Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 09:11:00 -
[1]
I would like to know your views on power blocks. Currently power blocks are a full blown reality in 0.0 They are in fact a necessity to accomplish much of anything.
True some of the epic battles are nice but I feel power blocks take away from small scale roams and fights. Ships attributes become irrelevant and and it is just a matter of EHP and going down a list of who is primary.
What are your ideas on how to scale down the ultra blob and power blocks and have 0.0 more than simply "Team A vs. Team B"?
|
murder2win
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:43:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Marlona Sky I would like to know your views on power blocks. Currently power blocks are a full blown reality in 0.0 They are in fact a necessity to accomplish much of anything.
True some of the epic battles are nice but I feel power blocks take away from small scale roams and fights. Ships attributes become irrelevant and and it is just a matter of EHP and going down a list of who is primary.
What are your ideas on how to scale down the ultra blob and power blocks and have 0.0 more than simply "Team A vs. Team B"?
If I was voted onto the CSM I would of course want to know what you think :)
In a vastly complicated game world like Eve, the Law of Unintended Consequences is in full swing so it's difficult to propose a single tweak that would address this and not break something else. There is also the broader question of whether or not most people are in fact in favour of scaling things down rather than going for a more epic scale - large power blocs also require a wider range of skills (diplomacy, accounting, management, leadership, etc) that are not called for in small hunter gangs, and this is a MMO game after all - in which case we're back to trying to minimise big fleet lag and related issues.
I think one specific problem is that people in 0.0 blobs don't have on-demand access to small scale PvP without a high risk of disaster (due to bubbles and the like allowing whole fleets to be trapped easily). Maybe it would be good to find a way to make it easier for people in 0.0 to dip in and out of low sec or another arena for smaller scale pvp. Maybe something like instanced wormholes connecting willing team A with willing team B and a mass limit to keep the gangs small (sort of an instanced area without breaking the eve ethos too badly), but that's not very well thought out and other ideas might work.
|
Fatmarrow
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:46:00 -
[3]
Although my first act on the CSM would be to get the forum to remember which character I want to post with...
|
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:36:00 -
[4]
Apart from figuring out how to scale down blob fights in 0.0 you have to ask yourself the question if the majority of people in 0.0 actually want to. Ofcourse, in Empire space there are plenty of people who don't like powerblocks, or huge fleet fights, and those people stay firmly in Empire space where they earn plenty of money with lvl 4 missions to **** off the people who lose lots of ships in low/null-sec. But those people won't go into 0.0 without radically changing the 0.0 experience, which CCP doesn't want to do. The CSM members you'd have to content with for votes to pass any idea you might come up with through the CSM are also often pro-powerblocks so even if the majority of players wanted to get rid of powerblocks, you wouldn't get it past the CSM. What I mean to say is, you might be asking the wrong question. There are tons of ways in which you can change the game to demotivate people to go into powerblocks and hold huge fights. But how do you get the right people to put it into the game?
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 10:43:00 -
[5]
People group together by nature, and it's extremely difficult to drive them apart with game mechanics without changing the very unsharded nature of eve. This was discussed at length in Iceland and fact of the matter seems to be that there is no clear solution.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:33:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sokratesz People group together by nature, and it's extremely difficult to drive them apart with game mechanics without changing the very unsharded nature of eve. This was discussed at length in Iceland and fact of the matter seems to be that there is no clear solution.
What is the average amount of players per system say... 4 years ago vs. now?
|
Korvin
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:55:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Korvin on 17/04/2010 09:56:13
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Sokratesz People group together by nature, and it's extremely difficult to drive them apart with game mechanics without changing the very unsharded nature of eve. This was discussed at length in Iceland and fact of the matter seems to be that there is no clear solution.
What is the average amount of players per system say... 4 years ago vs. now?
It doesn't really matter, what is the average amount of players per system, what does matter is what is the maximum number of players the single system can handle. Let me explain this. 1. We have the ordinary system, one of the 6k systems, and 2 pilots inside. 2. They found something, lets say the sweet dedspace, and cant share it peacefully. 3. They start to fight, but they are allmost even. 4. They call their friends to help. 5. Their friends called their corps to help. 6. Each party from somekind of powerblock in that area. 7. All other players in EVE hear about this war, and gather to look at it, loot, gank haulers around ets. (to be the part of history) 8. The battle begins, and we have 2k ppl trying to jump in system for the reasons above, and we have lag.
This process is endless, even if CCP can make like 700k systems, the action will make pilots to gather in one. And the only reason they cant gather in 1 system is the lag issue due to the technical restrictions.
