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

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.16 22:30:00 - [91]
 

im not saying your ideas are wrong or right, which they may or may not be, im saying you are acting as if ccp has a leash around your neck...

remember they have far more to fear of you than you do of them.

so do what you need to do and get the things you want looked at looked at.

NAP Cancer
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:08:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: NAP Cancer on 17/11/2010 00:53:37
The downside of creating a 10 man corp is giving CEO rights to an alt that doesnt exist /sigh

Looks like alot more posts were added to this thread, finn as always I will skip your posts because you are contradicting yourself as usual

So it appears I have 22 days left on my MF ban, sadly I deleted Lady Parity before the ban was up.

Will be using this char on forums and as always if anyone wishes to contact me feel free to message 'Musical Fist' in game, hate mail will be read and laughed at, after all this is a game and we are here to have fun NOT NAP everything in sight and lag any combat.

Oh I should mention that I will be joining that CSM thingy this Sunday and would love to show some very interesting bits of information for CSM (Citation included Razz)

My key focuses will be

NAP mechanics
Blobbing
Sov mechanics

C u on the CSM feed Twisted Evil

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.17 05:37:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 17/11/2010 12:03:42
Quote:
you are contradicting yourself as usual


Feel free to quote those contradictions.
Seeing as how they really do exist, and all.

P.S. That is an awesome skill, by the way. Being able to not only identify the content of posts you don't read, but to analyze posts you don't read for logical coherence is quite a feat.
One might point out that there is a, shall we say, contradiction therein, but that seems unnecessary.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.17 14:33:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Scary McNastypants
Originally by: Venkul Mul

Take a poll or ask CCP to take it


There's a problem with polls though. Put out a poll asking people to vote for whether or not they'd like 100 billion free ISK an officer fit Nyx and a pony, and a lot of people would say yes. Doesn't mean that the game drastically needs everybody to be given a small horse.





But at least people calming to represent 80% of EVE players will have something behind them or, much more probably, it would be show that they represent a tiny minority and what they say is mostly hot air.

NAP Cancer
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.11.17 20:00:00 - [95]
 

CSM is an example of why majority ISNT always right, easy way to see this is, well get 2 people 1 from a HUGE NAP and the other a nobody, get them to say identical proposals and the guy from the HUGE mega NAP will get mass supported.

My early work as Musical Fist was to prove this, every now and then I would make an identical thread of a 'famous' person, interestingly enough my ideas were hardly supported.

Besides when a NC is running for CSM, they spam "vote for me" and always get in, how else do you think Darius got in a few terms ago, it clearly wasnt because of skill / logic.

Fortunately this term theres a few decent CSM people who actually care about eve and not getting ‘another’ free vacation.

Trolling part removed. Jericho

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.18 00:30:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Quote:
you are contradicting yourself as usual


Feel free to quote those contradictions.
Seeing as how they really do exist, and all.

P.S. That is an awesome skill, by the way. Being able to not only identify the content of posts you don't read, but to analyze posts you don't read for logical coherence is quite a feat.
One might point out that there is a, shall we say, contradiction therein, but that seems unnecessary.


Yah... didn't think so.

Quote:

My early work as Musical Fist was to prove this, every now and then I would make an identical thread of a 'famous' person, interestingly enough my ideas were hardly supported.


Poor epistemology. You didn't 'prove' that somehow "NAPs" will enable mass support, but that you in particular (for some reason or another) weren't particularly well supported by the community. Then again, perhaps your 'exactly the same proposal' threads are like the 'contradictions that really and honestly do exist'.

Quote:

Besides when a NC is running for CSM, they spam "vote for me" and always get in


As NC folks have run and not gotten in. Evidently, "always" is, shall we say, somewhat inaccurate.

Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.18 07:36:00 - [97]
 

finnagain, nothing you say ever has any relevance to the real issues at hand. your like one massive train derailment stuck on repeat.

csm should be imo an anonymous vote, that is to say csms put in proposals and what they stand for without being identified by ticker or name.

that way people can really vote on what they want as opposed to being coersed or hoodwinked into voting for "their friends".

NAP Cancer
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.11.18 15:00:00 - [98]
 

Turns out I am away this weekend, from tomorrow even Crying or Very sad going to go spend time with my BFFs in RL, got this huge article on Monday about how diseases have destroyed so many lives and why there isnt a cure.

