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

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.22 13:16:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/11/2010 13:16:46
Missed the moderation.
NVM. Very Happy

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.11.24 13:24:00 - [122]
 

Blobs are fine just make them harder to assamble and manage.

If you can cross entire galaxy with entire fleet in no time no wonder you have what you have.

nihlanth
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 20:11:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: nihlanth on 24/11/2010 20:12:50
Edited by: nihlanth on 24/11/2010 20:11:52
All it takes to reign in blob warfare to reasonable levels is to increase the relative size of the universe compared to the concentration and volume of player playing on a given day. If CCP can find a way to vary the size of the universe and/or travel times in proportion to population density on a daily/hourly basis, then there comes a point were the amount of time/logistics it takes to form a 'blob' fleet is simply not worth it.

All in all, the EvE universe feels too small. Increase the quality of content in each system as well as the size of each system, reduce warp speed, and voila - people feel more inclined to stay within a constellation rather than roaming 30+ jumps across multiple regions.

Dilute the population density for EvE's sake!

Cyprus Black
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:05:00 - [124]
 

When stealth bombers last received their fixes some time ago, we were told they would be our anti-blob tool. Whatever happened with that?

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.11.28 09:14:00 - [125]
 

What about supercap blobbing? There is a thread in general chat atm where someone comments about the future of supercaps and I guess 0.0

I think it is a fair assumption

I really would hate to see 0.0 turn into that Neutral

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.11.29 09:48:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Cyprus Black
When stealth bombers last received their fixes some time ago, we were told they would be our anti-blob tool. Whatever happened with that?


They work reasonably well. I dont recall any promises that they could eradicate all blobs forever.

You're looking for a technical fix to human behaviour. These rarely if ever work.

Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Posted - 2010.11.29 22:21:00 - [127]
 

Good luck doing much to a supercap blob with mere bombers. Unless you outblob them massively with numbers. But then again you'd face the conundrum... bigger blob > blob = bring moah numbers. *shrug*

Marak Mocam
Posted - 2010.12.01 09:48:00 - [128]
 

Some environmental effects might work. The ugliest one I've come up with is where warping and gates don't work quite so accurately anymore.

1000 ships in a system starts it. Any entry into the system randomly appears up to 200km from it's destination. If you warp to a spot, you will randomly arrive within 200km of the destination. Something like that. Scale it up. At 3000 ships in a system, you might warp to within 1AU of the destination. Just see how everyone likes slow-boating it back to the gang when too many ships are in a system... Warping becomes unpredictable and high-risk at this point.

That would make "more" far less valuable. "Warp Fleet" and everyone is quite distant from each other type stunt. You might have stealthed ships dropped right on top of enemy ships or a titan warp well behind the lines of an enemy fleet -- fodder time stuff.

This idea has it's problems too. It could be exploited more by defenders than attackers but I've yet to come up with anything that allows for it yet discourages the behavior. While more is how you win, people will want to bring more.

Whatever is done, it does need to make managing fleets extremely difficult the more you bring and it needs to be a game mechanic that does not prevent it, simply makes it extremely undesirable (like shooting a CONCORD ship in 1.0 space... nothing stops you but it's usually not all that bright to do.)

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.01 10:08:00 - [129]
 

You won't accomplish it with effects, especially ones that make it harder to coordinate by jumbling your tactics up.

There is actually an awesome solution to the lag portion of the blob in assembly hall right now, which quite literally handles the lag issue with designed lag. With the lag out of the equation, you're stuck with arguing against "more numbers == more effective".

The only way to do it without being silly is to:
A - Exponentially decrease effectiveness of more numbers. IE 2 on 1 gives 100% effectiveness to first person, 75% to second (175% vs 200%), then a third person would get 50% effectiveness (100 + 75 + 50 = 225% effectiveness vs 300%). The reality is far more complicated than this, but it's the only..methodology that could be used without breaking the game completely.
or
B - Institute the LoS physics. Though, when objects have magical contact boxes which make you dance on nothing this seems unlikely.

That makes the easiest methods forced operation on multiple fronts to split the fleets up, or smaller targets that quicker strike forces could hit (though this moreso encourages smaller ship size composition of fleets than smaller fleet numbers).

