamwork reduction are noobs and should gtfo. 300 didn't take place because of forum whining, it took place because strategy and tactics managed to minimize the effect of numbers. They still lost in the end due to numbers + tactics (the archers sneaking behind and whatnot) as it should be.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 09:37:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 09:41:47
Your definition of blob is highly idiosyncratic, however.
And I'm not quite sure what you're arguing the problem is, then. Can you clarify? If fleets are motoring around with sub-standard tactical acumen and individual pilots aren't taking the initiative and zooming around on their own (or what have you), then their opponents should have an easier time of butchering them, right? Where's the problem?

It sounds like your objection is more aesthetic than pragmatic, and I simply do not grok.
Can you please elaborate? How do you "[increase] the amount of thought and strategy fleet warfare takes beyond the fitting room and CTA" other than by putting a fleet up against a tactically superior force that requires a significant alterations in tactics?

And how does CCP get involved at all in this process? Shouldn't forcing fleets to engage in more nuanced, inventive, individualistic tactics be the job of whoever is going to whip them good if they don't manage to adapt?

However:

Quote:
Hopefully that explains why people aren't so keen on agreeing with you that the blob is a natural part of the game, Finn.


Doesn't really help at all, as I'm sure you'll agree that the vast, vast majority of people talk about "blobs" in terms of either numbers or negative effect on the server and your definition is certainly not in the majority. To be honest, it's the first time I've ever heard anybody, at all, describe a "blob" simply as a group that shows little individualistic tactical acumen. (Sure, some people will probably add in a "and their FC's suck and their pilots are all terrible!" to a complain about someone who has greater numbers, too. But I've never, ever, ever heard anybody complain that they outnumbered their opponents 2:1, but their opponent had all their pilots aligned to the same point and was using fleet warps, so they were blobbing.)


We do however agree about those who are calling for numbers/teamwork reductions Twisted Evil

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.11.08 09:43:00 - [33]
 

Many people forget that this is a game Wink. They become very risk adverse with their internet pixels which encourages players to only fight when they will clearly win (there are exceptions, I'm generalising). There is safety in numbers so people cluster together, be it corps into an Alliance or Alliances into a NAP.

A definition of blobbing would be when multiple friendly fleets are required, but again that is too simplistic. A fleet of 250 frigs isn't the same level of "blobbing" as 250 BS, or even 50 supercaps.

Also there isn't anything that says you have to stay on the losing side, (and I'm not advocating there should be it is just an observation). This means that people can "flip" sides without issue or in some cases play both sides with alts.


I'd love to see pilot skill have more effect in larger fights, rather than being reduced to +1 DPS to alpha a target. But I'm not sure how that could work under the current "shoot single huge HP structure 3 times to win" system and with the level of lag that occurs when you have to do anything more complex than lock primary and hit F1 in larger fights.

Discussions continue and we'll see what ideas people come up with Smile

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 09:57:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 10:15:02

Originally by: TeaDaze
Many people forget that this is a game


Nah, people remember it's a game. But they also remember that it's got an awesome economy (some people who point to EVE being a game forget that Cool). And so if you take your nice, shiny ships out and lose them lots, eventually the ships you can take out are much less nice and much less shiny, and the grinding you have to do to make more ISK to buy new ships means that you have that much less time pewpewing. To say nothing of skillpoint loss with T3 ships...

Give someone a choice between "spend at least 10 hours ratting/grinding ISK to pay for the ship you are flying and might lose, or get killmails and keep your ship" I think that many people would choose the latter. Unless, of course, you are offering to pay for my losses, in which case I agree and I will get into fights much more carelessly.

Originally by: TeaDaze
Alliances into a NAP.


Totally off topic, but this is a misnomer and it bugs the hell out of me. A NAP is a Non Aggression Pact. It specifies a simple lack of conflict. What we've seen that has many people really upset is a MAP, a Mutually Assistance Pact.

Originally by: TeaDaze

I'd love to see pilot skill have more effect in larger fights, rather than being reduced to +1 DPS to alpha a target.


That, however, is just the nature of the game. Sure, 1v1 interceptor duels are really nifty sometimes, but mathematics govern every level of EVE. If you can get together enough ships such that they can one-volley an opponent, and you can kill their ships faster than they can kill yours, chances are you can destroy their fleet, loot the field, and achieve your objective(s).

The way that pilot skill can generally have more effect in fights is to fight in smaller fights where the crushing burden of mathematics doesn't come down like a hammer.

