open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] 0.0 small gang incentive
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

SephusS
Posted - 2010.05.23 06:19:00 - [31]
 

winsauce

LOPEZ
SniggWaffe

Posted - 2010.05.23 06:40:00 - [32]
 

best idea i've seen in YEARS.

Occasus Vim
Minmatar
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2010.05.23 16:58:00 - [33]
 

Great notion.

Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:41:00 - [34]
 

support

Emo TJ
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.05.23 21:28:00 - [35]
 

Trolling is not allowed.Applebabe

NOT SUPPORTED!!!

Omega Flames
Caldari
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2010.05.24 02:14:00 - [36]
 


Asruv'ynn
GeoCorp.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.24 04:25:00 - [37]
 

so... you're suggesting to fight industrial/ratting blobs with pvp blobs and you want to reduce blobing? War of attrition sounds good and all, but you're still fighting with numbers and frankly they (industrialists) don't have those numbers to compete and the war is already won. You're better off putting a limit on the amount of people allowed in an alliance to limit their logistics for blob fleets. Imagine if alliances were only allowed say 1500-2000 members: that means you wouldn't have something like SC trying to 'conquer' the north and the north by responding with a localized peace coalition against the common enemy. There's no point in having the NC if the SC is gone because you wouldn't need ridiculously sized fleets and then everyone would be in their own corner.

Halsoy
Gallente
Resilience.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.24 07:20:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Halsoy on 24/05/2010 07:21:58
Originally by: Asruv'ynn
so... you're suggesting to fight industrial/ratting blobs with pvp blobs and you want to reduce blobing? War of attrition sounds good and all, but you're still fighting with numbers and frankly they (industrialists) don't have those numbers to compete and the war is already won. You're better off putting a limit on the amount of people allowed in an alliance to limit their logistics for blob fleets. Imagine if alliances were only allowed say 1500-2000 members: that means you wouldn't have something like SC trying to 'conquer' the north and the north by responding with a localized peace coalition against the common enemy. There's no point in having the NC if the SC is gone because you wouldn't need ridiculously sized fleets and then everyone would be in their own corner.


I believe you are completely misunderstanding the entire OP.

What he is saying is that they/he/whoever wants it so that an entity of 2000 members need to employ miners, ratters, production crews to ensure that their system is hard to take.

What this means is that a group of 10 pilots can interrupt the mining/ratting/industry and make the system vulnerable for attack, meaning much easier to take a week or three down the road. As the index system works now, every hour there is no ratting/mining the index decays. After three days or so, you lose an entire level. Give enough time, regardless of how much effort a big alliance puts up trying to defend mining ops, the defence will eventually weaken if attacked by good enough pilots. This means the attackers gank a ship or two and leaves without any losses.

What the proposal does is it promotes guerrilla warfare on a new level. A big entity that wants to invade another big entity (NC vs SC i.e.) can hire smaller groups to do the dirty work for them. So when they are ready to take over a system, they can then roll in and take it in say one day instead of a week. (assuming if you drop the index levels you don't get RF timers on ihubs, stations, SCU and such)

You'll never get rid of the blobs, as that's simple as "my dad will beat your dad" and you never bring a knife etc. But it promotes smaller groups, or small groups within bigger groups that are specialized to use proper guerrilla tactics.

It has nothing to do with replacing one blob mechanism with another.

Asruv'ynn
GeoCorp.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.24 20:41:00 - [39]
 

My point was that they have an incentive to spam the system with industry or roams to control the system. As far as I can tell, if industry affects the ability to take a system, then just spam a ton of industry there to screw up the index. That way it'll be harder for someone to just roll in there and take it as you suggest, or in the other way, an attacker would simply spam roams to keep industry out to lower the index. I'm just not sure this would work, but I'm not a game designer so who knows.

Halsoy
Gallente
Resilience.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.24 20:56:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Asruv'ynn
My point was that they have an incentive to spam the system with industry or roams to control the system. As far as I can tell, if industry affects the ability to take a system, then just spam a ton of industry there to screw up the index. That way it'll be harder for someone to just roll in there and take it as you suggest, or in the other way, an attacker would simply spam roams to keep industry out to lower the index. I'm just not sure this would work, but I'm not a game designer so who knows.