Marak Mocam
Posted - 2010.12.01 10:33:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
You won't accomplish it with effects, especially ones that make it harder to coordinate by jumbling your tactics up.

There is actually an awesome solution to the lag portion of the blob in assembly hall right now, which quite literally handles the lag issue with designed lag. With the lag out of the equation, you're stuck with arguing against "more numbers == more effective".

The only way to do it without being silly is to:
A - Exponentially decrease effectiveness of more numbers. IE 2 on 1 gives 100% effectiveness to first person, 75% to second (175% vs 200%), then a third person would get 50% effectiveness (100 + 75 + 50 = 225% effectiveness vs 300%). The reality is far more complicated than this, but it's the only..methodology that could be used without breaking the game completely.
or
B - Institute the LoS physics. Though, when objects have magical contact boxes which make you dance on nothing this seems unlikely.

That makes the easiest methods forced operation on multiple fronts to split the fleets up, or smaller targets that quicker strike forces could hit (though this moreso encourages smaller ship size composition of fleets than smaller fleet numbers).


I don't know but something is needed or you will find 1000 vs 1000 going to 2000 vs 2000 on up and it will keep spiraling up as long as "more" wins the day. Look to the "lot of ships" post -- I believe one team said they had about 1000 or 2000 more they could bring but didn't?

Blobs won't end until something discourages using more and perhaps stacking penalties (diminishing returns) might be an answer. hull = can have x number "efficiently" shooting at it. After that, no extra damage nor effects apply. Who knows.

I don't know what would work but, again, something is needed to prevent the "more for the win" that causes the lag.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.01 12:28:00 - [131]
 

I don't like repeating myself for no reason. If your issue is the lag, go check out http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1422034

That's the only solution I've seen that doesn't try and fix the lag by trying to stop people from grouping up or making some insane mechanic. It simply deals with the lag.

If your issue is the tactical and strategical considerations involved in the 'blob' process, I haven't seen a better idea than LoS for the tactical considerations of the battle itself. Making it strategically better to attack multiple locations is an easy enough theoretical process for changing the commitment of forces, but the details aren't going to be ironed out in discussion threads.


Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.12.02 09:33:00 - [132]
 

This was a reply I made on this thread, I figured it would be more appropiate here, I know it is todo with lag but as you can see lag and blobbing go hand in hand.

Originally by: Kalle Demos
Ok well this is how I see it, bare with me here and I will try to be nice, I have noticed theres alot of damage control going on when supercaps or blobs are mentioned, I cant really understand the need for it either.

Obviously it is common knowledge that players are willing todo anything to win so it is understandable why they would as you say 'cram everything in one system', I am going to assume alot of players are fine with this. By the looks of it ccp are too which would probably explain why they are focused on increasing the limit of nodes, my question was is there was an eta on when this would be fixed.

I agree with what Akita T said, I am surprised theres little discussion on supercap blobbing (that really is the best way to put it), I know theres been a few comments that CTA’s will eventually turn into Titans > Supercarriers > Rest, what concerns me and I would assume others is how much truth there is in this.

The other problem is ofc no one risking their fleets anymore but I guess thats a different story, so while ccp have declared a battle against lag I was wondering how long before they estimate victory?

Feyleaf
Posted - 2010.12.03 09:13:00 - [133]
 

Strategy/diplomacy > Tactics =) As it should be!

Sadly knowledge of "lag mechanics" often becomes more important then actual tactical skill :(

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.12.09 13:48:00 - [134]
 

Blobbing is a thing of the past as of now, due to the struggles of inactivity the NAP Cancer is dead, thanks to those who supported this.

I shall now move on to my next campaign!

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:12:00 - [135]
 

So, to sum up: no intervention by CCP at all, no game mechanics changes at all, but the "problem" is "fixed".

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.12.10 10:24:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
So, to sum up: no intervention by CCP at all, no game mechanics changes at all, but the "problem" is "fixed".

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.


The funny thing is you actually are aware on a game mechanic being wrong and aware of a problem with blobbing, besides you never even read what I written and by the looks of it didnt read what anyone else wrote.

So I will do what I do always, grin sit back and laugh at you when the changes happen, but dont worry you can always be a forum warrior for your new alliance, I am sure it will be a spawn of NC too.