I will most likely miss the Sunday roundtable, I am sure one of my many loyal members will be shadowing the rooms to see who is contradicting themselves and fill me in

I like minigins idea on anonymous voting, especially since it is one account per vote and I would hate to have to see another Vote For Me thread by Vuk.

I mean if you look at things, based on reports, minutes and actual interaction who out the CSM have actually been putting effort into helping CCP, helping themselves (make supercaps jammable lol) and who just wanted a free trip.

Sadly Finn you fail to understand that the NAP Cancer WILL die and when it does you will be left with other NAP Cancers devouring your macro tainted regions, eventually 0.0 WILL be controlled by one or two powerblocks and when that happens I am sure you will change your tune on how NAPs / Blob warfare works.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.18 23:23:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Yah... didn't think so.


Minigin
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.11.19 13:04:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Grunp Trek
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Grunp Trek

Perhaps it's best if certain parties in this thread took a break and stopped accusing each other of lying


I'd be happy to take a break from pointing out that other posters are lying if they'd stop lying. I hardly think it's unreasonable if, when someone lies and invents something that I never said, that I point out that I didn't actually say it.



While I respect where you are coming from, I'm not at all impressed that you pick peoples posts apart and respond to small sections that you want to and and less impressed again that you've done the same to my response that was seeking to diffuse the bickering in this thread.

Arguing about whether or not minigin is lying has so far led to you saying he is, and him saying he isn't. There's very little ground to be won here. What I said was that instead of arguing about whether someone is lying we should be talking about how we can make EVE a better, more interesting game. There's nothing gained by constantly attacking other players when the aim of this thread was to bring to the attention of the CSM that people voted for the current CSM because of their priorities, and amongst those priorities was addressing the perceived imbalance or lack of interesting gameplay in "blob warfare".

I like good thread derails as much as the next person, but I'd wager this one has gone on long enough and you start look foolish for continuing it.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.19 13:45:00 - [101]
 

The count so far, for those paying attention:

-Viable objective definitions of "blobbing" = 0
-Viable situational definitions of "blobbing" = 0
-Viable "solutions" to a problem which can't even be defined and is the result of game mechanics working exactly as designed and some groups being able to cooperate more effectively than others = 0

As pointed out about a week ago:

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."

That's the reason why the discussion is as it has been.
We're 100 posts in (plus deleted posts) and we have not, one, single, solitary, viable definition of the "problem". Not one.
Let alone a solution.

The course of a discussion about a snarl word which can not rise above the level of stubborn imbecility, because it's not a even a defined problem but a subjective issue for certain individuals, is not much of a surprise. We're two and a half months in and 100 posts, and nobody has even been able to define the problem that they're claiming must be dealt with.

Devoid of any possible cogent logical argument, stubborn imbecility is the highest level a discussion can aim for. Instead of "blob" this and "blob" that, substitute "Jabberwocky." Then it becomes pretty clear how an argument for why we have to reform "Jabberwocky warfare!" in EVE would go, and why.
Then remember that "Jabberwocky" has infinitely more semantic value than "blob".

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.11.19 14:07:00 - [102]
 

Actually Finn there has been alot of great ideas and suggestions but your obsessive replying makes it impossible for any discussion to continue.

It is really creepy how you are always replying right after minigin and MF, I dont want to start an argument as I really dont have time to reply to everything you say but you need to put your personal hate aside.

Obviously there is problem here and quite honestly if you want to flame minigin all day then you may as well bump his threads in AH and continue the flaming

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.11.19 14:17:00 - [103]
 

Finn has a point. Since the "problem" has not been defined, a solution can't begin to be proposed.

With blobbing, we know it is a problem, but what actually defines blobbing? If we pick an arbitrary definition (say 200 ships per fleet), then would 199 per be any better?

Thats probably why they haven't done anything about it yet, because any attempt to define a blob is pointless, because blob-1 is not much better.


THough they could just say a blob is how many ships it takes to crash the server. Laughing

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.19 14:17:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 19/11/2010 14:43:56
Quote:
there has been alot of great ideas and suggestions


This is a functional impossibility as not one person has provided one single definition for the "problem".
To say nothing of the fact that the only suggestions which have been offered, for a "problem" which hasn't even been defined, are wholly nonviable.

As this thread is based around a snarl word which brings conversation down to the level of stubborn imbecility, it's a veritable index of logical and rhetorical fallacies.