P.S. can you flesh out your description of "blob" fleets? If, say, I am a tyrannical alliance head and my alliance has 12 CSAA POS's with 12 titans and they've all been reinforced and I want to save them, if I call for 300 pilots to form up and defend the system, and my enemy brings in 500, am I the one who's blobbing or are they? What if I see two other guys are fighting and each has, say, 200 battleships in their fleets but I want to be able to gank them all and I form up two fleets to go in and pound them, have they blobbed me or am I blobbing them?

If I form up a fleet of 255 pilots and all you need to do to counter my fleet is to use a couple dozen bombers, am I not blobbing but if you don't have bombers on hand and have to use 255 + N pilots, am I back to blobbing?

Do the surroundings get taken into consideration, too? Say, if you're fighting above a deathstar POS with many ECM jammers and the defenders don't need all that many people at all but you need a more than a full fleet to deal with their fleet plus the POS, has their POS effectively "blobbed" you?

And is it necessarily a bad thing, in your view, if to "blob" means to field a fleet that requires more than one full fleet to counter? Should CCP work to prevent people from fielding such fleets? If so, why?

This is part of the problem, I think, in that the term "blob" really has no actual definition as it's used 99% of the time (and I'm not sure about the other 1%).

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.08 10:15:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Kabaal S''sylistha on 08/11/2010 10:18:15
Tactics is positional and battlefield maneuvering, which Eve is seriously lacking. My personal opinion is implementing line of sight, friendly fire, and shots that don't disappear if they miss would fix it without having to manufacture any pretend game mechanic to force people into some formation for a number bonus or random shiny.

Strategy is the overall warfare, choosing when, where, and with how much to strike, as well as the infrastructure behind your war. This Eve does have but it's still limited compared to where I would like it myself. The infrastructure isn't my cup of tea to comment on, but when warfare generally promotes focusing all your efforts into one locale you're going to see concentrated forces, and as alliances get bigger those numbers get bigger. Until this is fixed as the total numbers get bigger, the fleet sizes will always get bigger.
The only way to combat that without getting some alien server technology is to encourage division of forces. If it takes 30 ships to successfully attack point A, and that group has 60 willing pilots with nothing better to do they're all going to come attack point A just to be sure. If it takes 30 pilots to attack said type of point, and it nets an advantage if both are attacked (without it being too easy to just wipe the first point with the 60 then move on) then the group is more likely to divide their forces. They still might not but that's life.

TL;DR - You have to add both tactics and strategy or the fleet sizes only increase, with increasingly diminished PvP 'action' beyond activating modules and increasing lag. Even then it might not fix it, but saying it's a nonissue is a bit much if only for the sake of player enjoyment.

Edit - And I'm not sure if I addressed your question Finn due to this forums poor reply mechanics and it being 5 am. I'll look at this again later.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 10:25:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
and shots that don't disappear if they miss


Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a ***** in space.

Ahem.
To be honest I simply don't agree as I've had fun in small, medium and large gangs with things exactly as they are.

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha

but saying it's a nonissue is a bit much if only for the sake of player enjoyment.



Well... it is a non issue by most ways of looking at it. Every single person who ever logged in for a trial account and stayed with EVE did so, and enjoyed it enough to do so, without those changes. And many still evidently enjoy it well enough without those changes. To be honest, if I want a game like that I just load up Freespace 2 and go blast the hell out of some poor Shivan bastards. EVE, from my point of view, is simply a different type of game. You are also, honestly, the first and only person I have ever seen who's said that it's an issue that there isn't true LoS or Newton's First Law in the game.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.08 12:10:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
snip.


Thanks for that, because my threads and posts arent limited to 1 character / section I will outline the main issues that I feel people are concerned about in regards to 'blobbing'

In a game that prides itself on risk vs reward, the risk involved in having someone blue or red is political and poses no threat what so ever to a coalition. While I understand NAPs and confederacies can happen in strategic games players are aware that NAPing infinitely is what the problem is, no risk is ever involved in mass NAPing.

The problem with this is alliances and coalitions can grow and grow and grow until eventually more than 50% of 0.0 is under one banner. This will go to 100%, now a few years ago no one would have expected it to be 50% but now since it is, we will see it @ 100%.

When 0.0 is controlled by one coalition will people still be calm and relaxed about the mechanics involved in NAPing? Even if things remain where 50% of 0.0 is under one banner things look so bad to the point where people are leaving 0.0 for WHs or quitting altogether

Providence is a great example of what 0.0 should look like, ofc some coalitions / alliances will grow more but when alliances MASS NAP everything in 50 jumps for 'safety' it kills 0.0 especially when powerblocks are so big they control half the map

This is the first problem with blobbing which is directly linked to mass NAPing, CCP need to introduce a risk vs reward into NAPing, the same way there is a risk reward into almost everything else.

