open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Good bye NAPs good bye Blobs
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.07.06 10:02:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Musical Fist on 06/07/2010 10:09:00
As you all are aware I have been fighting to remove major NAPs / blobs from 0.0 since I dont have 50k people to fight NC major NAPs I decided to be a little more political.

Now as you are aware CSM have year by year also been against NAPs, I posted some screenshots a few weeks back, anyway while CSM are anti blobs they havent ever mentioned it in one of their minutes yet 50% had it as an important issue, if you notice the minutes or overall agenda the words 'blob' / 'NAPs' is almost never used, I am yet to see it being spoke about

So I decided to contact alot of alliance collect alot of research and do some work investigating this it appears people against NAP killing are also macro plex farmers, I did some KB checks and theres a uncanny link between cap stable BS losses, macro ratting and NAP loving, sadly alts are now used on the forums but you can almost guess who is who.

Anyway after a long gruesome battle I am pleased to say NAPs and blobs will be no more in the next expansion, with the exception of Vuk Lau and his lap dog also from Rawr, CSMs actually wouldnt mind saying bye to blobing FOR GOOD and now CCP have agreed to put an end to NAPs / Blobbing.

Most alliances are very happy about this while they believe it is todo with the Lagg situation they are glad I did my campaign, now sov warfare will be about strategy and not Node Crashing.

I would like to thank alliances that fight against the odds for inspiring me into doing this change for when December hits skill will control space.

E- I would also like to put a rumour to rest, I am NOT a PL alt, my agenda wasnt biased and it is purely coincidental how Atlas space is turning out, while I did receive ISK from SEVERAL alliances it was purely for other reasons and if anything I would have preferred a northern invasion over a south merely because of population.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.06 10:20:00 - [2]
 

Blob, noun: A fleet of ships which is 80% or more of the size of the fleet I am in, therefore one against which there is a strong possibility we will not win a fight.

Jade Kitana
Posted - 2010.07.06 10:29:00 - [3]
 

I once heard a story about a ratter that got blobbed by a few guys, who got blobbed by a small nano HAC gang, that got blobbed by a kind of big Recon gang, who got blobbed by a good sized sniper HAC gang, who got blobbed by a fairly large RR BS gang, who got blobbed by very big sniper BS gang, that got blobbed by a huge Cap fleet gang, that got blobbed by a massive Fleet with Super-Caps.

Blobs are relative.

There is always a bigger fish in the puddle, pond, lake, sea, or ocean.

Verys
I Heart Chaos
Posted - 2010.07.06 10:41:00 - [4]
 

So what do you plan to do exactly?

I am not fond of blobs but it's something which happens if a lot of people have interest in taking over/defending certain parts of space which they deem valuable.

Unless you are going to force people to not group up in such huge numbers, with a mechanic that will never work and drive people from the game, it's not going to happen. The simple reason is that people seek safety in numbers and if they can keep what they like by getting more friends then they group up, something which what has happened in EVE.

Only if you find a way to limit this interest than yes you will find a way to stop blobs and NAP coalitions but potentially ruin the whole sandbox concept of where player can do whatever they like with the tools provided by CCP.

TL;DR: Not gonna work.

Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:00:00 - [5]
 

HTFU dawg.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:12:00 - [6]
 

Eve is "relativly" to small that why its happening.

No it has nothing to do with 80% of 0.0 empty.

Thing that should be done.

Jump clones removed.
WTZ removed.
Jump bridges and Titan birdges removed.
Caps cynos nerfed.( max few jumps per 24hrs )
HUGE HP STRUCTURES (aka TCU) Removed.
Upkeep costs for supercaps.
Anti-Cyno module .
Remove local.

Try blobbing now.

Results : 0.0 fixed
Blobs are results of good coordination and logistics not sheer number.





Terazuk
Amarr
Servants of Drawnon
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:41:00 - [7]
 

Think of the children!

Trauli
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:45:00 - [8]
 

To give an idea on how clueless the OP is, he said Molle was the best fc in the game - quite hilarious.

Your bitterness sustains me.

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:51:00 - [9]
 

I've found that most people who dislike blobbing dont have the friend power to blob themselves. Make more friends.


kthxbai.

Ghoest
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:51:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Eve is "relativly" to small that why its happening.

No it has nothing to do with 80% of 0.0 empty.

Thing that should be done.