For instance, your response to the fact that there has been not one viable definition offered and all the "solution" have been nonviable (to ignore the fact that you can't have an actual "solution" to a "problem" that hasn't even been defined) is to lead off with the Begging the Question fallacy and then shift to a slew of Red Herring and/or Ad Hominem fallacies.

Originally by: Corina Jarr

THough they could just say a blob is how many ships it takes to crash the server.


That's been tried too, problem is that it doesn't satisfy even basic requirements of an operational definition. For instance, the server can hold one day in one battle with 3000 pilots, and crash another day with 1400 pilots. It can be laggy as hell at noon when the system is littered with wrecks and abandoned drones, but running acceptably at eight when it's fresh.

It also offers no viable metric for telling who is and is not blobbing. Let's say that two sides bring 1000 pilots to a fight and the server dies, is one blobbing, both, neither? If we're at the point where we're saying that two evenly matched forces are "blobs", then we've accepted that a "blob" can be a 100% equal and fair distribution of forces.

That also brings us to other problems. What if a node can hold 2000 pilots but 2001 will crash it. If the defender brings 2000 and the attacker brings 5, then the attacker is the one crashing the node and not the defender. That means that 2000 is a non-blob and 5 is a blob.

Which also gets to another problem as well, which is the basic nature of game mechanics. Single player games are fair. MMO games like WoW can have scrupulously enforced caps to keep fights 'even' and 'fair'. EVE is not, never was, never will be. And it's not by design. Combatants are allowed to bring as many people as they can, in whatever ships they can. And there is absolutely no viable way to cancel this dynamic in a target system without hard/soft caps, neither of which are at all viable either.

If you have an objective, you will try to defend it with as many people/as much force/as much firepower as you can, because EVE is deliberately set up so that there is a viable economy and things have value. If I want to destroy your assets I'll do the same thing, for the same reasons. People can either accept that and try to adapt, accept their limitations or vacate a niche once they're no longer able to compete. The forth choice is not (or should not be, I should say) "complain on the forums".

As pointed out, this sort of behavior is expected in virtually everything that has to do with gaming. 1 V 12 in Team Fortress isn't fair, and we'd laugh at someone who demanded it should be. 2 vs 10 isn't fair in Modern Warfare II and we'd laugh at someone who said it should be. Even in EVE one lone industrialist trying to compete with a 100 man industrialist corp with 50 members who started in 2003 would be laughed off the forums if he was complaining that he was being 'blobbed' and CCP needed to alter game mechanics rather than him adapting, accepting his situation, or finding a new one.

And yet when it's not an industrialist, but a PvPer, all of a sudden there is a problem.
Although we still can't define exactly what that problem is and the discussion is still stuck at a snarl word.

We should be very, very careful about things which "we know [are] a problem" or which are "obviously" a problem if we can't even define what the problem is.

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.11.19 14:35:00 - [105]
 

I was kinda joking, but I get your point.

Defining "Blob" concretely is near impossible atm, and would need to be done before we can reasonably come up with a solution.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.19 14:53:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Corina Jarr
I was kinda joking, but I get your point.


Ah, fair play. I had a discussion with another guy at the beginning of the thread about that, and didn't want to go round the mulberry bush again. Very Happy

Originally by: Corina Jarr

Defining "Blob" concretely is near impossible atm, and would need to be done before we can reasonably come up with a solution.


And after it could be defined, folks would also have to provide a logical reason why it was a problem. Cool
We know, for a fact, that quite a few people don't like being outnumbered or outgunned, or competing against groups that can outnumber or outgun those who they cooperate with. Numbered, tagged, and entered into evidence. Seylah.

But it's a long way from that to an objective definition and a cogent analysis of why it's a problem.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.19 16:28:00 - [107]
 

I still stick to my definition of blobbing as a tactical maneuver of simple mass movement with little consideration to position beyond "Am I in range?" except for the brave tacklers. The numbers values that people begin to perceive it at change, but it's a viable enough 'tactic' in the current game state to compete well at 1:1 and dominates above it.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.19 16:35:00 - [108]
 

Ah, you are absolutely correct, I'd forgotten.

You have provided the only operational definition of blobbing, but it's also quite different than what pretty much everybody else is complaining about. And, I think, there aren't really many ways to institute LoS and projectiles continuing on with inertia (and such) other than by crushing the living hell out of the server in ways that even the largest battles haven't managed to do.