Strategies in HUGE battles are limited to "who can get into the system first", "who can spam contracts / market while enemies jump in" and "who can crash the enemy making it free kills".

Lets take LXQ as an example, 2200 NC vs 1000 Drone (approx), not to mention there was a NC fleet in a neighbouring system told not to jump in. This is only 50% of NC, the other 50% were busy with Ev0ke, lag was fine @ 2900 when numbers increased things got messy, as far as smaller coalitions are concerned if lag is fine @ 2900 then it will be a while before lag will return (at least for reinforced nodes).

Historically when lag is fixed alliances / players try everything possible to beat the lag cap, this is a perfect example. The problem here is the strategy involved; in short lag was a direct creation of NC strategically to give them an advantage again.

I will leave it at these two factors atm as I need to go out now but there’s alot more, the increase of anti-blob / anti-nap whine is happening for a reason, the ironic thing is 0.0 alliances welcome empire to 0.0 and want people to leave empire but as far as I can tell the only place worth going to is heavily contested areas for example the south.

I think the south is a perfect example of 0.0, theres large and small alliances who are obvious (not neutrals with benefits) friends and enemies but exist still, since the death of AAA and Atlas many people have considered southern 0.0 as true 0.0 and the north as a cheap bad copy of macro empire.

Oh and because someone WILL mention and compare this to RL, in RL, food consumption, death, super weapons, biological weapons, destructible items (being able to destroy EVERYTHING including stations and stargates) etc plays HUGE part of RL war. This is a game and is far from RL and in case someone says it, saying “people do this because of human nature” is like saying “people do this because”, human nature is split in a **** load of sections that I wont even go into again.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2010.11.08 14:28:00 - [38]
 

I think trying to define what a "blob" is or is not, is beside the point. The point is in eve it takes hours to find good fun pvp fights. 2 on 1 is obviously not a blob but if your in the same ship types it rarely makes for a good fight.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.11.08 14:31:00 - [39]
 

The problem is not blobbing it self , its a viable strategy.

The problem is to how easy it is to assamble and manage blob.Simple.

Try bringing 1000 people into wormhole system. Not so easy to do it anymore , but still very much possible.




Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Posted - 2010.11.08 15:28:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Dlardrageth on 08/11/2010 15:30:49
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
[...]
The problem is to how easy it is to assamble and manage blob.Simple.

Try bringing 1000 people into wormhole system. Not so easy to do it anymore , but still very much possible.



True that, because of the unique mechanics of a non-static access/exit route. and the non-viability of clonejumping. And cynoing into W-space. And prolly half a dozen other factors not coming to my mind right now.

Nice and well, but to adapt these specific mechanics even to a lesser degree to non-w-space...? Sad Sure, we/CCP could totally abandon clonejumping. Brace for the incoming whinefest... Rolling Eyes

And revamping/limiting cyno ability for capitals and supercaps will not really fix the problem either, just move the "blob issue" to exclusively sub-capital warfare. Limiting access to any given system sounds easy on paper. But then you're talking about a massive breakdown of infrastructure if you were to adapt the same mechanics to non-W-space. All of sudden you cannot move your hauler/miner/ratting ship/whatever to the next system over because unfortunately 20 minutes ago a mid-sized roaming gang went that way? Not going to work out well I reckon. ugh

This whole mess/problem/issue is exactly such a mess/problem/issue because way too many factors and game mechanics are intertwined there. The whole Sov mechanics gimmick, general combat mechanics and not at least the somewhat skewed risk vs. reward ratio in battles. Bringing "the blob" is a viable/popular/winning mechanics because with enough ships (of any type, Tea Daze, if you get just enough of those, frigates will do fine) you can "do stuff". Which you cannot in many cases with a mere 10 ships (not talking 10 supercaps here obviously). Adn that is, in my humble opinion, not the fault of the players or their stance, general attitude or that vaunted "human nature".

It's game mechanics.

One of the older memes of EVE-O is "Adapt or die". And that's what most people do at some point. On whose doormat is the blame to lie for players wanting to matter in 0.0 and thus "blobbing up"? Hardly their call that a lot of options these days vanish if you cannot bring enough firepower to bear. Get a fleet of 200 together, then move them as a blob to do something somewhat "meaningful" (grain of salt there, for the sake of theorycrafting assume sieging a tower). Then try the same after you split up that fleet into 20 units of 10 ships each. Want to bet how much they can successfully take on? Would be nice of course, if you had the tactical option to make the split-up fleet matter as much as "the blob".