Judge by yourself, you will never miss the interesting action, if you have the time and there is no lag.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 22:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Sokratesz People group together by nature, and it's extremely difficult to drive them apart with game mechanics without changing the very unsharded nature of eve. This was discussed at length in Iceland and fact of the matter seems to be that there is no clear solution.
What is the average amount of players per system say... 4 years ago vs. now?
4 years ago, eve had 1/4th the amount of subs it has now, and I'm fairly sure that scaling of fights didn't change much between then and now.
Either way, as I said, it's just human nature. Even if they revamp the standings system as suggested by many, people will still find ways to huddle together thousands of people when they feel they cannot win by skill alone.
Improving server performance is one of the main solutions to the blob problem, as it will allow skill to outperform raw numbers.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Rokkit Kween
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 02:24:00 -
[9]
I'm not a CSM hopeful, but I thought I'd throw my 2c in any way.
I have never been a part of a powerblock in 0.0, as someone looking in from the outside though, I can see how the current state of affairs is not a happy one.
Large fleets cause lag, but are a necessity in the kind of warfare that taking and holding sov in 0.0 requires. It has become a case of 'biggest fleet wins' instead of a case of 'most cunning commander wins'
The requirements of SOV warfare in 0.0 need to be scaled down, a mechanism that allows small gangs to be useful needs to be introduced as should the tools to allow FCs to manage many small fleets simultaneously.
If a system can be taken using a bit of thought, smaller cheaper fleets and base cunning then the blob will no longer be necessary.
Things cannot continue as they are, the 'endgame' of EVE is currently broken as demonstrated by the need to use an exploit (deep safe cynos) to have a fair fight.
Power blocks are important, they are part of the social and political fabric of new eden. They are worthy of being thought of on the same level as the 4 empire factions. I don't particularly want the powerblocks to dissappear but the necessity for their huge fleets should be phased out.
Look at the cold war for example. It was actually pretty hot, with the USA and USSR going at each other through proxies, such as in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and many many other 'little' wars. There was never open hostility between the two superpowers but they fought nonetheless. This is the role I would like to see the Powerblocks taking in the future of EVE. Supplying smaller factions in order to further their political and economic ends.
We should start thinking of lag as the mutually assured destruction of the nuclear age. No-one wants it, war is no fun when it happens, and so it should be avoided at all costs. This means smaller fights on more fronts, and the mechanics of SOV need to be changed (again) for this to happen
That was more like $1.50 but there you go :D
|
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 07:27:00 -
[10]
Just off the top of my head: What would happen if we limited the amount of mineral resources available to the players? No resources means ships become more valuable and harder to replace, which means losses mean more. Fielding a huge fleet, and then losing some ships, would mean that those ships can't be replaced by the next encounter. As powerblocks slowly burn through their reserves, engagements become smaller simply because there aren't enough resources. Just a thought.
|
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 08:02:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Aynen Just off the top of my head: What would happen if we limited the amount of mineral resources available to the players? No resources means ships become more valuable and harder to replace, which means losses mean more. Fielding a huge fleet, and then losing some ships, would mean that those ships can't be replaced by the next encounter. As powerblocks slowly burn through their reserves, engagements become smaller simply because there aren't enough resources. Just a thought.
It would become interesting if battleships weren't as easily replaced as they are now, but I think it would either just cause a move down to BC, or simply fewer fights, not smaller ones.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 08:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Sokratesz It would become interesting if battleships weren't as easily replaced as they are now, but I think it would either just cause a move down to BC, or simply fewer fights, not smaller ones.
If they move to cheaper ships, smaller corps will find it easier to keep up with them. Weapons like bombs will become extremely feared as those will be able to bring down BCs but capital ships aren't brought down quite as easily by them. It'd mean that blobs become very vulnerable to small bomber gangs.
|
Corbeau Lenoir
ZER0. IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 06:29:00 -
[13]
I don't want to see blobs dissapear. Fleet fights make eve the great game. Roams are fun from time to time, but fights without some strategical objective to fight for, soon become boring. I would like to see more ship diversity in the fleet though, not just battleships and dictors.
|
Aleena Doran
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 08:47:00 -
[14]
Could a mechanic be introduced to disadvantage large fleets?
Gang boosts can benefit fleet members.
How about a disadvantage to being in a fleet proportional to the size of the fleet?
For instance warpspeed reduction - moving a large fleet must be slow so provides incentive for smaller fleets in some circumstances?
