open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Question to CSM candidates: Titan Warfare?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:59:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

You can't PREVENT blobbing you can present disincentive to Blobbing


No you cannot you can only present a disincentive to fighting, this law is absolute and axiomatic in cooperative games

Quote:
You achieve this best in the current environment by taking sovereignty warfare away from fixed and timed reinforcement battles at POS in favor of more distributed goals separated in space and opportunity and allowing some genuine tactics to enter the equation of force disposition and deployment.


This method promotes blobbing in one way or another and screws over players with assets because eve is not a job and no one should be forced to be online at all times to defend their assets.

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:06:00 - [32]
 

Let me get this straight, you want to remove titans (or render them useless). You also want to remove nano ships, or render them useless.
Use a nano ship, then you can potentially run away from a dd...

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:13:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Sariyah
Let me get this straight, you want to remove titans (or render them useless). You also want to remove nano ships, or render them useless.
Use a nano ship, then you can potentially run away from a dd...


No. I want to do neither of those things. I want to remove large scale AoEs. And i want to bring nano-ships back in line.

If you would bother to read what i write, or ask me a question in my thread i would be happy to explain in further detail.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:29:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
No you cannot you can only present a disincentive to fighting, this law is absolute and axiomatic in cooperative games


Goumindong, I think I understand where you're coming from now, and I see the problem with your reasoning across a few issues as being connected. You can't just compare two forces in a single engagement where the only win condition is destruction of the enemy force when considering balance:

A subcapital fleet presented with an enemy Titan has win conditions available other than the destruction of the Titan.

A conventional or RR BS gatecamp has win conditions available other than the destruction of an enemy nano-gang jumping through their gate.

A territory-holding alliance has win conditions available other than the destruction of all enemy forces that cross into their territory.

Trying to balance the game solely around 1 on 1 matchups with total destruction of the enemy force as the goal is folly. There are indeed problems with the Titan, but they're centered around the fact that Sov warfare has such a narrow set of win conditions that bottleneck at the destruction of the Cynojammer, which requires a concentrated fleet and ONLY a concentrated fleet to eliminate.

Introduce distributed goals and stop hinging the fate of an entire conflict on a single battle and you take away the power of a weapon like the DDD because the circumstances in which it can be decisive can be bypassed. If you handle these sorts of issues that way, you can avoid the one-dimensional and unimaginative nerfing/counter-nerfing slog.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:42:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Trying to balance the game solely around 1 on 1 matchups with total destruction of the enemy force as the goal is folly.


I am not. You are making and error when assuming I am defining victory by that value. Everything I am saying holds true with asymmetrical goals as long as you assume reasonable goals to each side.

Hell, with asymmetrical goals the heavy gang always loses to the nano-gang period since in order to win they must limit the nano-gangs ability to move through their space and engage smaller gangs and any gang except nano-gangs are unable to do this.

The titan defending wins even if the BS blob doesn't attack. The titan attacking wins if the BS blob doesn't defend. If it does come to blows then the same problems exists as already explained above since the attackers will be unable to complete their objectives without multiple fleets.

Quote:

Introduce distributed goals and stop hinging the fate of an entire conflict on a single battle and you take away the power of a weapon like the DDD because the circumstances in which it can be decisive can be bypassed. If you handle these sorts of issues that way, you can avoid the one-dimensional and unimaginative nerfing/counter-nerfing slog.


No. You cannot. For two reasons.

1 You cannot bypass it.

2. distributed simultaneous goals promote blobbing.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 18:11:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Hell, with asymmetrical goals the heavy gang always loses to the nano-gang period since in order to win they must limit the nano-gangs ability to move through their space and engage smaller gangs and any gang except nano-gangs are unable to do this.

The titan defending wins even if the BS blob doesn't attack. The titan attacking wins if the BS blob doesn't defend. If it does come to blows then the same problems exists as already explained above since the attackers will be unable to complete their objectives without multiple fleets.


Who says that a heavy gatecamps goal is to prevent the nano-gang from doing anything? They may simply be camping the gate for fun and profit - and if the nano-gang can't stop them from doing that, it's a win.

Likewise, why is a sub-capital gang attacking or defending anything? They're out in enemy territory killing ratters and mining ops. Is the Titan really defending lone ratters in belts?


Quote:

No. You cannot. For two reasons.

1 You cannot bypass it.

2. distributed simultaneous goals promote blobbing.


First - the point of the statement was that the solution is to create alternate paths so that the large single battle is not the only option. So yes, if that solution was employed you could bypass it.