Unfortunately, the lack of amassed firepower/tank/DPS/whatever rules out many a venture straight away. And you can scale that up rather easily. Basically same reason why people bring 1K+ instead of 200. As long as you can do much more damage and have the option to do anything (within sov mechanics e.g.) with a big blob, compared to split up little tactical units it is not going to change. Mind me, I'm not belittling small gang warfare here per say, but did anyone recently succeed, say, reinforcing a TCU with a gang of 10? Neutral

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 18:17:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 08/11/2010 18:17:49
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
To be honest I simply don't agree as I've had fun in small, medium and large gangs with things exactly as they are.



Do you consider deliberately bringing more players than a node can handle "fun" ? Even when you are well-aware that the target fleet is much smaller...

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 19:09:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: lady parity
the risk involved in having someone blue or red is political and poses no threat what so ever to a coalition.


This is the same nonsense as claiming that jump bridges or nullsec coalitions obviate risk. The risk/reward dynamic is exactly the same on a coalition level as it is when two pilots decide to cooperate. There's a risk of betrayal, under-performance, drawing in other hostiles who settle grudges, etc...

It's telling that you're even at the point of claiming that setting people red doesn't involve any threat "what so ever". At the point where your argument deteriorates to arguing that having people who will shoot at you doesn't involve any threat at all, it's rather clear that you're using a rationalization to support a position that you've already arrived at and you're trying to retroactively find support for after the fact.

Originally by: lady parity

The problem with this is alliances and coalitions can grow and grow and grow until eventually more than 50% of 0.0 is under one banner. This will go to 100%, now a few years ago no one would have expected it to be 50% but now since it is, we will see it @ 100%.


1. Of course, you haven't provided any facts, at all, that "50%" of 0.0 is anything at all.
2. Even if it was true, the claim that if 50% of 0.0 has a MAP, then we will see it at 100% is the most obvious sort of slippery slope fallacy I've seen in a while. I'd ask you to explain the chain of logic that goes from "well, if half of a group is allied with each other, then absolutely all of that group will work together, with no exceptions!" But since there is no valid chain of logic that gets from point A to point B before derailing violently, it's probably best not to ask.

Quote:
The problem here is the strategy involved; in short lag was a direct creation of NC strategically to give them an advantage again.


Funny... out of all the strategies that've been discussed over channel command on teamspeak, in the FC channel on Jabber, in the FC forum on any of the NC boards, strategic creation of lag wasn't ever mentioned. But seriously this isn't simple anti-NC ranting and you have logs of teamspeak meetings, or some such, right? Actual proof?

No?

Who'd a thunk it.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 19:21:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 08/11/2010 19:21:22
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
risk


Is completely alleviated by the ability to out-pace a sever by deliberatly bringing many more than capacity.

If that isn't part of policy then you wouldn't CTA for thousands more than the opposition has in reserve and you certainly wouldn't attempt to jump them in system.

I too find it quite difficult to believe that the NC or any other entity is claiming to be unaware of their numbers and just looking for good fights. If you wanted good fights you wouldn't bring a number of pilots sufficient to bring a node to it's knees at every opportunity.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.08 19:28:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
The problem is not blobbing it self , its a viable strategy.

The problem is to how easy it is to assamble and manage blob.Simple.

Try bringing 1000 people into wormhole system. Not so easy to do it anymore , but still very much possible.



I have been thinking of an easier way to describe blobbing and how its not the numbers thats the problem and always ended up with a wall of text, but you pretty much summed it up with the WH comment Very Happy

I really hope CCP and CSM address this long going issue, I cant see how any alliance in the north would like the current mechanics considering how many players are leaving NC and moving south just for the hopes of having some PvP or going inactive.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.08 19:39:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/11/2010 19:46:32
Originally by: Lady Parity

I have been thinking


Found that proof yet, should be somewhere as you claim it exists. And you should have it since you made a claim that would've been based on proof if it wasn't a smear.

So where's that proof hanging out?

Speaking of proof, large numbers of players leaving the NC? You have some proof of that too, right, it's not just something you're saying? And leaving to get PvP? What, near constant ops during major wars and riding bikes over half of EVE aren't PvP, either?
Do you, perhaps, have proof that all the API generated killmails that the various killboards have, which show PvP going on, are faked?
No?

Hrm.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

Is completely alleviated by the ability to out-pace a sever by deliberatly bringing many more than capacity.


No. It's wholly possible for a fleet with massively superior numbers to simply blackscreen out while a smaller fleet farms them for kills. Just like a small fleet can blackscreen out while a larger fleet harvests them.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

If that isn't part of policy then you wouldn't CTA for thousands more than the opposition has in reserve and you certainly wouldn't attempt to jump them in system.