Cryptic? Well what else would expect this early on, I mean it isnt even 2011 yet, I cant just spell things out now can I Rolling Eyes

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.10 14:14:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
So, to sum up: no intervention by CCP at all, no game mechanics changes at all, but the "problem" is "fixed".

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.


Hey, Finn, did he send you a whiny, tearful email accusing you of stalking him as well? Or was it just me that got one? if so, I'll gladly forward it to you for your amusement.

PS Apparently I'm an "NC supporter" Rolling Eyes

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.12.10 14:27:00 - [138]
 

[ 2010.12.09 13:22:24 ] Musical Fist > looks like finn and malganis are at it again, I bet if I made a thread on ah finn would instant reply to my blob thread
[ 2010.12.09 13:23:29 ] XXXXXXXXXX > Blob whine thread which one :P
[ 2010.12.09 13:35:47 ] Musical Fist > lol ill send that **** an in game message, chances are he will put it up on caod

Like I said, predictable and stupid Rolling Eyes

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.10 15:32:00 - [139]
 

ITT: We learn that a 4 hour gap is "instant".

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.10 18:23:00 - [140]
 

Yah, forward that along please.

Originally by: Malcanis

PS Apparently I'm an "NC supporter"


Obviously I don't get the specific NC hate, but even beyond that I don't get the general hate for coalitions. They rise, and sooner or later in EVE they fall. It has always happened and almost definitely it always will, and in the process their life and times provides the meat of the player-created content that's in EVE. The rise and fall of BoB defined much of 0.0 warfare for close to half a decade, which is an eternity in EVE time. And while I enjoyed fighting against them, I simply can't grok raging against their effectiveness and the coalition that they'd built, or using the forums to try to fight them rather than getting a fleet together.

Ah well.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2010.12.11 00:28:00 - [141]
 

Fix blobs by nerfing travel.

If it wasn't so easy for people to congregate from literally anywhere in the galaxy at a moment's notice, we wouldn't have such big blobs to begin with.

Cut back on capital ship jump ranges and jump bridge networks, and lengthen jump clone timers. Then sit back and watch 0.0 get interesting again for the first time in literally years.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:40:00 - [142]
 

Except, no.
The recent battle in LXQ that saw the single largest combat group in a single system at once in the history of EVE began once the invading forces had set up forward logistics bases that were only a few jumps from the target system. All nerfing travel does is increase response times for the defenders. A well organized group of attackers can still have a massive fleet set up quite easily.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.11 09:48:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Except, no.
The recent battle in LXQ that saw the single largest combat group in a single system at once in the history of EVE began once the invading forces had set up forward logistics bases that were only a few jumps from the target system. All nerfing travel does is increase response times for the defenders. A well organized group of attackers can still have a massive fleet set up quite easily.

It is a sword that cuts both ways, Finn. Right now, you can deploy a (super)cap blob across the map quickly -- faster than a subcap blob in the absence of jump/titan bridges. Nerfing travel for supercaps, and to a lesser extent, caps, turns them from tactical assets into strategic ones. The decision to deploy them to a particular area would then become a committing act -- the caps you just deployed to attack somebody are no longer available to you to defend against an attack back home.

Personally, I am not in favor of gimping the ability of caps to quickly maneuver within some reasonable range of a home-base, but the idea that moving that home-base ought to take some time is one worthy of serious consideration. If you deploy your aircraft carriers to the Straights of Hormuz, you do not get to use them to attack North Korea an hour later.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.11 18:28:00 - [144]
 

While that's somewhat true about supercap fleets (In my experience they're always deployed strategically, almost nobody just hot drops super-swarms these days), you can still have massive subcap fleets quite easily. Defends set up an "HQ" to defend from, attackers set up a "beachhead" to attack from. It doesn't matter if it takes them a little longer to get there, a few OOC highsec freighter run, a few JF/carrier runs, whatever, and you've assembled an invasion force.

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.12.11 23:09:00 - [145]
 

Titans > Supercarriers > Carriers > Rest

This makes me sad because I trained for dreads, commands and black ops Crying or Very sad

In fact the only two ships I avoided were Titans and Supercaps, does this mean 0.0 is not for me?