Kudos to you, though, for defining what you see as a problem and suggesting concrete solutions even if they might not be viable.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.19 21:16:00 - [109]
 

The only way to do the LoS and FF is a check from attacker to target at an interval of the smallest signature of the smallest object in the game. I'm not familiar with the code that could be applied to such a check, but it would at best take more resources (which inevitably is going to be noticed) and at worse make Eve cry and /ragequit.

That's why typically it's handled with a game mechanic as opposed to game physics, as one or two more checks isn't a very significant load increase. I'm not sure if I mentioned it, but in a MUD I did a small bit of coding for they had diminishing returns as more attackers hit the same target. The end result was that numbers did bring an advantage but it was mitigated to an acceptable level.

I don't have a proposed solution that could work for Eve, though. Diminishing returns doesn't make sense with guns or missiles. Beyond that, it doesn't address the server load issue the number of ships represents, since even with the tactics adjusted you end up with the same number of ships in a fleet. They either perform worse, or have to try harder. That's why I said it has to be both a tactical and strategical mechanic change, or the common definition for blobbing - the committal of all your forces to one locale - is going to continue.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.20 02:58:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Black Dranzer on 20/11/2010 02:59:28
Disclaimer: I have no real personal fleet experience and I'm talking out of my ass.

I think blobs and lag are two very different things that are intertwined more by coincidence than anything else. I'm going to define blobbing here as simply density. Not numbers, density.

Mass combat in Eve is not that classy, to be quite honest. The trailers depict epic fleet battles, but that's not really what happens. There's a lot of ships in a very small amount of space all focus firing on one thing at a time. Now, that's not to say blobbing is an evil tactic and all who use it should be punished; You can't blame humans for choosing optimum strategies. But what I will suggest is that mass combat it Eve is pretty ****ing derpy.

I think it's because there are a ton of reasons to huddle into a little ball and almost no reasons to spread out. Gates are chokepoints. POSes are tiny. There's no concept of line-of-sight, and in a large enough fleet battle you play from the overview, so visual coherence never factors into it. The only AOE weapons are hard to use effectively. In a bizarre case of irony, I believe that spreading out the blobs would create more lag, not less, just because you'd have to implement a ton of new things just to encourage people the spread the **** out.

Line of sight, splash damage, AoE, travel without funneling, penalties for clustering. That's how you "beat the blobs". Sadly, it doesn't decrease numbers and it makes lag worse.

Life's a *****, ain't it?

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.20 04:00:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha

I don't have a proposed solution that could work for Eve



Thanks for at least being honest about the changes you see and such. Kind of refreshing in this thread. However, I submit that the degree to which pretty much any change would be gamed by the playerbase would make them minor changes, at best. Even if, say, there was an arbitrary mechanic whereby only a few people could target a ship or effectively fire at it, the next logical step after that is to keep fleets the way we have them now for bonuses/coordination, and then simply have individual wing leaders broadcast only to their wings for targeting. Or squad commanders.

To say nothing of what this would to do targets that really do require a lot of DPS on them. A CSAA POS with decent guns on it and a few competent gunners can absolutely harvest their attackers if you can't get an entire fleet attacking each gun on the POS (to say nothing of all of them trying to down the tower).

I'd also wager that if they were going to institute true LoS for weapons, then they'd have to make the 'bullets' have a certain speed and behave like missiles in that respect. After all, it doesn't make much sense for a shot to miss its target and (say on a stretched out 1000 km grid), instantly hit someone at the other end of the grid, or what have you. And if projectiles didn't continue on with Newtonian motion (as opposed to the blue-navy-in-space) thing that CCP has set up, then one could avoid the perils of FF by simply positioning their fleets correctly and boxing in a bubbled enemy. And, a fleet of ships aligning to the same point have a remarkably clean 'profile' if they align for a short while and I'd wager LoS would be a lot cleaner than some might think. To say nothing of the fact that depending on how such a system was coded, it would be hugely open to abuse.

I do at least appreciate you providing a definition of "blob" rather than the 'We're not discussing "blob" anything now let's get back to discussing "blob" warfare with many false/nonsense claims and some things that haven't been in this thread ever!'... stuff.

Originally by: Black Dranzer

Mass combat in Eve is not that classy, to be quite honest. The trailers depict epic fleet battles, but that's not really what happens. There's a lot of ships in a very small amount of space all focus firing on one thing at a time. Now, that's not to say blobbing is an evil tactic and all who use it should be punished; You can't blame humans for choosing optimum strategies. But what I will suggest is that mass combat it Eve is pretty ****ing derpy.