So do you have proof then, because your argument is logically unsound.
Once a CTA is called, people show up. And then the FC's find fleets for them so they're not alarm clocking to get into the game, and then sitting around spinning their ships. As for jumping ships into a system, the dynamic behind your complaint is rather obvious. You're not complaining about the defender bringing massive numbers, just the attacker bringing numbers that can definitively defeat the defender.

To say nothing of the fact that, even with perfect intel, you can never be 100% certain that your enemies can't raise reinforcements or that a third party won't take interest in the conflict and get involved.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

I too find it quite difficult to believe that the NC or any other entity is claiming to be unaware of their numbers


And as soon as you provide a quote, anywhere, of anybody saying that any entity claims to be "unaware of numbers", then that would be a valid topic of discussion.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 19:48:00 - [46]
 

The assumption must be made that you're either unaware or purposefully node-crashing.

What other logical conclusion can be drawn? Did the leadership of 2000 pilots forget that even a re-enforced node wouldn't handle multipul thousands? Do they fancy themselves in-game stress testers?

The point is: it's completely illogical to assume that thousands of players would show up to one node (at this point in time) unaware of the consequences.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.08 21:46:00 - [47]
 

Objective: Defeat 400 pilots in system A.
Requirements: Something greater than 400 pilots to ensure victory, but no more than 1600 pilots to ensure the sever does not destabalize.
Outcome: 3000 pilots enter system and node dies.

Explain to me how this happens accidentally.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.09 03:54:00 - [48]
 

If you don't understand the pedigree of the question "have you stopped beating your wife?", despite me just explaining it, I'm not sure how else to make it clear.

Begging the question: "We just can't be sure if he has stopped beating his wife or not"
Loaded question: "So, have you stopped beaten your wife yet?"

Begging the question: "We can't be sure if they're totally unaware of numbers of if they're involved in a conspiracy to crash nodes, as those are the only two possibilities."
Loaded question: "So, are you just unaware of how many numbers in your fleets or is your goal to destabilize the server, as those are the only two possibilities?"

And it doesn't matter which coalition you'd like to make this about, feel free to discuss any but my previous demand holds true
Quote:
And I notice that you still have failed to provide any proof, at all, of your conspiracy theory. Do you or do you not have TS CC recordings, jabber chat logs, FC forum posts?
Because my guess is that no, you do not.


It would be different if you had at least some kind of evidence, like credible reports of coalition (any coalition, at all) forces entering systems with freighters and dropping hundreds of shuttles on grid, or killmails showing that every battleship that's downed has a cargo hold filled with a sea of copied bookmarks, or whatever. That, at least, would be prima facie evidence of behavior going on that has absolutely no probable use other than to create lag.

Instead, all you can point to is various groups raising the forces that they believe they'll need (or as many as they can, at least) in order to defend a system/objective and others raising as many as they can/they think they'll need to score overwhelming victory.

You're back to arguing a plot on the part of the sun to burn you and a conspiracy of diner-havers to produce ****. I've pointed all this out several times, but you keep returning to the "So have you stopped beating your wife?" school of argument.
I'd ask again if you have any proof, at all, that anybody is involved in deliberately crashing nodes rather than simply attacking a target with as many people as want to/as they can get, but something tells me that such evidence will never be forthcoming.

Am I wrong on that point?

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.10 00:30:00 - [49]
 

Maybe I was wrong in assuming everyone thought it was the mechanics that start decreasing the effectiveness of point and click masses that Eve is missing, judging by other people's responses.

But if the realistic LoS and physics can't be implemented a stabilizing mechanic is needed. Usually AoE damage and non-damage (both area and targeted) mechanics fill this role, but AoE in Eve has either been too excessive (see old DD) or far too situational and limited (Bombs being limited to one class of ship, and Smartbombs are more 'aura' effect). Non-damage suffers from the same area effect limitations (lol ECM burst) or actually lose overall effectiveness as fleet size increases. Not to the point of being useless, but ECM in a small gang is radically different than ECM in a fleet.

And I really wish the forums let you review the thread as you replied, I don't remember the other points I wanted to address and I don't feel like having multiple windows up to /forum effectively.




EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.10 00:39:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 10/11/2010 00:42:24
Finn you're arguing with a group of people who honestly think CCP has a desire to stop large scale combat. Which is so patently false it isn't even funny. Their own cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing that their view is in fact not one shared by the game developer or a very sizable if quiet part of the gaming population.