Jump clones removed.
WTZ removed.
Jump bridges and Titan birdges removed.
Caps cynos nerfed.( max few jumps per 24hrs )
HUGE HP STRUCTURES (aka TCU) Removed.
Upkeep costs for supercaps.
Anti-Cyno module .
Remove local.

Try blobbing now.

Results : 0.0 fixed
Blobs are results of good coordination and logistics not sheer number.







Removing clones isnt required. Thats ajust an issue for people who like to be "hardcore."
The rest of it - yes.

But really you should also remove all bubble except at stations and all cyno. Then you would solve it.

It would make blobs less effective but equally important it would make small groups more viable and useful.

Diosas
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:08:00 - [11]
 

So how do they intend to this? Frankly i would love to see more small/medium gang warfare instead of massive blobs.

The problems are..

Blobs need to take down structures, purely because of the HP they have, you litterly need 50+ BS to take them down in a reasonable time and to tank the say the POS guns, you cant take in support ships as they will die quickly.

You cant reduce fleet sizes as such, because all you will get is just lots of mini fleets, remember alot of alliances use external comms such as vent and not eve voice so actually 'splitting them' up or 'reducing them' wont be viable

The only thing you could do I guess is reduce the number of people in a system in 0.0. Which i guess could work, but reality maybe not. for example system allows 100 people in it, the alliance that quickly gathers 100 people wins or its could be one alliance gets 80 others get 20..Hmmm so maybe not such a good idea then...

and by the way isnt eve marketing ploy based on being able to have these massive (not) fleet fights?

i think cap ships should not be insurable, its crazy that alliances can do blob after blob after blob without real consequence. The amount of income they generate is crazy, even more so now than it was - again wasnt the intention to reduce this, infact now tech moons are in the mix with prom and dyspro so even more money and crap load more expensive moon gold.

no need for sov in every system, so no more maintaining loads of faction poses, so a MASSIVE saving.. so what the hell are ccp doing..rich just getting silly rich now..and tbh nothing is going to stop it...awesome!


MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:11:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 06/07/2010 12:34:45
Originally by: Musical Fist
As you all are aware I have been fighting to remove major NAPs...NC... major NAPs...
...also been against NAPs...'NAPs'... people against NAP killing are also macro plex farmers... macro ratting and NAP loving... NAPs... will be no more in the next expansion ...and now CCP have agreed to put an end to NAPs...

...my agenda wasnt biased...


Wow Shocked. You really have something against diplomacy in this game. Obviously you hate Non-Aggression Pacts. And so now you accuse alliances that use diplomacy (NAPs) of being macro-ers because well, if you hate anything in this game, accuse it of supporting macroers or just say how great it would be against macroers if they changed it to what you want to garner some support.

By the way, I like that final touch you added... That your agenda isn't biased. It's obvious you hate the NC for building their empire through diplomacy. And you hate the fact you can't laugh in their faces for not smashing themselves into the ground. Basically, you want to win this hatred you have for them by begging and whining CCP to kill them for you. Good going.

Moral of the story:

NC u suck for having so many friends and i hate you for it. Please cut it out because you're driving me crazy!11


Lareon Denery
Band of Cateteris
Veritas Immortalis
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:27:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2

Moral of the story:

NC u suck for having so many friends and i hate you for it. Please cut it out because you're driving me crazy!11




This.

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:40:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2

Thing that should be done.

Jump clones removed.
WTZ removed.
Jump bridges and Titan birdges removed.
Caps cynos nerfed.( max few jumps per 24hrs )
HUGE HP STRUCTURES (aka TCU) Removed.
Upkeep costs for supercaps.
Anti-Cyno module .
Remove local.

Try blobbing now.



Fail.

Limiting capitals means more blobbing: more battleships on the field.
WTZ wont change anything in 0.0: see bubbles.
Jump Clones only promote the use of alts to perform trading in empire.
Removing Local promotes blobbing as you never know what you will encounter.
Removing Titan Bridges promotes blobbing to move regular freighters (and iHubs/Eggs) around.
Upkeep Costs for Supercaps promote large alliances to pay for their upkeep. (they wont be going anywhere)

Huge TCU structure is probably the only thing that could prevent blobbing, but then again it wont because people will always bring MORE ships to do it FASTER. Just makes it easier for an on-time-zone gang to knock down the TCU before the defenders can respond.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:56:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Blob, noun: A fleet of ships which is 80% or more of the size of the fleet I am in, therefore one against which there is a strong possibility we will not win a fight.


People accuse of blobbage even though enemy fleet size is smaller then own fleet size?