Signature radius increase - in a big fleet there may be a greater chance of stray shots hitting something
Align time reduction - coordination of large fleets more complex than smaller ones
|
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 10:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Aleena Doran Could a mechanic be introduced to disadvantage large fleets? Gang boosts can benefit fleet members. How about a disadvantage to being in a fleet proportional to the size of the fleet? For instance warpspeed reduction - moving a large fleet must be slow so provides incentive for smaller fleets in some circumstances? Signature radius increase - in a big fleet there may be a greater chance of stray shots hitting something. Align time reduction - coordination of large fleets more complex than smaller ones
I think there is allready a natural disadvantage in terms of speed for a large fleet. A fleet can only move as fast as it's slowest ship, or it'll split up, making it vulnerable. But currently faster moving small gangs have few ways of cashing in to their advantage other that being able to get away from a large fleet. There is no 'guerila' way of conquering a system so even though a smaller gang might be able to stay allive in a system patrolled by a larger fleet if they're carefull, they can achieve little by doing so.
|
molec res
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:43:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Aynen Just off the top of my head: What would happen if we limited the amount of mineral resources available to the players? No resources means ships become more valuable and harder to replace, which means losses mean more. Fielding a huge fleet, and then losing some ships, would mean that those ships can't be replaced by the next encounter. As powerblocks slowly burn through their reserves, engagements become smaller simply because there aren't enough resources. Just a thought.
This would cause more blobbing not less. People who are afraid to lose therir ship join blobs not small gangs or solo.
|
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 15:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: molec res This would cause more blobbing not less. People who are afraid to lose therir ship join blobs not small gangs or solo.
It's the combination of people switching to the smaller BC and weapons of mass destruction like bombs that'd spell doom for the blob. If the only thing blobs where used for was to destroy POSes, and people would avoid using them elsewhere because of the high cost of losing ships, the battlefield would become more varied and interesting. What I'm wondering is, why aren't bombs allready being used like this on a large scale as it seems to be a relatively cheap way of doing a lot of damage to blobs?
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 06:15:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Aleena Doran
How about a disadvantage to being in a fleet proportional to the size of the fleet?
Then people would just make three small fleets rather than a large one so it wouldn't solve anything.
And as soon as you start putting limits on people per system it becomes a race of whoever gets there first.
Want to test a supercap on Sisi but don't have one? look here |
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 06:28:00 -
[19]
And how about smaller disadvantages like your signature radius going up depending on how many ships per square kilometer on the battlefield there are? Even if you spread out during an engagement, when you warp in you should be relatively tightly packed with your blob. This does give an advantage to the blob that got there first, but they allready have an advantage by not being the one who has to load a new environment as they warp in, slowing down their pcs for a few seconds. If the engagement has to spread out, it effectively becomes multiple smaller engagements, as the other ships in the blob will be mostly out of range to be effective, unless you have a sniper gang, which brings weaknesses of their own.
|
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 07:28:00 -
[20]
How about people just accept safety by numbers is human nature and will always exist so stop thinking up dumb ideas to try and delude yourself from it?
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 07:51:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Sellmewarez How about people just accept safety by numbers is human nature and will always exist so stop thinking up dumb ideas to try and delude yourself from it?
I think you are misunderstanding my point. My point is, that a lot of ship bonuses only matter in small scale combat. Currently with this 'safety in numbers' tactic, the deciding factor on what ship to fly is based on effective hit points mostly.
But hell, the only combat you seem to have experienced was in Rancer, losing your shuttle and pod. No wait... could this be... could this be an alt of yours your posting with?
|
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 07:51:00 -
[22]
Heres a question to the people who are complaining about large powerblocs and why they are evil and shouldn't exist...
What do you think should be in its place and why do you think your idea should be more valid than others?
|
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 07:56:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Sellmewarez How about people just accept safety by numbers is human nature and will always exist so stop thinking up dumb ideas to try and delude yourself from it?
I think you are misunderstanding my point. My point is, that a lot of ship bonuses only matter in small scale combat. Currently with this 'safety in numbers' tactic, the deciding factor on what ship to fly is based on effective hit points mostly.
But hell, the only combat you seem to have experienced was in Rancer, losing your shuttle and pod. No wait... could this be... could this be an alt of yours your posting with?
Wait i lost a pod and a shuttle in Rancer? I dont even remeber that
My poor K/D ratio
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 08:13:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sellmewarez
What do you think should be in its place and why do you think your idea should be more valid than others?
This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't need restating:
Large powerblocs = boring. Eve and especially 0.0 has the potential to be very dynamic but large entities effectively prevent smaller ones from competing even on a minor level by just throwing everything they have at them, crashing the node and ruining the game experience for everyone before returning to their belts and plexes. It would be a good thing if these large entities were somehow replaced by multiple smaller ones, who could align with and against each other more dynamically than is currently the case.