OK, you are indeed misunderstanding it.

See, the difference between what you're describing and what is suggested is basicly now and "if". You can already just "spam" the system with huge blobs or massive roams all day every day". What is suggested is as I said, 10 pilots can do the work of hundreds.

Asruv'ynn
GeoCorp.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.25 03:37:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Halsoy
Edited by: Halsoy on 24/05/2010 07:21:58

What this means is that a group of 10 pilots can interrupt the mining/ratting/industry and make the system vulnerable for attack, meaning much easier to take a week or three down the road. As the index system works now, every hour there is no ratting/mining the index decays. After three days or so, you lose an entire level. Give enough time, regardless of how much effort a big alliance puts up trying to defend mining ops, the defence will eventually weaken if attacked by good enough pilots. This means the attackers gank a ship or two and leaves without any losses.

What the proposal does is it promotes guerrilla warfare on a new level. A big entity that wants to invade another big entity (NC vs SC i.e.) can hire smaller groups to do the dirty work for them. So when they are ready to take over a system, they can then roll in and take it in say one day instead of a week. (assuming if you drop the index levels you don't get RF timers on ihubs, stations, SCU and such)

You'll never get rid of the blobs, as that's simple as "my dad will beat your dad" and you never bring a knife etc. But it promotes smaller groups, or small groups within bigger groups that are specialized to use proper guerrilla tactics.

It has nothing to do with replacing one blob mechanism with another.


I'm going to quote you since it's a lot easier. You're simply misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is this whole thing is an incentive to just simply blob each other.

Alliance A invades Alliance B with say 10 people in 3 systems. Alliance B fails to utilize decent amount of industry and ratting within said systems and thus they are quite easily taken.

Alliance B realizes that through using more ratters and industry in those systems, they can withstand an invading force for much longer and thus does so.

Here's the problem: ok, so you can roam with a few people and put a squeeze on their systems and it (at first!) promotes small gang warfare. However, to off-set the oncoming force, Alliance B decides to start spamming more industry and ratting WITH a militia of equal or greater size than the roam to protect their industry and squash the invaders. Alliance A can either at this point go home, or continue with their planned invasion and thus start spamming more forces to counter-balance the defending Alliance B. Either you're going have a huge incentive to blob or you're going to have a defending pushover alliance that will just collapse at an incoming invasion. What choice do you think they have?

So really you are replacing one blob with another, however only in anticipation of the blobs that were planned to invade in the coming future. The only thing that is changed is forcing corporations/alliances to use their systems more to an advantage or get stamped out if they choose not to. Sure small gang warfare makes sense, however they're going to defend themselves and so many pilots can only do so much. Not sure how only a few pilots roaming a system can take on an empire...

Halsoy
Gallente
Resilience.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.25 07:08:00 - [42]
 

You've clearly never pushed a force that tries to protect it's industry before. It doesn't matter who it is. At one point, people will be too bored to sit there for nothing, defending miners. And while they're defending a mining op, the skirmish force can kill people elsewhere, making them whine that all the defence is assembled in one spot. It also enables a skirmish gang to bomb the "blob" defending the mining op. Hell, you can bomb the mining op itself and run away with no losses, furthermore decreasing morale.

People need to stop using a blob as an excuse for everything, and rather start thinking what one might do while being outnumbered. It's VERY easy for 10 people to take out 100 Hulks protected by 600 military ships. You just need to know how.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.05.25 10:02:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Daedalus II on 25/05/2010 10:02:32
Originally by: Asruv'ynn

Here's the problem: ok, so you can roam with a few people and put a squeeze on their systems and it (at first!) promotes small gang warfare. However, to off-set the oncoming force, Alliance B decides to start spamming more industry and ratting WITH a militia of equal or greater size than the roam to protect their industry and squash the invaders. Alliance A can either at this point go home, or continue with their planned invasion and thus start spamming more forces to counter-balance the defending Alliance B. Either you're going have a huge incentive to blob or you're going to have a defending pushover alliance that will just collapse at an incoming invasion. What choice do you think they have?