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:58:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker

Limiting capitals means more blobbing: more battleships on the field.
WTZ wont change anything in 0.0: see bubbles.
Jump Clones only promote the use of alts to perform trading in empire.
Removing Local promotes blobbing as you never know what you will encounter.
Removing Titan Bridges promotes blobbing to move regular freighters (and iHubs/Eggs) around.
Upkeep Costs for Supercaps promote large alliances to pay for their upkeep. (they wont be going anywhere)

Huge TCU structure is probably the only thing that could prevent blobbing, but then again it wont because people will always bring MORE ships to do it FASTER. Just makes it easier for an on-time-zone gang to knock down the TCU before the defenders can respond.


You fail in so many ways ( but i am sure you are doing it on purpose , to preserve your macro ratting ravens perhaps) i will only respond to one since you may be excused of actually being ignorant.

If you dont know what you will encounter in no local envoirment it means you failed in gathering intel or your opponent outsmarted you. Either way its your fault.










Di Mulle
Posted - 2010.07.06 13:01:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Musical Fist
Edited by: Musical Fist on 06/07/2010 10:09:00
As you all are aware I have been fighting to remove major NAPs / blobs from 0.0 since I dont have 50k people to fight NC major ...

lots of similar blah blah




So just another "phreedom fighter" ended being a boring forum troll.

Why there are less and less things that would surprise me.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.06 13:07:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
You fail in so many ways ( but i am sure you are doing it on purpose , to preserve your macro ratting ravens perhaps)
This is so true. The only people that form non-aggression pacts are macroers. Hence, he must be a macroer. Hence, he must be burnt to the stake. And if anyone doesn't agree with this is because they're macroers themselves. There. I covered all the bases.


Killstealing
Posted - 2010.07.06 13:16:00 - [19]
 

Removing WTZ won't help because of bookmarking warp gates and we already have bubbles guys.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.06 13:40:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 06/07/2010 12:34:45
Originally by: Musical Fist
As you all are aware I have been fighting to remove major NAPs...NC... major NAPs...
...also been against NAPs...'NAPs'... people against NAP killing are also macro plex farmers... macro ratting and NAP loving... NAPs... will be no more in the next expansion ...and now CCP have agreed to put an end to NAPs...

...my agenda wasnt biased...


Wow Shocked. You really have something against diplomacy in this game. Obviously you hate Non-Aggression Pacts. And so now you accuse alliances that use diplomacy (NAPs) of being macro-ers because well, if you hate anything in this game, accuse it of supporting macroers or just say how great it would be against macroers if they changed it to what you want to garner some support.

By the way, I like that final touch you added... That your agenda isn't biased. It's obvious you hate the NC for building their empire through diplomacy. And you hate the fact you can't laugh in their faces for not smashing themselves into the ground. Basically, you want to win this hatred you have for them by begging and whining CCP to kill them for you. Good going.

Moral of the story:

NC u suck for having so many friends and i hate you for it. Please cut it out because you're driving me crazy!11




I have no love for the NC, but to say that it's formed purely from diplomacy is simply wrong. The NC is formed on the basis of and maintained by military power. And the NC has no problem whatsoever in screwing over its smaller members if they have something one of the larger ones want (ask me how I know Wink )

NC Internal diplomacy works like this: Do as Morsus Mihi says and give them what they want, or else die in a fire.

NC External diplomacy works like this: Stay off our turf or else.

The peaceful "diplomats" you're whiteknighting are no different from any other mafiaesque 0.0 organisation, merely more efficiently administered than any comparably sized crime family - er, I mean coalition. The nearest they get to any kind of agenda you might approve of is that they dont often do much in the way of expansionary operations.

And fair play to them, I say. Much as I dislike the NC, I dont claim that they're morally obliged to run their space or conduct their affairs according to my wishes. I'll cheerfully join a campaign to burn their space, but I wont lecture them for Doing It Wrong.

If the OP doesn't like the way the NC does business, he's free to get in a ship and try and stop them.

Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
Posted - 2010.07.06 13:58:00 - [21]
 

o/ Malganis

I understand why several 0.0 pets are scared and emotional about this but I am sure once it is fixed if you have any skill you will be fine in 0.0

As for me, well I think its safe to say what I am planning for I guess the next max campaign will have an obvious outcome and 0.0 will be workable.

Macro ratters may suffer as having a huge NAP list wont benefit you anymore therefore the pet alliance you are part of will most likely get kicked out.