Second - how on earth do distributed goals promote blobbing? Can I ask what doesn't promote blobbing in your mind?

Max Torps
Nomadic Conglomerate
Posted - 2008.05.15 18:22:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Anonymos CEO

With the ongoing Discussion about titans, brought up by KIAEddz in CAOD (http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=766895)
I wanted to ask all Candidates, what their views are on Titans and Titan Warfare?


I like the concept of having anti-blob vessels such as the titans with the doomsday device (even though already nerfed once), however with the titans now becoming so commonplace they casually pop gangs of 10 and we don't even capitalise their ship class name anymore or discuss with awe, it's time to discuss change.

Quote:

What would the candidates try to change?

The functionality needs to change. The DD needs to go in its current form as the intended use is being trivialised.

I would be against advocating change so sweeping as to turn a titan into a pos hugger though. I think perhaps revisit the station facilities idea coupled with an AOE wide spectrum EMP field that disables surrounding enemy vessels for a time. Perhaps firing this also disables propulsion for the titan for a while. Allow the titan during this time to launch fighters (why not?) and have a low range DD? There is definitely a raft of ideas. I'm fairly certain CCP have a Plan C but if not players are an inventive lot, aren't we?

Quote:
What would you bring up to CCP, if it comes down to a discussion about titans.


I would emphasise the importance of retaining a reward element to the players who have worked hard in producing such ships so any alteration would have to be carefully thought through and provide a good, fun and valuable alternative function.

Vote for me here
Candidate thread here
Website here

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 18:31:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Kelsin


Who says that a heavy gatecamps goal is to prevent the nano-gang from doing anything? They may simply be camping the gate for fun and profit - and if the nano-gang can't stop them from doing that, it's a win.


No, its a tie. Because their goal is to get kills and they have not.


Quote:
Likewise, why is a sub-capital gang attacking or defending anything? They're out in enemy territory killing ratters and mining ops. Is the Titan really defending lone ratters in belts?


Are you seriously asking why sub-capital gangs should be attacking or defending anything?

Seriously?

Quote:

First - the point of the statement was that the solution is to create alternate paths so that the large single battle is not the only option. So yes, if that solution was employed you could bypass it.

Second - how on earth do distributed goals promote blobbing? Can I ask what doesn't promote blobbing in your mind?


No, unless you assume you can't defend objectives.

Distributed simultaneous goals promote blobbing because optimal play will have one side split up by necessity while the other does not.

pretty much the only thing that doesn't promote blobbing is personal rewards that decline as more people are added in excess of the reduced risk.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 18:42:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Are you seriously asking why sub-capital gangs should be attacking or defending anything?


I'm asking why they are in your example. Your examples continually assume that each side must destroy the other side to achieve success. There are many matchups where this is just not the case.


Quote:
Distributed simultaneous goals promote blobbing because optimal play will have one side split up by necessity while the other does not.


Splittng up is the opposite of blobbing. Consider a regional sovereignty whereby there are 9 points distributed throughout a region. Sov is given to whoever controls 5 of 9 points. Where is blobbing the optimal strategy in either taking OR holding the region?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 18:47:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Kelsin

I'm asking why they are in your example. Your examples continually assume that each side must destroy the other side to achieve success. There are many matchups where this is just not the case.


There are not really any meaningful encounters where something isn't getting blown up, moved past, put up, or stolen.

Quote:

Splittng up is the opposite of blobbing. Consider a regional sovereignty whereby there are 9 points distributed throughout a region. Sov is given to whoever controls 5 of 9 points. Where is blobbing the optimal strategy in either taking OR holding the region?


You send feelers out to the 9 points then blob the **** out of one of the points that is capped. Leave a feeler at that point and blob the **** out of the next one.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 18:59:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kelsin

Splittng up is the opposite of blobbing. Consider a regional sovereignty whereby there are 9 points distributed throughout a region. Sov is given to whoever controls 5 of 9 points. Where is blobbing the optimal strategy in either taking OR holding the region?


You send feelers out to the 9 points then blob the **** out of one of the points that is capped. Leave a feeler at that point and blob the **** out of the next one.


Your opponent would send 1/9 of his forces to every point, and while your blob is hitting one or two points he'd capture the other 7 or 8.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 19:09:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Kelsin

Your opponent would send 1/9 of his forces to every point, and while your blob is hitting one or two points he'd capture the other 7 or 8.


If you only need to hold the point for that long then its impossible to defend, since you defend 1/9 and they blob 5/9 giving them a 9/5 advantage.

I.E. a blob.