But isn't this what we want? what is fun? It begins with a small force attacking industrialists, another small force moves in to intercept them. This then escalates to larger and larger forces until you have an all out war over the system.

This differs from today where all of a sudden you get a spike of 500 ships jumping into the system proceeding directly to the ihub and decimating it in a few seconds. That force then has to sit there doing nothing waiting for either the timer to run out or the owners of the system to get a fleet ready which will take hours. There is just no "interaction" which should be the fun part.

In my suggestion you get a trickle of people coming in from both sides, slowly escalating the battle. And at any one time the attackers can decide that their offensive capabilities are better used somewhere else and may withdraw to annoy another system, or split out over several systems.

Asruv'ynn
GeoCorp.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.25 19:22:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II
Edited by: Daedalus II on 25/05/2010 10:02:32
But isn't this what we want? what is fun? It begins with a small force attacking industrialists, another small force moves in to intercept them. This then escalates to larger and larger forces until you have an all out war over the system.

This differs from today where all of a sudden you get a spike of 500 ships jumping into the system proceeding directly to the ihub and decimating it in a few seconds. That force then has to sit there doing nothing waiting for either the timer to run out or the owners of the system to get a fleet ready which will take hours. There is just no "interaction" which should be the fun part.

In my suggestion you get a trickle of people coming in from both sides, slowly escalating the battle. And at any one time the attackers can decide that their offensive capabilities are better used somewhere else and may withdraw to annoy another system, or split out over several systems.


Quote:
People need to stop using a blob as an excuse for everything, and rather start thinking what one might do while being outnumbered. It's VERY easy for 10 people to take out 100 Hulks protected by 600 military ships. You just need to know how.


Yes, I absolutely agree, it shouldn't be an excuse, but my point still stands: they will use this as another means to blob a system. The current suggestion sounds great in that at first will encourage small roams to clear front line systems in enemy territory since I notice a lot of systems are hardly used by large alliances. However there comes a point where one group has to decide whether to defend it or not in terms of the proposed index.

Perhaps it is better to go more along with something like what has been suggested for FW sov where each ship is worth a certain number of points and you 'weaken' the system given the losses of the defending team. Also, have it so the more ships that blob the opposing force, the less points are added/taken to the teams. It seems this way, you still will see blobing, however there is a better incentive to fight with less numbers and to be more careful with their ships.

Thoughts?

KeLLaX
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.05.26 10:48:00 - [45]
 

I m game with this one.. sounds good

Ulmagod
Posted - 2010.05.26 17:39:00 - [46]
 

This sounds good at first glance, but people don't need another reason to go after PvE fit ratters and miners in 0.0, they are already significant targets and people get enough just out of the KMs. What stops them going after them is the liklihood of getting ganked themselves and the lack of targets due to good intelligence being passed to the ratters and carebears.

You need to think through the proposal properly and consider the true problem and how people might twist the mechanic. I've been in 0.0 for a couple of months now and I've found one of the more irritating things to happen is where reds come into your system, cloak up and go /afk.

It makes it difficult to rat or mine, you don't know what they are in or what backup they have. It ties down a lot of players with a boring game experience trying to fruitlessly hunt them down or just being there on standby, or you take a chance and risk it with inadequate backup after waiting ages for them to leave. Why do people do this at the moment, just to spoil peoples game I think, now you want to give people a reason to employ this routinely as it surely would be.

Ultimately, this won't improve small gang warfare, it will just harm 0.0 ratting and mining.

Improving small gang warfare, requires improving the safety of small gangs in enemy space by for example increasing the number of gates per system and the number of routes that small gangs can take in and out. Or encouraging the splitting up of large blobs, by requiring multiple objectives to be siezed and held in surrounding systems.

I would have suggested adding something to just dissuade people from massive blobbing, but CCP tried adding massive lag and yet people still don't get it.