But not to worry 6 months before we see the change

ObviousTroll Alt
Gallente
Hulkageddon Orphanage
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:02:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: ObviousTroll Alt on 06/07/2010 14:04:43
Simple remedy for NAP. Remove the ability to set standings and set all current standings to 0. Everyone viewed as neutral, means moar targets! YARRRR!! Yarrrrr.

*edit

Points down at Malcanis

Shhhhhh you'll scare off the marks.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:02:00 - [23]
 

o/ Musical Ditz.

As long as you're organising it yourself and not whining for CCP to change the rules to suit you, then I wish you all the best of luck.

But... just get on and do it. Spare us the ridiculous rhetoric; you want your share of the pie and that's fine. If you've come up with a new and innovative way of cutting yourself a slice, then I salute you.

(I just hope this isn't leading up to yet another of those scam corps or alliances we see so many of these days; pack a couple of hundred noobs in to a new corp, move to 0.0 and put on a 20% tax rate "until we get established". Once the take hits a few tens of billion, then bail with the ISK. Seen it happen a dozen times.)

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:07:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
I have no love for the NC, but to say that it's formed purely from diplomacy is simply wrong. The NC is formed on the basis of and maintained by military power. And the NC has no problem whatsoever in screwing over its smaller members if they have something one of the larger ones want (ask me how I know Wink )

NC Internal diplomacy works like this: Do as Morsus Mihi says and give them what they want, or else die in a fire.

NC External diplomacy works like this: Stay off our turf or else.

The peaceful "diplomats" you're whiteknighting are no different from any other mafiaesque 0.0 organisation, merely more efficiently administered than any comparably sized crime family - er, I mean coalition. The nearest they get to any kind of agenda you might approve of is that they dont often do much in the way of expansionary operations.

And fair play to them, I say. Much as I dislike the NC, I dont claim that they're morally obliged to run their space or conduct their affairs according to my wishes. I'll cheerfully join a campaign to burn their space, but I wont lecture them for Doing It Wrong.

If the OP doesn't like the way the NC does business, he's free to get in a ship and try and stop them.
Fair enough. Still their right to do as they wish with their piece of Eve. And it's obvious that the OP's hate for the NC consumes him alive. But seriously, all this whining and crying on how to get CCP to defeat them for him is pathetic at best.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:08:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: ObviousTroll Alt
Simple remedy for NAP. Remove the ability to set standings and set all current standings to 0. Everyone viewed as neutral, means moar targets! YARRRR!! Yarrrrr.


Simple fix for this: add alliance ticker to overview.

Or dig out that old goon applet that adds colours for you, which is part of the reason we have standings colours in the first place.

Pro-Tipô: Trying to ban players from Doing It Wrong wont work. You need to change the conditions that lead to Wrong Doing, or people will just find workarounds for your arbitrary restrictions.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:14:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
But seriously, all this whining and crying on how to get CCP to defeat them for him is pathetic at best.



I couldn't agree more.

(I'm only surprised he hasn't proposed that CONCORD break up every alliance that's too large for his conception of how EVE should be.)

Lt Angus
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:20:00 - [27]
 

LET THERE BE WARRRRR!!!!
but over there --->

Minchurra
Caldari
Posted - 2010.07.06 15:11:00 - [28]
 

Why would you want to remove blobs?

Have you seen a cap fleet undock? Its a beautiful thing.

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2010.07.06 15:15:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Trauli
To give an idea on how clueless the OP is, he said Molle was the best fc in the game - quite hilarious.

Your bitterness sustains me.


Could very well be, some would argue that the FC that get you in the most **** is best FC.

Cors
It's A Trap
It's A Trap Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.06 15:52:00 - [30]
 

The NAP mechanic is NOT the issue. The issue is pvp mechanics.
More ships in your fleet is better in almost every case. Even if you go to silly fights like 1000 T1 Fit T1 Frigs vs 50 Faction Fit BS's.. You'll still see the frigs win.

If you want to counter blob, then we need to come up with a game mechanic that penalizes a group of player for bringing large groups of people to a fight.

One suggestion that's been talked about for years is sensor interference when there were too many ships within XXX range. Slowing down the lock times, and making LARGE blob battles last longer.

But we need to find a way for defenders to NOT be able to abuse it. By putting too many people in a system, and slowing the lock times of the attacks right down.


NAP's aren't the issue. We had naps LONG before there was a game mechanic for them. They were just verbal agreements/+10 standings then.


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