CCP wants small gang and large fleet warfare to effect sov. That was the promise given in dominion. Granted it failed because anything done well with a small gang is done better with a large one.

They can't even realize that their classification of "blobs" is simply a group with more pilots than them. If you want forced teams that are always even go play WoW for christ's sake.

Wars in eve have always and will always be won by "blobs". Get used to it.

Leksi Bar'zuk
Posted - 2010.11.10 02:33:00 - [51]
 

I think we should stop using blob to describe a larger force. Blob = more than node capacity. Anything else = superio(u)r fleet size.

I'm still of the opinion large scale fleets can materialize in the absense of current standings and firmly believe that you don't need a multi-regional conglomorate to experience great fleet pvp. I wouldn't care to wager on developer opionion myself. They're going to work on whatever they deem worthy of their time and the players/CSM really don't have much to do with voice their opinions and hope some kernal of it reaches CCP.

At the end of the day there's going to be large NAPs, small NAPs, and alliances scattered here there and everywhere in between. But, the bogus opinion CCP is only interested in propping up this perpetual-node-crashing machine is pretty silly.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.10 04:30:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
I think we should stop using blob to describe a larger force. Blob = more than node capacity. Anything else = superio(u)r fleet size.

I'm still of the opinion large scale fleets can materialize in the absense of current standings and firmly believe that you don't need a multi-regional conglomorate to experience great fleet pvp. I wouldn't care to wager on developer opionion myself. They're going to work on whatever they deem worthy of their time and the players/CSM really don't have much to do with voice their opinions and hope some kernal of it reaches CCP.

At the end of the day there's going to be large NAPs, small NAPs, and alliances scattered here there and everywhere in between. But, the bogus opinion CCP is only interested in propping up this perpetual-node-crashing machine is pretty silly.


5 years ago the server couldn't handle 200 people. The servers are constantly being improved so the amount that "breaks" a node are higher and higher. So your point allows for much larger fleets than you think it does. And when they have the ability to dedicate several nodes to one system it will theoretically remove the cap of how many the system can handle.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.10 05:16:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

Wars in eve have always and will always be won by "blobs".


It's an old EVE whine, and I'm surprised I'm not more used to it by now, tbh.

"We have a large number of allies and a highly motivated player base that wants to PvP so we form large fleet. They blob."
"They bring fleets that are larger than strictly necessary and blob, we just want Good Fights and can't help it that so many of our members rally to CTA's."
"We have EHonor and are interested in ensuring Good Fights are had by all although we fly the best ships we can instead of rifter swarms, they have no EHonour and blob and they only care about winning at any cost."

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

I'm still of the opinion large scale fleets can materialize in the absense of current standings


Then why remove them?
And again, you changed the subject earlier when your proposal came up and never did explain exactly what you want.

1: remove ability to set standings and you gut a significant portion of the core content of EVE, alliances can no longer determine who does and does not have docking rights in their stations and anybody launching an invasion can stage out of your own stations, your POS's can't be set to auto-fire on reds so they can simply camp out and gank people. Or you can set your POS to fire on everybody, and then even people who you want to be able to sit there are at risk of being blasted to dust.

2: standings still exist but the icons for blue/red status no longer exist. Has absolutely not effect at all as anybody with two brain cells to rub together has an overview set up so that they never see blues unless they specifically need to see/target them for some reason.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk

and firmly believe that you don't need a multi-regional conglomorate to experience great fleet pvp.


Nobody here, at all, has said that you do.

Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
But, the bogus opinion CCP is only interested in propping up this perpetual-node-crashing machine is pretty silly.


Nobody said that. It's been pointed out that large-scale conflicts are part and parcel of EVE and, in fact, a major selling point of the game itself. It's also been pointed out that you can hardly have large-scale conflicts while somehow demanding that each side practice some sort of Victorian degree of properness and restraint. SYX already pointed out exactly why 'caps' don't work, and you've gone on repeating that anyways.

It doesn't matter if the cap is hard or soft, it's totally unworkable (and your focus on the attacker and not the defender, likewise, makes no sense).

If a system can take 1400 pilots before the system starts to see serious lag, and the defenders bring 1399 pilots (and they have absolutely no reason not to), then a 2 man attacking fleet is a "blob" under your metric. If the defending fleet doesn't bring as many pilots as they can, and then they lose? Well, they have Mighty Mighty EHONOR!!!
And they've also lost significant assets, strategic position, momentum and morale.

You can not buy ships with honor points.

To say nothing of the fact that 'node death' is arbitrary and circumstantial, as I've pointed out several times and you've ignored several times. A system that's reinforced and sees combat right after downtime will perform a hell of a lot differently than a reinforced system that sees combat for 12 hours straight and has the gates littered with hundreds, or thousands of abandoned/lost drones and hundreds of wrecks.