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.15 20:12:00 - [43]
 

Silly? Cap ships are meant as support and heavy hitting against strategic objectives (towers and the like). Conventional ships are the weakness of Cap ships. You need conventionals to protect your cap ships. The problem is we all figured out that cap ships (in this case mostly carriers motherships and titans) could in essence be their own support fleet and destroy conventional ships (cap blobs and DD).

Cap ships should be terrible at fighting most anything, even each other. Right now they are used as weapons against fleets.

If we want to change the game up and redefine ship roles ok, if we want a Titan to obliterate cap fleets.. well ok. But then what are the conventionals for? If a Titan becomes the cap destroyer what is the weakness? A warp timer is not effective. That will only encourage Titan owners to bring enough Titans in at once to ensure nothing will remain on the field, a direction we are moving in already ;)

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 20:35:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kelsin

Your opponent would send 1/9 of his forces to every point, and while your blob is hitting one or two points he'd capture the other 7 or 8.


If you only need to hold the point for that long then its impossible to defend, since you defend 1/9 and they blob 5/9 giving them a 9/5 advantage.

I.E. a blob.


I think you're mixing your use of fractions there. If you're saying the optimal strategy is to attack 5 of 9 points, then you're correct. But that's not a blob, that's splitting your forces 5 ways. And the optimal defensive strategy is to split your force 5 ways as well.

Even if it's only a matter of achieving 2 of 3 simultaneous objectives to win, you've just split 1 massive battle into two smaller simultaneous battles, cutting the pressure on the server and potential damage to your forces from a single Titan in half. CCP is already looking into simultaneous objectives to reduce the incidence of strain due to massive single-grid battles - it's not a radical proposal and it's the sort of thing that allows the Titan to maintain it's single-battle epicness without having the fate of an entire region hinge on a handful of Doomsday blasts.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 21:01:00 - [45]
 

If you split 5/9 your opponent just blobs 1 and you lose.

And yea, it is "blobbing".

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 21:16:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
If you split 5/9 your opponent just blobs 1 and you lose.

And yea, it is "blobbing".


If one side puts all their forces on one point, they leave the other 8 unattended and lose.

In the end there's an equilibrium - follow the game to it's end and you'll find it. Blobbing would be a suboptimal strategy when you need to achieve multiple simultaneous objectives. There's two different outcomes depending on whether you're allowed counter-moves, but the end result is one side captures 5 points by splitting their forces and it comes down to the results of 5 individual battles instead of one big battle.

Joseph 9
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.15 21:20:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
If you split 5/9 your opponent just blobs 1 and you lose.

And yea, it is "blobbing".


If one side puts all their forces on one point, they leave the other 8 unattended and lose.

In the end there's an equilibrium - follow the game to it's end and you'll find it. Blobbing would be a suboptimal strategy when you need to achieve multiple simultaneous objectives. There's two different outcomes depending on whether you're allowed counter-moves, but the end result is one side captures 5 points by splitting their forces and it comes down to the results of 5 individual battles instead of one big battle.


Large numbers of Titans will break this game dynamic. You cannot have truely simultanious objectives as some battles will take longer than others. Therefore victory at a number of points would need to be achieved over a period of time. You thus bring the largest fleet you can to the battle and jump bridge from Target to Target using your 8,9,10... however many... Titans. At each stage you are either facing an undefended control point, a smaller fleet, or your enemies full fleet. Either way blobbing plus titans wins.

There are ways around this of course but they are complex and thus difficult to balance.


Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 21:26:00 - [48]
 

Yeah Joseph, it totally depends on making the objectives truly distributed and parallel. If you can hit them in series then yes, it is possible and optimal to blob.

But the point being it's very easy to design a system in which blobbing is suboptimal.

Joseph 9
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.15 21:33:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Joseph 9 on 15/05/2008 21:34:03
Can I get you to sketch out such a system please? Maybe I'm being dim but I can't envision one that isn't complicated and of most fun to fleet planners over small gang fcs? Ideally you want a system that requires fleet level co-ordination, tactical inventiveness from FC's on the ground, intelligent piloting from fleet members (which actually comes quite naturally in small gang warfare tbh) and forces non-serial game play.

I am very chary of truly simultanious events in Eve given the distributted nature of the server and the likelyhood of tasks taking longer in some areas than others. The most viable option I can see is a UT style domination game mechanic... but I'll stop answering my own question now and let other people do it.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 21:58:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 22:00:53
Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 21:59:16
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
If you split 5/9 your opponent just blobs 1 and you lose.