Yes and no. Just got down earlier today bashing POS M53-1V (pretty boring, we didn't get a fight out of anybody) for a couple hours, then dropped and got counter-dropped heading back to our staging area (pretty nifty) then managed to fight through and get a few kills before our smallish fleet got cut off by one about 2 or 3 times our size at which point we stood down and reformed to assault R-6KYM at which point I participated in three hours of some pretty awesome fun with very little lag... at which point I finally got popped and then got wife aggro, so I signed off.

It was a whole hell of a lot of fun today.

Now, the point all along has been that some folks find certain things enjoyable and like certain play styles, despite the actions of some self-styled Authorities on Fun who want to tell other people what their emotions really are. When, of course, the point all along is that it's a totally optional style of warfare. If you don't like sov warfare/large fleet combat, nobody is forcing you (plural) to engage in it. Take out small roaming gangs and bug out if you encounter superior forces, or whatever. Easiest thing in the world.

But that's the fundamental issue. Unable to adapt, unwilling to accept a less than perfect subjective situation and unwilling to vacate and find a new niche, we get these sorts of threads.
Over and over and over.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.20 04:43:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Now, the point all along has been that some folks find certain things enjoyable and like certain play styles, despite the actions of some self-styled Authorities on Fun who want to tell other people what their emotions really are. When, of course, the point all along is that it's a totally optional style of warfare. If you don't like sov warfare/large fleet combat, nobody is forcing you (plural) to engage in it. Take out small roaming gangs and bug out if you encounter superior forces, or whatever. Easiest thing in the world.


I don't know. I get the feeling a lot of people like the idea of large fleet battles, but just hate how they end up playing out.

But this is not my area of expertise, so I'll gracefully duck out now.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.20 04:59:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Black Dranzer

I don't know. I get the feeling a lot of people like the idea of large fleet battles, but just hate how they end up playing out.

But this is not my area of expertise, so I'll gracefully duck out now.


Sure, sometimes they are more or less fun depending on a whole host of features and factors. No argument there. And, sure, sometimes a 20 man nanopoc gang can be more fun than a 200 man vs 200 man fleet fight (and sometimes the opposite is true).

That's why diversity and choice are so important.

If folks want to engage in large-scale battles and try to destroy supercapitals that're in the build phase, more power to 'em.
If people want to set up shop building those supers and the associated risks of defending them, more power to 'em.
If people want to get really excellent (like Burn Eden style) at denying opponents free transit and camping gates/stations, more power to 'em.
If people want to get really good at leading lightning fast strikes with small gangs, more power to 'em.
If people want to live in and fight over wormhole space, more power to 'em.
If people only want to log on for capital-on-capital slugfests, more power to 'em. If people want to minn all day, more power to 'em.
If people want to run missions all day, more power to 'em.
If people want to ninja plexes all day, more power to 'em.
If people want to play the market all day, more power to 'em.
If people want to build and sell things all day, more power to 'em.
If people want to find a new niche and create it for themselves, more power to 'em.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

If people cannot compete in a niche, can not or will not adapt in a niche, can not or will not accept that if they can not adapt or compete then they will perforce lose, and can not or will not find a different niche to which they are better suited but, instead, believe that CCP changing the game to help them is the answer? Then hell no.

We wouldn't accept this sort of nonsense from anybody else in EVE or out of it, for that matter. ("I played HALO all alone against 16 guys and I lost, and they aren't even real friends, just pretty much random strangers who got together to game in a team. Bungee, fix blobbing!")
That's why apart from Kabaal's definition, which has a whole lot of daylight between it and the vast majority of claims that we've seen, we only have a simple snarl-word about "blob" this and blob that.

Because for many this isn't about game mechanics, or game balance, or any of that. Sure, some want to make sure that sov warfare functions properly, or what have you. But many arguments are stuck on the level of "Can't adapt, can't accept that fact, can't move to a new niche, so CCP must act." For other arguments, it's about finding a way out of game to counter forces that they're not able to counter in-game. And that's simply not EVE.

Tu Ko
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.20 11:14:00 - [114]
 

Edited by: Tu Ko on 20/11/2010 11:16:48
I can't be asked to read this entire thread, and frankly I don't even care. However, the only thing that is really holding back the fighting in Eve is the simple fact that everything involving sov is wrapped around some stupid space structure. This allows for people to 'batphone' in their power bloc blues, so basically your alliance doesn't actually have to be active or fighting as long as your blues are powerful enough to hold the space for you.