Rhadia
Posted - 2010.06.18 22:19:00 - [47]
 

/sign

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.06.20 08:14:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:28:07
Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:26:00
Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:21:28
Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:21:07
Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:19:27
There is no way to fix blobs. Have you people not goten it yet. Blobs are what keeps the servers on in Iceland and keeps Eveonline going.

Here is why. EVE is a pvp game mainly but it was well basicly failing at geting the needed numbers of players though pvp. So they did great promo on sandbox and you can do anything. You all remeaber that right. And numbers started rising rapidly. You see this numbers were not people that like pvp this were people that like pve. The pvp people that played eve were not going to keep the servers on so they had to get pve players into there game and make both pvp and pve players think there geting what they wanted.

So this is how you keep pve players in a game they like doing pve content they love in a pvp game. It's the only real deturent PVE players have to combat PVP players. It's the blob.

If your a PVE player you dont realy like PVP so you blob the crap out of the people that jack with your PVE content. Now its fair and = becouse PVE players dont like to pvp they only blob to get to the new cool PVE content placed in pvp zones. And it works becouse PVP players hate blobs there no fun for any pvp player ether. So both side's hate the blob just as much for differnt reasons. And that makes it all work out. Becouse the blob keeps PVP players away from PVE players for the most part.

If pve players did not have this blob they would have no real deturent against pvp players. Why is that you say all they need to is pvp back well thats the problem if PVE players did not have a way to make pvp unfun for pvp players with the blob pvp players would never leave the pve players be becouse remeaber this are pvp players and pvp is want they want and would pvp the pve players till the pve left game and then you dont have the numbers to keep the servers on again. There for CCP has to keep the blob.ugh


As a side note it was a smart real life bussness move by CCP.


Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.21 03:49:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Rip Minner

If your a PVE player you dont realy like PVP so you blob the crap out of the people that jack with your PVE content.


yes, it's always the missioner that has the blob as backup and never the ninja salvager... Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Rip Minner
Now its fair and = becouse PVE players dont like to pvp they only blob to get to the new cool PVE content placed in pvp zones. And it works becouse PVP players hate blobs there no fun for any pvp player ether. So both side's hate the blob just as much for differnt reasons. And that makes it all work out. Becouse the blob keeps PVP players away from PVE players for the most part.


explain why those "pve players" gate camp busy low sec systems like amamake or hagilur? surely they would pick a less busy system to operate in when the pvp players could counter-blob? Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Rip Minner
If pve players did not have this blob they would have no real deturent against pvp players. Why is that you say all they need to is pvp back well thats the problem if PVE players did not have a way to make pvp unfun for pvp players with the blob pvp players would never leave the pve players be becouse remeaber this are pvp players and pvp is want they want and would pvp the pve players till the pve left game and then you dont have the numbers to keep the servers on again. There for CCP has to keep the blob.ugh


As a side note it was a smart real life bussness move by CCP.




lmfao i've actually found a way to have your quotes actually make more sense (which isn't saying much to begin with). rdy? switch "pve player" with "pvp player" and vice versa whenever it comes up. try it. Laughing

xChevalierx
Posted - 2010.06.21 11:44:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: xChevalierx on 21/06/2010 11:44:25
good idea, not sure if it's really an incentive for small gang warfare though, but its a good idea. Will add more dynamics and fun to the game... which CCP is completely against so it probably wont get passed.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.08.19 17:47:00 - [51]
 

Bump!

Fournone
Posted - 2010.08.19 18:58:00 - [52]
 

/supported

BTW. nice forum fight Wink

Elisa Fir
Posted - 2010.08.20 14:04:00 - [53]
 

/signed

Quantessa

Posted - 2010.08.21 12:00:00 - [54]
 

Sound idea.

Jamie Banks
Quantum Horizons
Posted - 2010.08.22 02:59:00 - [55]
 

Great idea, more small gang PvP will occur and the amount of forum tears on AFK cloakers will reach new heights.

Cromo Effect
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2010.08.22 03:27:00 - [56]
 

The last thing this game needs is another nerf to mining in 0.0. Not supported.


Pages: 1 [2]

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