And cashing a node is hardly the end of a fight. Node's get taken down and put back up all the time, then people just scurry to log in quickly and reform, and there are many, many stages of lag leading up to that point including but not limited to jump lag, minor module lag, moderate module lag, major module lag, crushing module lag, system-wide desynchs, etc, etc, etc.

Server instability is simply part of EVE.
**** happens.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.10 10:45:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

Wars in eve have always and will always be won by "blobs".


So basically because NC can blob 5 times more than any other coalition, by default they have won eve, so really 0.0 is broken and all anyone needs todo is focus on spam NAPing in order to win.

Game over?

Fact of the matter is THIS BLOBBING is the issue, people WANT skill > numbers, otherwise CCP should prevent sov from changing and make it permanent since no other coalition can be bothered to lower themselves to mass NAPing and people prefer to recruit skilled players over stats.

Also lets not forget that Goons were so obsessed with Bob mass NAPing in the past that together with the NC wanted to rid the game of this type of game play. So whats stopping this happening again, well because if NC dies another NAP fest will replace it.

Talk about becoming what you hate, again.

Either change the mechanics of fleet fights to favour skill > numbers or announce NC won due to more numbers and will eventually NAP all of 0.0, because of this CCP speed up the process and just brand them sole owners of 0.0 aka New Empire because PvP is something that needs to be avoided Rolling Eyes

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.10 12:05:00 - [55]
 

Deja vu all over again

Quote:
1. Of course, you haven't provided any facts, at all, that "50%" of 0.0 is anything at all.
2. Even if it was true, the claim that if 50% of 0.0 has a MAP, then we will see it at 100% is the most obvious sort of slippery slope fallacy I've seen in a while. I'd ask you to explain the chain of logic that goes from "well, if half of a group is allied with each other, then absolutely all of that group will work together, with no exceptions!" But since there is no valid chain of logic that gets from point A to point B before derailing violently, it's probably best not to ask.


Quote:
Found that proof yet, should be somewhere as you claim it exists. And you should have it since you made a claim that would've been based on proof if it wasn't a smear.

So where's that proof hanging out?

Speaking of proof, large numbers of players leaving the NC? You have some proof of that too, right, it's not just something you're saying? And leaving to get PvP? What, near constant ops during major wars and riding bikes over half of EVE aren't PvP, either?
Do you, perhaps, have proof that all the API generated killmails that the various killboards have, which show PvP going on, are faked?
No?

Hrm.



EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.10 13:01:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Lady Parity
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

Wars in eve have always and will always be won by "blobs".


So basically because NC can blob 5 times more than any other coalition, by default they have won eve, so really 0.0 is broken and all anyone needs todo is focus on spam NAPing in order to win.

Game over?

Fact of the matter is THIS BLOBBING is the issue, people WANT skill > numbers, otherwise CCP should prevent sov from changing and make it permanent since no other coalition can be bothered to lower themselves to mass NAPing and people prefer to recruit skilled players over stats.

Also lets not forget that Goons were so obsessed with Bob mass NAPing in the past that together with the NC wanted to rid the game of this type of game play. So whats stopping this happening again, well because if NC dies another NAP fest will replace it.

Talk about becoming what you hate, again.

Either change the mechanics of fleet fights to favour skill > numbers or announce NC won due to more numbers and will eventually NAP all of 0.0, because of this CCP speed up the process and just brand them sole owners of 0.0 aka New Empire because PvP is something that needs to be avoided Rolling Eyes


You're ****ting up two threads now with the same jibberish but at least this one is actually about 'blobbing" unfortunately you're just as incoherent and uneducated here as you are in the other thread that is completely unrelated to blobbing or fleet tactics at all.

The problem with allowing small numbers of people to overpower large numbers is that if small numbers do well, why not bring more with the same abilities as those few and overwhelm even more?

OH LOOK THE CYCLE HAS BEGUN AGAIN.


You cannot stop people from working together.

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.10 13:25:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Lady Parity
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

Wars in eve have always and will always be won by "blobs".


So basically because NC can blob 5 times more than any other coalition, by default they have won eve, so really 0.0 is broken and all anyone needs todo is focus on spam NAPing in order to win.

Game over?

Fact of the matter is THIS BLOBBING is the issue, people WANT skill > numbers, otherwise CCP should prevent sov from changing and make it permanent since no other coalition can be bothered to lower themselves to mass NAPing and people prefer to recruit skilled players over stats.