Enter the 'renters' These typically small alliances will pay their way into 0.0 and be stuck in a quicksand of 'never quite enough'. As they gain players they have to very quickly get into the fighting before the older players get bored, however they have several newer players that aren't ready at all for 0.0. End result the older players leave to join more powerful groups and the renters stay put until they just sputter out.They never get their hands on enough people to beat back the opposing power bloc and never do much more than bankroll their landlords.

The problem is that for far too long the focus of CCP and its player base was to get every idiot out to 0.0 regardless of how little time they have played or how much per week they actually play. Most casual players have no business out anywhere in 0.0, but because of lack of content in low sec they go from newbie cub out of school directly into someone's carebear corp and have no idea what they are doing. They don't have the interest to pour through endless wiki's and how to guides and so they just end up just ratting until their eye's bleed.

Fixing it, if you want to.
Move higher payout anomalies out to low sec, make them very quick to clear out (15-20 mins with 2 battleships). Give the anomaly very random drops of moderate rarity. wrap in escalations and triggered scan-ables (basically you finish a anom, and it tells you a mag site opened in the system.

Create better reporting tools in the fleet to accurately and quickly tag targets for ewar and tackle. Basically if I place an ECM and it effectively jams the target, it auto broadcasts and makes a viewable icon on the target. This way we can employ far more Ewar and tactics.

Pull the SOV fights away from structures, that has been the biggest hang up for this whole deal. Simple system, active pilots in a system score points for you sov claim. If you are undocked in a cruiser you score your alliance 3 points for every 20minutes you stay out there (obviously rules needed for cloaks,pos's) If I come in an blow up your cruiser you alliance loses 30 points and my alliance gains 30 points. The computer changes SOV at downtime, based on who was the highest for that day. obviosuly rules for cloaks and hiding in pos's, 'banking' up sov points, blah blah blah. Oh and reduce the reinforce timer for a POS to a MAX of 2 hours.

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.11.20 19:29:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Tu Ko

I can't be asked to read this entire thread, and frankly I don't even care. However, the only thing that is really holding back the fighting in Eve is the simple fact that everything involving sov is wrapped around some stupid space structure. This allows for people to 'batphone' in their power bloc blues, so basically your alliance doesn't actually have to be active or fighting as long as your blues are powerful enough to hold the space for you.

Enter the 'renters' These typically small alliances will pay their way into 0.0 and be stuck in a quicksand of 'never quite enough'. As they gain players they have to very quickly get into the fighting before the older players get bored, however they have several newer players that aren't ready at all for 0.0. End result the older players leave to join more powerful groups and the renters stay put until they just sputter out.They never get their hands on enough people to beat back the opposing power bloc and never do much more than bankroll their landlords.

The problem is that for far too long the focus of CCP and its player base was to get every idiot out to 0.0 regardless of how little time they have played or how much per week they actually play. Most casual players have no business out anywhere in 0.0, but because of lack of content in low sec they go from newbie cub out of school directly into someone's carebear corp and have no idea what they are doing. They don't have the interest to pour through endless wiki's and how to guides and so they just end up just ratting until their eye's bleed.




This pretty much is the best description of 0.0

For me I left 0.0 because of this, I get more enjoyment out of anything unrelated to 0.0


@ Finn - I think Blob Warfare isnt just linked to how many people are brought to a fight, I think it was pretty obvious what peoples issues are.

I dislike the nap tactics where most alliances have adopted to have any chance at living, sov warfare is completely broken now worse than it was before and now everyone is blobbing with supercaps.

You cant really blame people for quitting the game or 0.0

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.20 20:15:00 - [116]
 

Quote:
I think it was pretty obvious what peoples issues are.


People have any number of issues. That doesn't show that the game has a problem. Nor does it show that there are cogent, coherent complaints being made. All this is especially highlighted by a lack of a definition for the problem itself (outside of Kabaal's take on the situation that, to my knowledge, is not echoed by anybody else).

Lacking a definition of the problem it becomes impossible to come up with solutions, assuming that such measures were even necessary in the first place.