And yea, it is "blobbing".


If one side puts all their forces on one point, they leave the other 8 unattended and lose.



Why? They have prevented the opponent in securing the necessary space.

Originally by: Kelsin
Yeah Joseph, it totally depends on making the objectives truly distributed and parallel. If you can hit them in series then yes, it is possible and optimal to blob.

you can only do that with instancing.

Originally by: Kelsin
Blobbing would be a suboptimal strategy when you need to achieve multiple simultaneous objectives


No, blobbing only becomes sub-optimal for one side. It becomes even better for the other.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:08:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Joseph 9
Edited by: Joseph 9 on 15/05/2008 21:34:03
Can I get you to sketch out such a system please? Maybe I'm being dim but I can't envision one that isn't complicated and of most fun to fleet planners over small gang fcs? Ideally you want a system that requires fleet level co-ordination, tactical inventiveness from FC's on the ground, intelligent piloting from fleet members (which actually comes quite naturally in small gang warfare tbh) and forces non-serial game play.


Well a pretty straightforward one would be if the rewards for territory control were based on cumulative control of Stargates. I posted an elaboration on it here: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=761137&page=1#14

And I should say that parallel objectives don't have to be the requirement - they just need to be an option, so that a fleet facing a Titan-equipped enemy could choose to pursue small gang objectives (like splitting up and contesting stargates spread out across a region) instead of being bottlenecked into a single fight on a single grid where they must face the Titan.

By allowing Alliances playing the territorial combat game to shift between two strategies - parallel or series conquest - you open up new tactics beyond blob on blob, because one side can choose to split up into smaller gangs to pursue objectives in different directions, and the other has to decide whether to also split up to match them. Right now there aren't objectives for small gangs to pursue because the entry level for territorial combat is so high it takes all the forces you can muster to assault a single cynojammer.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:13:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
No, blobbing only becomes sub-optimal for one side. It becomes even better for the other.


You're assuming only one side has to achieve multiple objectives. Territory can also go neutral if no one controls a majority.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:14:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
No, blobbing only becomes sub-optimal for one side. It becomes even better for the other.


You're assuming only one side has to achieve multiple objectives. Territory can also go neutral if no one controls a majority.


Neutral is the same thing as winning in this case. Ergo only one side has to achieve multiple objectives.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:20:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Neutral is the same thing as winning in this case. Ergo only one side has to achieve multiple objectives.


That's not really so. Side A can take control, Side B can take control, or neither can succeed in taking/retaining control. Those are three distinct results.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:24:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
Neutral is the same thing as winning in this case. Ergo only one side has to achieve multiple objectives.


That's not really so. Side A can take control, Side B can take control, or neither can succeed in taking/retaining control. Those are three distinct results.


Not regional control as you describe unless you want to tie the sov in all systems into a single engagement...

And that isn't even getting into the problems with making these points and scaling them down to system level.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:29:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Not regional control as you describe unless you want to tie the sov in all systems into a single engagement...

And that isn't even getting into the problems with making these points and scaling them down to system level.



Well, we're doing thought experiments about re-imagining territorial warfare, so the only restriction is our imaginations. My suggestion can be seen in the link above.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:45:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
Not regional control as you describe unless you want to tie the sov in all systems into a single engagement...

And that isn't even getting into the problems with making these points and scaling them down to system level.



Well, we're doing thought experiments about re-imagining territorial warfare, so the only restriction is our imaginations. My suggestion can be seen in the link above.


The only limitation in your imagination is your imagination. There are a lot more if you want to actually be useful. Please don't be useless.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.17 12:54:00 - [58]
 


Any more CSM candidates prepared to express an opinion about what they think should be done about Titan balance in this thread?

I've seen,

Zoolkan
Max Torps
Ben Derider
And Myself

Actually answer the question so far.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.18 13:50:00 - [59]
 


Quick update:

Actual battle-reports of a 3 Titan "blob" on the live-server. Interesting background reading for candidates expressing an opinion in this thread. Maybe "goon" Titan's don't need a "nerf"

Just saying Cool


Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.18 16:40:00 - [60]
 

Titans don't need a nerf- the server-side just needs some work so that epic battles actually allow pilots to fire and move more than a few frames per second (if you are lucky).

Some of us have not chosen to express a verbose opinion since this area affects such a small amount of pilots, and I am sure they want bigger battles....(see above)

The election to the CSM council is for us to LISTEN to opinions and ideas of the players foremost...not to listen to ourselves waffling on about things we shouldn't be commenting on (as some candidates even admit they have never flown a titan).

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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