Also lets not forget that Goons were so obsessed with Bob mass NAPing in the past that together with the NC wanted to rid the game of this type of game play. So whats stopping this happening again, well because if NC dies another NAP fest will replace it.

Talk about becoming what you hate, again.

Either change the mechanics of fleet fights to favour skill > numbers or announce NC won due to more numbers and will eventually NAP all of 0.0, because of this CCP speed up the process and just brand them sole owners of 0.0 aka New Empire because PvP is something that needs to be avoided Rolling Eyes


You're ****ting up two threads now with the same jibberish but at least this one is actually about 'blobbing" unfortunately you're just as incoherent and uneducated here as you are in the other thread that is completely unrelated to blobbing or fleet tactics at all.

The problem with allowing small numbers of people to overpower large numbers is that if small numbers do well, why not bring more with the same abilities as those few and overwhelm even more?

OH LOOK THE CYCLE HAS BEGUN AGAIN.


You cannot stop people from working together.


I am aware of that cycle which is why I stated already "doing rock paper scissors" WONT work because the blob can just bring more of what the smaller force is.

Which is also why I am not keen on new ships designed to counter blobs, I am speaking of ways where blobs hold a risk without smaller groups suffering

If you think about it, only lag poses a threat to blobs but since it also affects small gangs too it hardly is a blob counter.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.10 13:27:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Maybe I was wrong in assuming everyone thought it was the mechanics that start decreasing the effectiveness of point and click masses that Eve is missing, judging by other people's responses.


Yah, most people don't really mind the ability to focus fire and such, they mind that their opponents can bring more people to focus fire which is just simply not faaaaaaaaaair. Of course, strangely, they don't go around offering 1v1 to all the targets they find, as individual ships march out to the line of battle like ancient samurai accepting honor-deuls.

Curiouser and curiouser.
Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha

But if the realistic LoS and physics can't be implemented a stabilizing mechanic is needed.


To be honest I'm really not sure that's the case. Nobody is forcing anybody to engage in the massive-scale grudgematches that are many large conflicts. Instead of packing into a system to take an objective, it's still a (somewhat, after the nano nerf) valid tactic to get together a small gang and go hunting, and hitting the GTFO button once a force turns up that you can't gank. I think that's the main point that some of the people who are upset are losing sight of... if they can't manage to outfight a larger group, either they need to adapt or, failing that, they need to find something else to do.

If I can't compete with an industrialist syndicate that regularly strips all the asteroid belts from entire constellations and has 100 people constantly running Invention jobs with maxed out skills... I can either find some way to compete (doubtful), accept that I can't compete but still do my best in my niche, or find another niche.

Or, evidently, I can demand that CCP eliminate corps' abilities coordinate effort.
That seems pretty popular recently.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

You're ****ting up two threads now with the same jibberish but at least this one is actually about 'blobbing"


"A fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject."

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

The problem with allowing small numbers of people to overpower large numbers is that if small numbers do well, why not bring more with the same abilities as those few and overwhelm even more?

OH LOOK THE CYCLE HAS BEGUN AGAIN.

You cannot stop people from working together.


Look, you just spoiled a perfectly content-free ragerant with elementary logic. WTF is up with that?

Of course, this is the basic issue and why some people are left raging against human nature, math, the laws of reality, what have you. Even if we get to the holy grail of Perfect Small Gang Combat and Good Drugs For Everybody, the first group to double their opponents' numbers will stand a very good chance of mopping the floor with them, looting the field, taking fewer losses and being able to, more easily, afford more of those kinds of fleets. Which means they'll probably run more of those kinds of fleets. Which means that someone, somewhere, will realize that if they can't match that double-sized fleet on their own, that if they team up with some other guys that the double-sizers were kicking in the shins, then maybe they can fight with even numbers.

And, hell, if they can gather together a few more of the double-sizers' enemies and get them to work together, then they've got a very good chance of stomping those dastardly doublers right into the ground (except of course the doublers will be doing their best to try to find a tactical/strategic/numerical edge, too).

It's funny that those who are demanding that skills should count more for numbers have evinced none of the skill required for them to outfight greater numbers. And instead what they most often really mean is that "CCP > people who can cooperate better than me".

And, as always, there is already a game with millions of subscribers that keeps instanced combat as scrupulously fair as possible, and no guild can "blob" any other. It even has elves.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.11.10 13:27:00 - [59]
 

When you figure out a way to turn lead into gold you let us know k?

Until then maybe stop ranting :)

Lady Parity
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.10 13:55:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
When you figure out a way to turn lead into gold you let us know k?

Until then maybe stop ranting :)


Alchemy Wink


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