Quote:

I dislike the nap tactics where most alliances have adopted to have any chance at living


Game mechanics working 100% as advertised and intended. People can cooperate in any units they like, along any dynamics they like, towards any ends that they like. This is the fundamental problem with the "blob" complaints; your argument boils down to a dislike for tactics that other players are free to engage in. An attempt to limit the style and nature of free association in order to boost a personal preference for a playstyle is simply not what EVE is about.

In a nutshell, this is the whole issue.
You dislike "NAP tactics", so it's clear what your issue is. And fine, you don't particularly have to like them and if you don't like them, don't engage in them. But there's no supportable argument whereby those tactics actually become a problem that CCP must, quixotically and ineffectively, attempt to combat.

What, CCP made a game where player-created content and player-driven events fuel the inform the narrative, where people can form empires based on oppression, cooperation and everything in between, where groups can be pirates, empire builders, industrialists, mercenaries, roleplayers and a host of other choices... but if they cooperate in groups bigger than those that you like, there's all of a sudden a real problem rather than your subjective dislike?
No.

Quote:

sov warfare is completely broken now


While there are certainly problems with sov warfare, this too will only fix the types of numbers that are required for one very specific combat profile. Any asset worth defending, and worth attacking, will always see both sides committing as much force and firepower as they can, if they want to win.

Quote:
now everyone is blobbing with supercaps


Again, game mechanics functioning exactly as intended plus the "blob" snarl-word used to handwave away fleets that you can't counter. I'm sure to a corp of noobs who can only fly frigates, a battleship fleet is a horrible "blob", too. If it wasn't supercaps it'd be caps. It if wasn't caps it would be something else.

This is EVE. People can and will bring bigger and better ships with cooler and more expensive mods than you can. CCP should no more 'do something' about that than they should stop you from flying a battleship if the noob corp wants to have Rifter duels.

Quote:

You cant really blame people for quitting the game or 0.0


I've said, what, a half dozen times or more that if someone can't find a place in a niche they should either accept that fact or find a new niche. If someone can't make 0.0 work (and let's not pretend that large-scale conflicts, alliances, etc... are all there is to 0.0) then so be it.
I've also said a half dozen times or more that if someone doesn't like EVE, there are numerous single player games that they may like and, in specific, there's a very popular MMO with instanced combat where the sides are kept equal and pretty much as fair as possible.

If EVE isn't the game for someone, such is life. If 0.0 isn't the place someone wants to play in EVE, ah well.

Why either of those would be a bad thing is anybody's guess.

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.11.21 03:01:00 - [117]
 

Am I correct to assume you are saying "handle it or GTFO? Wink"

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.11.21 04:17:00 - [118]
 

More like handle it or choose a different play style.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.22 03:43:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Yah... didn't think so.



Any time now.

Quote:

As for NAPs, it is directly linked to sov war and blobbing


As "blobbing" has no definition and is a content-free snarl word, you might not want to hang your hat on that. And as cooperation is part and parcel of game mechanics working as intended, you don't have an argument there, either.

Quote:
the fact of the matter is the very problem in 0.0 is the 'lets blue everyone so WE CAN outnumber everything' strategy.


Generally when we refer to a "fact" it has to be something that is, well, factual. What you really are saying is that your subjective disagreement is that some people can cooperate more effectively than you can and can form bigger groups than you. That you try to cast your subjective preference as an objective "problem" doesn't make it so.

Quote:

Like I said which you ignore every time, eve needs a risk for coalitions who rely on mass napping than skill, this is where your “EvE is RL, NC is USA drones are Iraq” propaganda comes in.


You are lying on both counts.
Not only have I addressed the risks inherent in cooperation, I've also addressed why your argument is nonsensical as the same exact risks exist in cooperating with one other guy as the guys in your corp as the corps in your alliance as the alliances in your coalition (but of course you're not advocating that CCP nerf the ability for two guys to form a fleet or ten guys to form a corp or two corps to form an alliance or...). To say nothing of the fact that you're committing the fallacy of equivocation and deliberately conflating different types of risk, as if there should be a greater risk to fitting two guns than one, and a much greater risk to fitting eight guns than two. What with those dastardly gun blobbing ships, and all.

Likewise, I've never claimed that EVE is real life, or mentioned Iraq or the united states.
Much like the contradictions that you simply cannot quote (but really, they exist!) you can't quote me doing any of that because you've made it up.
If you contend otherwise, quote it.

We both know you won't be quoting it, though.

CCP Spitfire


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.22 08:22:00 - [120]
 

Trolling posts removed. Please remain on topic.



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