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.12 04:16:00 - [146]
 

Black Ops ships are still very useful for cloaky-surprise-death gangs. I still make extensive use of Command Ships and never regretted putting the points into them that I did. Dreads are still used on occasion but have been somewhat eclipsed by supercarriers, however they do have their uses.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.12.12 12:33:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Black Ops ships are still very useful for cloaky-surprise-death gangs. I still make extensive use of Command Ships and never regretted putting the points into them that I did. Dreads are still used on occasion but have been somewhat eclipsed by supercarriers, however they do have their uses.

I have to agree.

Blackops are awesome for various tactics, the problem is that for many people the only tactic they know is full frontal assault (for which I agree they are basically unsuited). They could still do with some tweaking, but they work as is.

Pure Command ships are not as popular now that cloaky T3 ships can provide slightly more boost for less (specialised) training time. I'm one of the rare people who have trained for all the combat mindlinks (yes, even information warfare can be exceptionally useful in the right gang) and don't regret the time spent. My only annoyance is that I get on very few killmails when flying a fleet booster Razz

Dreads are only really used when you know there are no supers around. I'd quite like to see them get a boost but that depends on when/if CCP decide to look at supers and caps again.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.12 13:23:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze

Pure Command ships are not as popular now that cloaky T3 ships can provide slightly more boost for less (specialised) training time. I'm one of the rare people who have trained for all the combat mindlinks (yes, even information warfare can be exceptionally useful in the right gang) and don't regret the time spent.


I hate, hate, hate the idea of losing skillpoints. So even though I can fly T3's, I don't. And yes, I have Command Ships V, FC V and all Warfare Specs to V as well. Also all racial Cruisers to V.

Originally by: TeaDaze

My only annoyance is that I get on very few killmails when flying a fleet booster


***** more. ;)I've got 377 kills in my Damnation.
I really like my Damnation. Cool

Originally by: TeaDaze

Dreads are only really used when you know there are no supers around. I'd quite like to see them get a boost but that depends on when/if CCP decide to look at supers and caps again.


It is true that dreads are kinda in limbo these days. A year or so ago, it would've been a no-brainer that I'd put my learning skill rebate points straight into Amarr Dread V. Now they're probably going to Carrier V. Then again, carriers are for POS repping and hauling stuff, and pretty much nothing else, too. I'm not sure what changes can be made without boosting them too much or nerfing the hell out of supers.

Maybe carriers are just destined to remain the most effective Sanctum eaters. ugh

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2010.12.13 09:59:00 - [149]
 

I too love my damnation, seems to be the popular command like an EOM BC

It seems like supercap blobbing has become an open topic, I think once botting is somewhat fixed blobbing will become the new fotm

Now I dont mind people building or using supercaps I just dont like the idea that their used on subcaps often, like the C3N- battle the other day for example, what I would like to see is a mixture of caps and subcaps being used, I would like to be able to use my dread for a change, or be able to use my command or battleship without worrying about getting DD'd

David Lowell
Posted - 2010.12.21 00:48:00 - [150]
 

On Blobs I have always thought of blobs as a faction massing their entire force for one attack. I view it as like the entire US army all attacking... Berlin- at once.

The idea of force concentration is a well known idea and in EvE their is no operational reason (that I can see at least) to have a group spread out their forces due to the mobility said forces have. The best bet for a group at this moment is to make a huge fist of ships and smash into their objectives in some sequence, one system after another. If my side tried to use 1000 pilots to take (or defend)three system at once along a front the other side would use their 1000 pilots on one group of 333 pilots then move on to my other fronts and roll them up in detail as well. As Carl von Clausewitz was able to conclude:

"...we may infer, that it is very difficult in the present state of Europe, for the most talented general to gain a victory over an enemy double his strength. Now if we see double numbers prove such a weight in the scale against the greatest generals, we may be sure, that in ordinary cases, in small as well as great combats, an important superiority in numbers but which need not be over two to one, will be sufficient to ensure the victory, however disadvantageous other circumstances maybe..." —On War, Book 3, Superiority of numbers.

So there is no issue with how the game works it is just what the operational realities of the game cause. It is just that some people (or a lot) find the said reality ... less then ideal. Much like how some people look back at the operational realities of Napoleonic warfare (those great lines of troops caused by how inaccurate muskets were) stupid when we are used to accurate rifles.


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