There are many smaller entities who have to varying degrees of success (depending also on how you define that) competed in 0.0 in the past but 'the blob' is always strong against them.
I guess in the end its a problem of player mentality. There are too many goddamn bears in 0.0 who would rather mine/rat/stationspin til they die of boredom before fitting a PVP ship.
Want to test a supercap on Sisi but don't have one? look here |
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 08:24:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Sellmewarez
What do you think should be in its place and why do you think your idea should be more valid than others?
This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't need restating:
Large powerblocs = boring. Eve and especially 0.0 has the potential to be very dynamic but large entities effectively prevent smaller ones from competing even on a minor level by just throwing everything they have at them, crashing the node and ruining the game experience for everyone before returning to their belts and plexes. It would be a good thing if these large entities were somehow replaced by multiple smaller ones, who could align with and against each other more dynamically than is currently the case.
There are many smaller entities who have to varying degrees of success (depending also on how you define that) competed in 0.0 in the past but 'the blob' is always strong against them.
I guess in the end its a problem of player mentality. There are too many goddamn bears in 0.0 who would rather mine/rat/stationspin til they die of boredom before fitting a PVP ship.
Oh dont get me wrong i think 0.0 is far too static and it would be nice to see alot more 'emergence'.
The difference between my thinking and the idealists preaching 0.0 being goodfights till the sun goes down is that with the way eve is structured on a barebones level there is no way to accomodate the idealists way of thinking.
The way people are going off in this thread it sounds more as if people want an 'arena' type of combat while still having an effect on the eve map. Am i right or not? Or do people want 0.0 to be filled with unorganized carebears that come to fleets with ravens which they can roam and gank easily without risking the backlash of being blobbed to death by a larger alliance?
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 08:45:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Sellmewarez
snip
I fully agree that while it is a great ideal, implementing it fairly is extremely difficult, and many hours were wasted discussing this at CCP's in Iceland. Planetary Interaction is one of the things aimed at making 0.0 more dynamic, profitable and vulnerable at the same time, and I really hope it works out.
Want to test a supercap on Sisi but don't have one? look here |
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 09:30:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Aynen on 20/04/2010 09:31:50 I'm not against the existance of powerblocks. But it does bother me that they have a tendency to overrule the existance of everything else in 0.0 If powerblocks didn't occupy all of it, which I believe was the idea behind the introduction of upgrading 0.0 space, then there would be more space for other things to emerge in. But if I look at the eve map it doesn't appear to have worked quite as effectively as I would have liked. I suppose it might be possible to simply make so many 0.0 starsystems that there aren't enough players in Eve to occupy them all effectively, but that might create issues with server costs and such. I'm no IT expert, so I don't really know. Another thing I thought might be usefull is if the starsystem upgrade was ballanced in such a way that it is more profitable to have one super-upgraded system than many less upgraded systems. This in combination with a tax for moving fleets through unclaimed systems might mean that fleets won't patrol a too large bufferzone around their super upgraded system.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 10:28:00 -
[28]
I had the idea about slowing the movement of capitals around which got mostly rage reviews but I still think there should be something to slow down the insanely rapid movement of the biggest ships in the game to be more logical considering what they do.
Others argued that the blob would just bring a battleship fleet instead of the capitals and it would solve nothing. I for one would rather fight a blob of battleships than a blob of capitals.
I agree that there are an insane amount of bears in 0.0 that would rather stay docked and play spin the ship rather than deal with a roaming gang in their territory. This is simply because that roaming gang can't do anything of any worth to their home that would affect the bears.
The station services could be attacked but that would require bring a massive force, only for it to be repaired in a few minutes when they leave, so it would just be a waste of time and ammo.
The only damaging thing you are doing is keeping them from ratting/mining. They would rather lose out on some ratting time and play the waiting game till you leave or till they have enough to blob you out so they don't lose any ships.
Besides doing something that requires you to bring a blob, what could a smaller force do that is not simply neutralized by just warping to a pos, cloaking, docking up, logging off?
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 11:24:00 -
[29]
Slowing down capital movements in a reasonable way might have some interesting consequences. The matter of station services was discussed in Iceland and the idea to greatly reduce their hit points so they can more easily be destroyed and repped was met with approval from CCP.
Vote Sokratesz! |
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 11:53:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Sokratesz Slowing down capital movements in a reasonable way might have some interesting consequences.
If you were given the task of implementing this, how would you go about it?
Originally by: Sokratesz The matter of station services was discussed in Iceland and the idea to greatly reduce their hit points so they can more easily be destroyed and repped was met with approval from CCP.
Did they say when they would implement this?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |